Ὶ 
Μὴν ἡ BEY Ahaals |} 


f 


rub fet aa ὅν}... 
Hee tel weeny 
a te a at Rania 


ΩΝ pia ἅν δ date 3 
"8 461] Haein ht 


ΔΕ 


ody 


τἀ TC eh 
Mian ἢ το Ἢ 
hana MAAR ΡΥ Ὁ 

» tae ΗΜ ΜΗ] 


GU Mie 
ata 


4 
HAD 


Rigid ie. 
ΠΡ ΨΙΝ 


ain Veni Ds aad 

a spgtiedcaas 1811 4 

cme ΘΝ iL) aad TEM DAF pubes T Hits ΠΗ 
| ἐν Toit 


ΝῊ ΝΉῊΝ 
ΤΙΝ 


ΠῚ exile Tabet 


an Hitch nl 
Aa | bib 
ΠῚ 


ΝῊ τ : 

» ὃ Yo pki! 

Srven tery ibe 
pepsi 


ty 
WMT ew) 
ΔἸ ΠῚ} 
ΤΉΝ: 
wo) ate 
ε 


ΜΝ ΤΉ 
fir hab ἡμά τὴν 
ΡΥ μὴν 
Babs debe νην ὙΠ 

᾿ 


ἬΝ ΕΝ, 


τ (yaaa teats 
aga ai 


ΟὟ tobe ort fh piled ty 


δι ita th Vath 
bg Vp MeuePeraa tiated 
aly ual Fo th ‘ i 

Hab 43 4 fea Th Sha TPS CORD 2 Se to 
tire Ta RS δι Ὁ ὑμῖν ut ‘gt 
patie 


ie #4) 

Liss Wiggs Aja alta hate! insahit 
eT RLY hin sia ἈΝ 
Ca Annals ΠΕ A t4) 

yey ΓΗ A AS nas 


ἘΠῊΝ pine 
ἀν ἢ ; ΥΥ ΕΔ 
¥ $42 20} ΠΡ, 
fit ἘΝ 
1h ἐπε ΔῈ} 
Tate i 


bby 


τῇ τήν Ὁ} 3. a! ἡ 
ΣῊΝ hae Walt ἀμ ea 
1h fap hal (se bediiel) 3 FN tele 

ἘΝ 

δ 9 Δὲ Ἢ 
᾿ ΠΕΣ ΠῚ 

ΩΝ 


abba ioe 


3 
fide We ad 
dei ata ἔα i 


ΔΉΜΩΝ 
rath 


ifs 


Hyaes! 
Me aa 


εν eal 
ws ΡΜ 


Musial 


' fu ΘΑ ἢ 5} 
j 


Ι ἀνα 15} 
Mesh wha ib ᾿ 
ἢ AS iape mat 


aa) 
FDA E a ἌΝ 


Hi lite & 


Vv) aM 
aaa 


Aig rah 
ye iha ὙΠ tae 


Lee) Aviydaia lay 
sift be aS 
nea THiS | 


16 

Ὁ ΠΤ 

WERE: Ὁ 40} 
“ἰδ 1 ὁ [ει 


ΤῊΝ rh 
Ae he Tete aks AS 
τ 

GUAR 1s 48 eh Coho a Ὁ 
seal Fait ΄᾿ ΠΗ vate pute 
NAT. ra val) a 

μὰ Lae ase 


aver 
ΠΡ yeep Chain 1 
Naan ΤΎΡ 


Deans ΣῊΝ ΠΝ ΩΝ 
ἘΠ ΠΥ Ν a 
mathe iF) 


ἈΠ ἣν 
ἐδ ius 
ii ΠΣ 


A ἣν ἜΤΗ 
ΠΕΡῚ Sota 


hg ᾿ 
ΠΕ hae) hy 
baht + SBA 


Ἢ (ἢ 
ΗΝ 444 Ὧν 


int air ates 


ΝΣ ΠΗ 


ἐπὴν 


“ἢ ree hth 


ny a ea aan 
aa ἣν 
ΠΗ 


a ΠΣ 


Cn ta vee I 

Fae e Nae ἐπ 

‘ 1 bs hace te el Bs 
asta baits 


ἀπ Ay oh jad ahs 

Yi iby Ni 

aie gd My mire Aad telat an 
iy iver 1 
BUELL has 


Gh 35 

Pa γ3 
hie aA ; ἱ 
Ape hy j bans ys Miles fant 
aha SHADE GS ΕΝ 
4) hye sah x Ale 

an) Thin Δ: 

ΤᾺΝ Was ie iv 


rea 


Hay + 
qui 24} 120, να 
ach Ge have 
Beh yo tenets 
12a 
ae 
ΣΙΝ yas 
taba Bey 
ites 


υ 
ἜΣ 
ΠΗ 


ce 


13¥8 
is es 
it baa 


i 
a pois > 
9} 


wt my 


i fi 
4 ehh ΗΝ 


Abalone ds Fae 
ΜΗ ay 


Ἐν E ROAD oy 
} ἘΠῊΝ wo sta a 


ΝΗ ΝΗ 


4 bees vinyl 


ἐν 
ὙΠ ἊΝ ὙΠ ἐπι 
5 ἣν 


ἜΝ ΡΨ" 
Ui as 


ΠΝ 
ἣν ive ἡ 
HA 


ἡ Sieh 8 i 
a herr tn Re 


ony Veh 
fia) HW iiale ΔῊΝ 
cite Fig ΤΗΠΠ ἐμάν 
dla ΡΣ 
ἘΝ jane 
Aids fan re yy 


ΜΝ 
Hn ti We Ἰὰς 


δι 9 1} 
τα ip “ἢ 
ΘΙ ait 
ΜΗ ἼΗΙ ΡΣ ἸΣΣ θη} 

ὙΜῊΝ Ae 


ψ:6}Ὁ 

1b bags $y et 
ΠΗ eh 
4 Pere ie en 
uate rf 
Ht 4 fe ἡ τ 

ἌΝ ya 
palyosh bain 0} 
iat MT eA 
i vag ei ΓΗ 


ἡ Ὁ. δ 


ibe ate ta 
na vite “ 


“ “A int ; 
ae ty a ‘ 


iad} are ee 


ΠῚ ae itt , ee ae 


Map evils a ΠΝ 


We ΠῚ 
ἐν ” UY tear Pin 


ae i 


istaatere 
“ny oon, 
bein δὶ 


ane ' 


ent 


ΠΣ Τρ 


δ' tt 
uae 


Ἢ 


rh γῆς 
ἀρ δὶ 


᾿ ve — 


Me par 


AH hea 
thee) 
ut τη» ‘ 
ue 2 
4 Reidy ἴδ 


} 
ἐν " 


ΠΝ 


bre eff pata 
a th 


Nien 
pts ΝΑ ΘΙ 
Ba) ἐφ γάρ ἢ Το 


agape lees! 
erp 


ἡ: 
Linea sli be 


oy sp 
raiatl eat, ree 


ay 
wee hare Vela 
willbe neti 
hata 
Ms 

fe pt 
ΠΡ 


heii 


3 bend te 
a ΠῚ 
eee 
heer 
ate 
tie HH ed 


ΠΡ ΜΕΝ 


: Μ᾿ 
ἐδ με eerie 
eee γἀρὴ 


Ley itetts Pp" 


ΓΙ 
tv Ag αὐ δὲ 
τὸν τισι τε 


δ μΣ 


ΤΣ rye Ne 
ΤΟΝ Gah 


ἠδλεηε Sahih 
Mayenne 


are ibis atenat em 


pete mie 
PAO 


cae ΛΝ u 


Pe estate 


: ye 
Ἶ Η ΡΟΝ 


sie 


toe 
τ Vase 
ἜΝ 


τάν. 


ay 


wah Ἐπ μὴ 


ΣΡ τ πε 
" ΓΝ hearth sa 


τὶ 
usinte 
if a teh 
Ἢ 


any 


ἢ 


ice 


ὙΝ 
i "πὸ 
ΓΝ 
τ da ἐφη πτόναε 
ἯΙ eek Hele αι 


ΤῊΣ 
ie 


Lert 


ὍΝ 
ra) 
fl 


ὑπ δ 
μή Tiyan . 
i itt 


Weal the 


Ἢ ῃ 
AH 





φαιόν 
ἀσησόφυτίφ 


ψὰφ Leper’ 
ΜΝ 
4 nea pre ΡΠ 


eneneessne ee 
ΡΟΣ ΟΝ ote Oke 
ον Ἂς ἐν ϑεϑοσε quite Bem) ἦν τ 

ἐλεκεθε See 

ΠΤ 

saraspaie hehe pi φλονμ γοφφε wee 

ΩΣ Fee Oe Oe ee anaes teak x thot a pee, Oe 

a peg ἄρ» ε pene 

ene aene ue 

Serrano se arenpamenats tam DEM δα 


Ha! ρει ν 
το είς teed 
pi tig opty Ὁ 


reat sinevat| 
Hepa dane 


sack genmet 


yack legs be HE ott 
a peti 


heat 


Na seo 


uae 


ath 
ΣΙ Ricky names 
ἀν a πὴ 


ae nee 


tates af ᾽ 


Na fs 
ns) 


ΜΙ 
ἢ ἘΣ 

















A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW 
TESTAMENT IN THE LIGHT OF 
HISTORICAL RESEARCH 


i ΒΥ 
A. T. ROBERTSON, M.A., D.D., LL.D. 


Professor of Interpretation of the New Testament in the 
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary 
Louisville, Ky. 


"Ἔχομεν δὲ τὸν θησαυρὸν τοῦτον ἐν ὀστρακίνοις σκεύεσιν, 
ἵνα ἡ ὑπερβολὴ τῆς δυνάμεως ἢ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ μὴ ἐξ ἡμῶν. 
— 2 Cor. 4:7 


SECOND EDITION 


HODDER & STOUGHTON 
NEW YORK 
GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY 


CopryrigcutT, 1914, ΒΥ 


GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY 


Sreconp Epirion, ReviseED AND ENLARGED 
Copyrricut, 1915, By 


GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY 


Composition, Electrotyping and Presswork: 
THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, CAMBRIDGE, U.S.A. 


TO 
THE MEMORY OF 


John A. Broadus 


SCHOLAR TEACHER PREACHER 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2019 with funding trom 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/grammarofgreekneOOrobe_1 


PREFACE 


Ir is with mingled feelings of gratitude and regret that I let 
this book go to the public. I am grateful for God’s sustaining 
grace through so many years of intense work and am fully con- 
scious of the inevitable imperfections that still remain. For a 
dozen years this Grammar has been the chief task of my life. I 
have given to it sedulously what time was mine outside of my 
teaching. But it was twenty-six years ago that my great prede- 
cessor in the chair of New Testament Interpretation proposed to 
his young assistant that they together get out a revised edition 
of Winer. The manifest demand for a new grammar of the New 
Testament is voiced by Thayer, the translator of the American 
edition of Winer’s Grammar, in his article on ‘Language of the 
New Testament” in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible. 

I actually began the work and prepared the sheets for the first 
hundred pages, but I soon became convinced that it was not 
possible to revise Winer’s Grammar as it ought to be done without 
making a new grammar on a new plan. So much progress 
had been made in comparative philology and historical grammar 
since Winer wrote his great book that it seemed useless to go on 
with it. Then Dr. Broadus said to me that he was out of it by 
reason of his age, and that it was my task. He reluctantly gave 
it up and pressed me to go on. From that day it was in my 
thoughts and plans and I was gathering material for the great 
undertaking. If Schmiedel had pushed through his work, I 
might have stopped. By the time that Dr. James Hope Moulton 
announced his new grammar, I was too deep into the enterprise 
to draw back. And so I have held to the titanic task somehow 
till the end has come. There were many discouragements and I 
was often tempted to give it up at all costs. No one who has 
not done similar work can understand the amount of research, 
the mass of detail and the reflection required in a book of this 
nature. The mere physical effort of writing was a joy of expres- 
sion in comparison with the rest. The title of Cauer’s brilliant 
book, Grammatica Militans (now in the third edition), aptly 
describes the spirit of the grammarian who to-day attacks the 

vil 


Vill A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


problems of the language of the New Testament in the light of 
historical research. 

From one point of view a grammar of the Greek New Testa- 
ment is an impossible task, if one has to be a specialist in the 
whole Greek language, in Latin, in Sanskrit, in Hebrew and the 
other Semitic tongues, in Church History, in the Talmud, in 
English, in psychology, in exegesis.!. I certainly lay no claim to 
omniscience. I am a linguist by profession and by love also, but 
I am not a specialist in the Semitic tongues, though I have a 
working knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic, but not of Syriac 
and Arabic. The Coptic and the Sanskrit I can use. The Latin 
and the Greek, the French and German and Anglo-Saxon com- 
plete my modest linguistic equipment. I have, besides, a smat- 
tering of Assyrian, Dutch, Gothic and Italian. 

I have explained how I inherited the task of this Grammar 
from Broadus. He was a disciple of Gessner Harrison, of the 
University of Virginia, who was the first scholar in America to 
make use of Bopp’s Verglezchende Grammatik. Broadus’ views 
of grammar were thus for long considered queer by the students 
who came to him trained in the traditional grammars and unused 
to the historical method; but he held to his position to the end. 

This Grammar aims to keep in touch at salient points with the 
results of comparative philology and historical grammar as the 
true linguistic science. In theory one should be allowed to as- 
sume all this in a grammar of the Greek N. T., but in fact that 
cannot be done unless the book is confined in use to a few tech- 
nical scholars. I have tried not to inject too much of general 
grammar into the work, but one hardly knows what is best when 
the demands are so varied. So many men now get no Greek 
except in the theological seminary that one has to interpret for 
them the language of modern philology. I have simply sought 
in a modest way to keep the Greek of the N. T. out in the middle 
of the linguistic stream as far as it is proper to do so. In actual 
class use some teachers will skip certain chapters. 

Alfred Gudemann,? of Munich, says of American classical 
scholars: ‘Not a single contribution marking genuine progress, 
no work on an extensive scale, opening up a new perspective or 
breaking entirely new ground, nothing, in fact, of the slightest 
scientific value can be placed to their credit.”’ That is a serious 
charge, to be sure, but then originality is a relative matter. The 


1 Cf. Dr. James Moffatt’s remarks in The Expositor, Oct., 1910, p. 383 f. 
2 The Cl. Rev., June, 1909, p. 116. 


PREFACE 1X 


true scholar is only too glad to stand upon the shoulders of his 
predecessors and give full credit at every turn. Who could make 
any progress in human knowledge but for the ceaseless toil of 
those! who have gone before? Prof. Paul Shorey,” of the Uni- 
versity of Chicago, has a sharp answer to Prof. Gudemann. He 
speaks of “the need of rescuing scholarship itself from the 
German yoke.” He does not mean ‘‘German pedantry and 
superfluous accuracy in insignificant research — but .. . in all 
seriousness from German inaccuracy.’ He continues about ‘the 
disease of German scholarship” that “insists on ‘sweat-boxing’ 
the evidence and straining after ‘vigorous and rigorous’ demon- 
stration of things that do not admit of proof.’’ There probably 
are German scholars guilty of this grammatical vice (are Amer- 
ican and British scholars wholly free?). But I wish to record my 
conviction that my own work, such as it is, would have been im- 
possible but for the painstaking and scientific investigation of the 
Germans at every turn. The republic of letters is cosmopolitan. 
In common with all modern linguists I have leaned upon Brug- 
mann and Delbriick as masters in linguistic learning. 

I cannot here recite my indebtedness to all the scholars whose 
books and writings have helped me. But, besides Broadus, I 
must mention Gildersleeve as the American Hellenist whose wit 
and wisdom have helped me over many a hard place. Gilder- 
sleeve has spent much of his life in puncturing grammatical 
bubbles blown by other grammarians. He exercises a sort of 
grammatical censorship. “At least whole grammars have been 
constructed about one emptiness.’’® It is possible to be ‘‘ grammar 
mad,” to use The Independent’s phrase.* It is easy to scout all 
grammar and say: ‘‘Grammar to the Wolves.”® Browning sings 
in A Grammarian’s Funeral: 

“He settled Hoti’s business — let it be! — 
Properly based Oun — 


Gave us the doctrine of the enclitic De, 
Dead from the waist down.” 


1. H. Colson, in an article entitled “ΤΠ Grammatical Chapters in Quin- 
tilian,” I, 4-8 (The Cl. Quarterly, Jan., 1914, p. 33), says: ‘The five chapters 
which Quintilian devotes to ‘Grammatica’ are in many ways the most valuable 
discussion of the subject which we possess,”’ though he divides “ grammatica”’ 
into “grammar” and “literature,” and (p. 37) “the whole of this chapter is 
largely directed to meet the objection that grammar is ‘tenuis et jejuna.’”’ 

2 The Cl. Weekly, May 27, 1911, p. 229. 
3 Gildersleeve, Am. Jour. of Philol., July, 1909, p. 229. 4 1011 0717: 
6 Article by F. A. W. Henderson, Blackwood for May, 1900. 


Χ A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Perhaps those who pity the grammarian do not know that he 
finds joy in his task and is sustained by the conviction that his 
work is necessary. Prof. C. F. Smith (The Classical Weekly, 
1912, p. 150) tells of the joy of the professor of Greek at Bonn 
when he received a copy of the first volume of Gildersleeve’s 
Syntax of Classical Greek. 'The professor brought it to the Semi- 
nar and “clasped and hugged it as though it were a most precious 
darling (Liebling).”’ Dr. A. M. Fairbairn! once said: “ΝΟ man 
can be a theologian who is not a philologian. He who is no 
grammarian is no divine.” Let Alexander McLaren serve as a 
good illustration of that dictum. His matchless discourses are 
the fruit of the most exact scholarship and spiritual enthusiasm. 
I venture to quote another defence of the study of Greek which 
will, I trust, yet come back to its true place in modern education. 
Prof. ἃ. A. Williams, of Kalamazoo College, says?: “Greek yet 
remains the very best means we have for plowing up and wrink- 
ling the human brain and developing its gray matter, and wrinkles 
and gray matter are still the most valuable assets a student can 
set down on the credit side of his ledger.” 

Dr. J. H. Moulton has shown that it is possible to make gram- 
mar interesting, as Gildersleeve had done before him. Moulton 
protests* against the notion that grammar is dull: ‘‘ And yet there 
is no subject which can be made more interesting than grammar, 
a science which deals not with dead rocks or mindless vegetables, 
but with the, ever changing expression of human thought.” I 
wish to acknowledge here my very great indebtedness to Dr. 
Moulton for his brilliant use of the Egyptian papyri in proof of 
the fact that the New Testament was written in the vernacular 
xown. Deissmann is the pioneer in this field and is still the 
leader in it. It is hard to overestimate the debt of modern New 
Testament scholarship to his work. Dr. D. 8. Margoliouth, it is 
true, is rather pessimistic as to the value of the papyri: “‘ Not one 
per cent. of those which are deciphered and edited with so much 
care tell us anything worth knowing.’’* Certainly that is too 


1 Address before the Baptist Theological College at Glasgow, reported in 
The British Weekly, April 26, 1906. 

2 The Cl. Weekly, April 16, 1910. 

3 London Quarterly Review, 1908, p. 214. Moulton and Deissmann also 
disprove the pessimism of Hatch (Essays in Biblical Greek, p. 1): “The lan- 
guage of the New Testament, on the other hand, has not yet attracted the 
special attention of any considerable scholar. There is no good lexicon. 
There is no good philological commentary. There is no adequate grammar.” 

4 The Expositor, Jan., 1912, p. 73. 


PREFACE ΧΙ 


gloomy a statement. Apart from the linguistic value of the 
papyri and the ostraca which has been demonstrated, these 
letters and receipts have interest as human documents. They 
give us real glimpses of the actual life of the common peorle in 
the first Christian centuries, their joys and their sorrows, the 
little things that go so far to make life what it is for us all. But 
the student of the Greek New Testament finds a joy all his own 
in seeing so many words in common use that were hitherto found 
almost or quite alone in the New Testament or LXX. But the 
grammar of the N. T. has also had a flood of light thrown on it 
from the papyri, ostraca and inscriptions as a result of the work 
of Deissmann, Mayser, Milligan, Moulton, Radermacher, Thumb, 
Volker, Wilcken and others. I have gratefully availed myself of 
the work of these scholars and have worked in this rich field for 
other pertinent illustrations of the New Testament idiom. The 
material is almost exhaustless and the temptation was constant 
to use too much of it. I have not thought it best to use so much 
of it in proportion as Radermacher has done, for the case is now 
proven and what Moulton and Radermacher did does not have 
to be repeated. As large as my book is, the space is precious for 
the New Testament itself. But I have used the new material 
freely. The book has grown so that in terror I often hold 
back. It is a long step from Winer, three generations ago, to 
the present time. We shall never go back again to that stand- 
point. Winer was himself a great emancipator in the gram- 
matical field. But the battles that he fought are now ancient 
history. 

It is proper to state that the purpose of this Grammar is not 
that of the author’s Short Grammar which is now in use in various 
modern languages of America and Europe. That book has its 
own place. The present volume is designed for advanced stu- 
dents in theological schools, for the use of teachers, for scholarly 
pastors who wish a comprehensive grammar of the Greek New 
Testament on the desk for constant use, for all who make a 
thorough study of the New Testament or who are interested in 
the study of language, and for libraries. If new editions come, 
as I hope, I shall endeavour to make improvements and correc- 
tions. Hrrata are sure to exist in a book of this nature. Occa- 
sionally (cf. Accusative with Infinitive) the same subject is 
treated more than once for the purpose of fulness at special 
points. Some repetition is necessary in teaching. Some needless 
repetition can be eliminated later. I may explain also that the 


ΧΙ A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


works used by me in the Bodleian Library and the British Mu- 
seum had the citations copied twice with double opportunity for 
errors of reference, but I have guarded that point to the best of 
my ability. I have been careful to give credit in detail to the 
many works consulted. 

But, after all is said, I am reluctant to let my book slip away 
from my hands. There is so much yet to learn. I had hoped 
that Mayser’s Syntax der griechischen Papyri could have ap- 
peared so that I could have used it, but he sorrowfully writes me 
that illness has held him back. Neither Helbing nor Thackeray 
has finished his Syntax of the LXX. The N. T. Vocabulary of 
Moulton and Milligan, though announced, has not yet appeared. 
Deissmann’s Lexicon is still in the future. Thumb’s revision of 
Brugmann’s Griechische Grammatik appeared after my book had 
gone to the press.! I could use it only here and there. The same 
thing is true of Debrunner’s revision of Blass’ Grammatik des 
neutest. Griechisch. New light will continue to be turned on the 
Greek of the N. T. Prof. J. Rendel Harris (The Expository Times, 
Nov., 1913, p. 54f.) points out, what had not been recently no- 
ticed, that Prof. Masson, in his first edition of Winer in 1859, 
p. vii, had said: ‘“‘The diction of the New Testament is the plain 
and unaffected Hellenic of the Apostolic Age, as employed by 
Greek-speaking Christians when discoursing on religious sub- 
jects .. . Apart from the Hebraisms — the number of which 
has, for the most part, been grossly exaggerated — the New 
Testament may be considered as exhibiting the only genuine 
fac-simile of the colloquial diction employed by unsophisticated 
Grecian gentlemen of the first century, who spoke without 
pedantry —as ἰδιῶται and not as σοφισταί." The papyri have 
simply confirmed the insight of Masson in 1859 and of Lightfoot 
in 1863 (Moulton, Prol., p. 242). One’s mind lingers with fas- 
cination over the words of the New Testament as they meet 
him in unexpected contexts in the papyri, as when ἀρετή (cf. 
1 Pet. 2:9) occurs in the sense of ‘Thy Excellency,’ ἔχω παρα- 
σχεῖν TH σῇ ἀρετῇ, O. P. 1131, 11 f. (v/a.d.), or when ὑπερῷον (Ac. 
1:13) is used of a pigeon-house, τὸν ὑπερῷον τόπον τῆς ὑπαρχούσης 
αὐτῷ ἐν Μουχινὺρ οἰκίας, O. P. 1127, 5-7 (a.p. 183). But the book 
must now go forth to do its part in the elucidation of the New 


1 Prof. E. H. Sturtevant (Cl. Weekly, Jan. 24, 1914, p. 108) criticises. Thumb 
because he retains in his revision of Brugmann’s book the distinction between 
accidence and syntax, and so is ‘‘not abreast of the best scholarship of the 
day.” But for the N. T. the distinction is certainly useful. 


\ - eee 
PREFACE ΧΙ] 


Testament, the treasure of the ages.! I indulge the hope that 
the toil has not been all in vain. Marcus Dods (Later Letters, 
p. 248) says: “1 admire the grammarians who are content to 
add one solid stone to the permanent temple of knowledge in- 
stead of twittering round it like so many swallows and only 
attracting attention to themselves.” I make no complaint of the 
labour of the long years, for I have had my reward in a more 
intimate knowledge of the words of Jesus and of his reporters 
and interpreters. Ta ῥήματα ἃ ἔγὼ λελάληκα ὑμῖν πνεῦμά ἐστιν καὶ 
ζωή ἐστιν (Jo. 6:63). 

I must record my grateful appreciation of the sympathy and 
help received from many friends all over the world as I have 
plodded on through the years. My colleagues in the Seminary 
Faculty have placed me under many obligations in making it 
possible for me to devote myself to my task and in rendering 
substantial help. In particular Pres. E. Y. Mullins and Prof. 
J. R. Sampey have been active in the endowment of the plates. 
Prof. Sampey also kindly read the proof of the Aramaic and 
Hebrew words. Prof. W. O. Carver graciously read the proof of 
the entire book and made many valuable suggestions. Dr. 8. 
Angus, of Edinburgh, read the manuscript in the first rough 
draft and was exceedingly helpful in his comments and sympa- 
thy. Prof. W. H. P. Hatch, of the General Episcopal Theological 
Seminary, New York, read the manuscript for the publishers and 
part of the proof and exhibited sympathetic insight that is greatly 
appreciated. Prof. J. 5. Riggs, of the Auburn Theological Semi- 
nary, read the proof till his health gave way, and was gracious in 
his enthusiasm for the enterprise. Prof. Walter Petersen, Ph.D., 
of Bethany College, Lindsborg, Kansas, read all the proof and 
freely gave his linguistic attainments to thé improvement of the 
book. Last, but not least in this list, Mr. H. Scott, of Birken- 
head, England, read the whole book in proof, and in the Accidence 
verified all the references with minute care and loving interest, 
and all through the book contributed freely from his wealth of 
knowledge of detail concerning the Greek N. T. The references 
in Syntax were verified by a dozen of my students whose labour 
of love is greatly appreciated. Pres. J. W. Shepherd, of Rio 
Janeiro, Brazil, and Prof. G. W. Taylor, of Pineville, La., had 
verified the Scripture references in the MS., which were again 
verified in proof. The Index of Quotations has been prepared by 


1 Brilliant use of the new knowledge is made by Dr. James Moffatt’s New 
Testament (A New Translation, 1913). 


X1V A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Rev. W. H. Davis, of Richmond College, Va.; the Index of Greek 
Words by Rev. 8. L. Watson, Tutor of N. T. Greek for this ses- 
sion in the Seminary. All this work has been done for me 
freely and gladly. The mere recital of it humbles me very much. 
Without this expert aid in so many directions the book could 
not have been produced at all. I must add, however, that all 
errors should be attributed to me. I have done the best that I 
could with my almost impossible task. I have had to put on an 
old man’s glasses during the reading of the proof. 

I must add also my sincere appreciation of the kind words 
of Prof. Edwin Mayser of Stuttgart, Oberlehrer H. Stocks of 
Cottbus, Pres. D. G. Whittinghill of Rome, Prof. Caspar René 
Gregory of Leipzig, the late Prof. E. Nestle of Maulbronn, Prof. 
James Stalker of Aberdeen, Prof. Giovanni Luzzi of Florence, 
Prof. J. G. Machen of Princeton, Profs. G. A. Johnston Ross and 
Jas..E. Frame of Union Seminary, and many others who have 
cheered me in my years of toil. For sheer joy in the thing Prof. 
C. M. Cobern of Allegheny College, Penn., and Mr. Dan Craw- 
ford, the author of Thinking Black, have read a large part of the 
proof. 

I gladly record my gratitude to Mr. G. W. Norton, Misses 
Lucie and Mattie Norton, Mr. R. A. Peter (who gave in memory 
of his father and mother, Dr. and Mrs. Arthur Peter), Rev. R. 
N. Lynch, Rev. R. J. Burdette, Mr. F. H. Goodridge, and others 
who have generously contributed to the endowment of the plates 
so that the book can be sold at a reasonable price. I am in- 
debted to Mr. K. B. Grahn for kindly co-operation. I am deeply 
grateful also to the Board of Trustees of the Seminary for making 
provision for completing the payment for the plates. 

It is a pleasure to add that Mr. Doran has shown genuine 
enthusiasm in the enterprise, and that Mr. Linsenbarth of the 
University Press, Cambridge, has taken the utmost pains in the 
final proofreading. 

I should say that the text of Westcott and Hort is followed 
in all essentials. Use is made also of the Greek Testaments of 
Nestle, Souter, and Von Soden whose untimely death is so re- 
cent an event. In the chapter on Orthography and Phonetics 
more constant use is made, for obvious reasons, of variations 
in the manuscripts than in the rest of the book. It is now four 
hundred years since Cardinal Francisco Ximenes de Cisneros 
had printed the Greek New Testament under the auspices of 
the University of Alcalé or Complutum, near Madrid, though it 


PREFACE XV 


was not circulated till 1522. Erasmus got his edition into circu- 
lation in 1516. ‘‘The Complutensian edition of 1514 was the first 
of more than a thousand editions of the New Testament in Greek”’ 
(E. J. Goodspeed, The Biblical World, March, 1914, p. 166). It 
thus comes to pass that the appearance of my Grammar marks 
the four hundredth anniversary of the first printed Greek New 
Testament, and the book takes its place in the long line of aids 
to the study of the “Book of Humanity.” The Freer Gospels 
and the Karidethi Gospels show how much we have to expect 
in the way of discovery of manuscripts of the New Testament. 

I think with pleasure of the preacher or teacher who under 
the inspiration of this Grammar may turn afresh to his Greek 
New Testament and there find things new and old, the vital 
message all electric with power for the new age. That will be 
my Joy so long as the book shall find use and service at the hands 
of the ministers of Jesus Christ. 

A. T. ROBERTSON. 
LovuISvVILLE, Ky., 1914. 


PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION 


THE second edition has been called for so soon that I did not 
have the opportunity for rest that I desired before preparing for 
it. But I have gone steadily through the book with eager eyes. 
The result is that some five hundred changes have been made in 
the text here and there, all for the improvement of the book in 
one way or another, besides the Addenda at the end of the book. 
Most of the changes are small details, but they are all worth 
making. The Addenda are as few as possible because of the great 
size of the volume. I have been more than gratified at the kindly 
reception accorded the book all over the world in spite of the 
distraction of the dreadful war. Many scholars have offered 
helpful criticisms for which I am deeply grateful. In particular 
I wish to mention Prof. C. M. Cobern, Allegheny College, Mead- 
ville, Penn.; Prof. D. F. Estes, Colgate University, Hamilton, 
N. Y.; Prof. Basil L. Gildersleeve, The Johns Hopkins Univer- 
sity, Baltimore; Prof. E. J. Goodspeed, the University of Chicago; 
Prof. Ὁ. A. Hayes, Garrett Biblical Institute, Evanston, LIL; 
Prof. James Moffatt, Mansfield College, Oxford, England; Prof. 


XVl A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


C. W. Peppler, Trinity College, Durham, N. C.; Prof. W. Peter- 
sen, Bethany College, Lindsborg, Kansas; Mr. William Pitfield, 
Manchester, England; Rev. Dr. Alfred Plummer, Bideford, Eng- 
land; Mr. H. Scott, Birkenhead, England; Prof. James Stalker, 
United Free Church College, Aberdeen, Scotland; Dr. Gross 
Alexander, Nashville, Tenn. I hope that future editions may 
make it possible to improve the book still further. Various minor 
repetitions have been removed, though more still remain than is 
necessary. But the book is at least made more intelligible there- 
by. - The numerous cross-references help also. 

In the Neutestamentliche Studien (1914) in honour of the seven- 
tieth birthday of Dr. Georg Heinrici of the University of Leipzig 
there is a paper by Heinrich Schlosser ‘‘ Zur Geschichte der bib- 
lischen Philologie.”’ He tells the story of “the first grammar of 
the New Testament Greek” (1655). It is by Georg Pasor and is 
entitled Grammatica Graeca Sacra Novi Testaments Domini nostri 
Jesu Christi. His son, Matthias Pasor, Professor of Theology at 
Groningen, found his father’s manuscript and let it lie for eighteen 
years because many held grammatical study to be puerile or 
pedantic and the book would have few readers. Finally he pub- 
lished it in 1655, since he held grammar to be ‘“‘clavis scientiarum 
omnisque solidae eruditionis basis ac fundamentum.’”’ He was 
cheered by Melanchthon’s ‘‘fine word’: ‘‘Theologia vera est 
grammatica quaedam divinae vocis.” It is only 260 years since 
1655. ᾿ 

New books continue to come out that throw light on the lan- 
guage of the New Testament. Part I (through a) of Moulton 
and Milligan’s Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from 
the Papyrt and Other Non-literary Sources (1914) is now a rich 
treasure in the hands of students. Sharp’s Epictetus and the New: 
Testament (1914) is a very helpful monograph full of suggestions. 
A note from Dr. Albert Thumb announces that he is at work on 
a revision of his Hellenismus. So the good work goes on. 


hs A. T. RoBERTSON. 
AveustT, 1915. 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


PART I— INTRODUCTION 


PAGE 

CHAPTER ΤΥ ΝΡ ΙΒ Ια cos, (5) Us u's Sr pra Pan IL me ον 3 
ss Ligeeneceuistorical.Method::...%> ag. fee) eee 31 

τ {π π| ἢ πριν τευ teak 5-5) aks. ΠΣ Soe ee 49 

ἐὲ IV. The Place of the New Testament in the Κοινή. . . 76 

PART II — ACCIDENCE 

CHAPTER ᾿ς ΕΙΣ ρος i003. Oya ws) on ee 143 
ἐν Virmirinoerapiv ana Phonetics... fue. τ. 177 

3s EL ΠΕΣ ΡΟΙΟΠΕΙΟΠΗ wae. ΠΤ gee) ak a a te 246 

rs Willeethe Conjugation of the Verb 9.6.0.0. eee 303 

PART III—SYNTAX 

CHAPTER PX Diemviealing ΟΕ ΠΗ © eo... v6 wo Pe 379 
kd ROPER ONECNCO Wd eee ΠΡ ΡΠ δος 390 

ὁ ΚΠ IER Seer ἢ ΟΣ gE συ Fee 446 

τς ΕἾΝ Ct πΠἘΕορΨφ[εοὁ2ῴ4υἷἌΨιἔὁσκιο ουσοσοΕοΠἝψὌὝὌἀἨο Ἐς δ44 

a PR IRCOICRIDIONS Wh. ee ee SS ol SNe ew ee 553 

be eB ἀκ μεν ie A a ea) ol er le 650 

ἐξ ας ΤΡ τ Sar At he tc: Seah es te ose iv ee. 676 

ἐξ ΟΣ δ ἐφαηζα δεν ον ΠΗ eres eek site Usa ess aie 8 754 

oh! CEU) WUT leak ΑΙ ea he νυν οι πο a 797 

cs ΡΠ ΠΟ Se foe g! He le te te. wha A ee ΣΉ ΤΡ τ 821 

el CHES ROS BT a OS Ba Sn ες 911 

i Koen verbal Nouns... s 2. De 6 Catt ee Aa 1050 

= ἌΙΙ τ aL (sere nate) Ὁ 1142 

δὴ Pee SP ΡΠ ΑΕ Ol OUGCCN, να Gite sos ls veces woe ee 1194 

ΠΥ ΌΤΤΤΟΝ AL WINOVES wey ot. ota. «os oi Coc st ree ok ONES 5) a erm 1209 
Pee OM TMC TAR PMY Tey eae tet δ a) 2 wt CO oe 3 el el owe 1223 
eR OCR SVMS ἧς tg ce cle os hal y: fhieis? ines allele eos 1249 
ΠΣ DATION See NT Seg Gs 10 es es ἧς eee he 
ΤΟΣ ΤῊ ORCOND MDITION. 0.06 0425 οὐ ρου νος 1361 





Ἢ 
᾿ 






Lag ai 


ἃ ἵ a Ω 
“ d "Αἴ ina? γῇ Ἢ ᾿ 
δ > 





LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO 


I HAD prepared an exhaustive analytic bibliography of the per- 
tinent literature, but it was so long that, on the advice of several 
friends, I have substituted an alphabetical list of the main works 
mentioned in the book. The editions of Greek authors, the pa- 
pyri and the inscriptions will be found in the Index of Quota- 
tions. Look there for them. For full histories of grammatical 
discussion one may turn to Sandys, A History of Classical Scholar- 
ship, vols. I-III (1906-1908); Gudemann, Grundri& der Geschichte 
der klassischen Philologie (2. Aufl., 1909); and Hiibner, Grund- 
riB zu Vorlesungen iiber die griechische Syntax (1883). By no 
means all the works consulted and referred to in the Grammar 
are given below. Only the most important can be mentioned. 
Hundreds that were consulted are not alluded to in the Gram- 
mar. But the following list represents fairly well the works that 
have contributed most to the making of my book. The chief 
journals quoted are also mentioned here. 


ΑΒΒΟΤΊ, Εἰ. A., Clue. A Guide through Greek to Hebrew (1904). 

, Johannine Grammar (1906). 

—, Johannine Vocabulary (1905). 

Am. J. Ph., The American Journal of Philology (Baltimore). 

ALEXANDER, W. J., Participial Periphrases in Attic Orators (Am. 
J. Ph., IV, pp. 291-309). 

ALLEN, H. F., The Infinitive in Polybius compared with the In- 
finitive in Biblical Greek (1907). 

Am. J. of Sem. L. and Lit., The American Journal of Semitic 
Languages and Literature (Chicago). 

Am. J. of Theol., The American Journal of Theology (Chicago). 

Anaus, 8., Modern Methods in New Testament Philology (Har- 
vard Theol. Rev., Oct., 1909). 

—, The Κοινή, the Language of the New Testament (Princ. 
Theol. Rev., Jan., 1910). 

Anz, H., Subsidia ad cognoscendum Graecorum sermonem vul- 
garem e Pentateuchi versione Alexandrina repetita (Diss. 
phil. Hal., XII, 1894, pp. 259-387). 


ΧΙΧ 





XX A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW: TESTAMENT 


ApvostouipEs, Essai sur l’Hellénisme Egyptien et ses rapports 

| avec l’Hellénisme classique et |’Hellénisme moderne (1898). 

——. Du grec alexandrin et des rapports avec le grec ancien et le 
grec moderne (1892). 

Archiv fiir Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete (Leipzig). 

ARNAUD, Essai sur le caractére de la langue grec du N. T. (1899). 

ARNOLD and Conway, The Restored Pronunciation of Greek and 
Latin (1885). 

Aupoin, E., De la déclinaison dans les langues indo-européennes 
(1898). 

Bassirt, The Use of Μή in Questions (Harvard Studies in Class. 
Phil., 1901). 

Bacon, Rocer, Oxford Greek Grammar. Edited by Nolan and 
Hirsch (1902). 

BAMBERG, Hauptregeln der griechischen Syntax (1890). 

Baron, Le Pronom Relatif et la Conjonctive en Gree (1892). 

Barry, W., The Holy Latin Tongue (Dublin Rev., April, 1906); 
Our Latin Bible (7b., July). 

BAUMLEIN, Untersuchungen iiber die griech. Modi und die Par- 
tikeln κέν und ἄν (1846). 

——., Untersuch. iiber griech. Partikeln (1861). 

Bekker, Anecdota Graeca. 3 Bde. (1814-1821). 

B&éNARD, Formes.verbales en grec d’aprés le texte d’Hérodote 
(1890). 

Brerpout, Der Konsekutivsatz in der Altern griech. Lit. (1896). 

BERNHARDY, G., Wissenschaftliche Syntax der griechischen 
Sprache (1829). 

Bibl. Ec., Bibliothéque de l’école des hautes Etudes (Paris). 

Bibl. Gr. V., Bibliothéque grecque vulgaire (Paris). 

Bibl. S., The Bibliotheca Sacra (Oberlin). 

Bibl. W., The Biblical World (Chicago). 

ΒΙΒΚΕ, De Particularum μή et οὐ Usu Polybiano Dionysiaeo Dio- 
doreo Straboniano (1897). | 

BIrRKLEIN, Τ᾿, Entwickelungsgeschichte des substantivierten In- 
finitivs (1882). 

Buass, F., Acta Apostolorum (1895). 

——. Die griech. Beredsamkeit von Alex. bis auf August. (1865). 

——, Die Rhythmen der asianischen und rémischen Kunstprosa 
(1905). 

—., Die rhythm. Kompos. d. Hebr.-Briefes (Theol. Stud. und 
Krit., 1902, pp. 420-461). ἡ 

——., Evangelium sec. Lukam (1897). 


LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO XX 


Brass, F., Grammatik d. neut. Griech. 2. Aufl. (1902). 
——, Hermeneutik und Kritik (1892). 

——., Philology of the Gospels (1898). 

——. Pronunciation of Ancient Greek (translation by Purton in 
1890 of 3. Aufl. of Uber die Aussprache des Griech. 1888). 

Biass-DEBRUNNER, Grammatik ἃ. neut. Griech. 4. Aufl. (1913). 

Buass-THACKERAY, Grammar of New Testament Greek. 2d ed. 
(1905). 

BLooMFIELD, Study of Greek Accent (A. J. Ph., 1883). 

Boéumer, J., Das biblische ‘im Namen’ (1898). 

Borsaca, Les dialectes doriens (1891). 

, Dictionnaire étymol. de la langue grecque (1907 ff.). 

Bourne, The Participle in Hesiod (Cath. Univ. Bulletin, 1897). 

Bonuorrer, A., Epiktet und das N. T. (1911). 

Bopp, Vergleichende Grammatik (1857). 

Br. W., The British Weekly (London). 

Broapus, JoHun A., Comm. on Matt. (1886). 

BROCKELMANN, C., Grundrifi} der vergleichenden Grammatik der 
semitischen Sprachen (1907). 

BruGMANN, K., Elements of Comparative Grammar of the Indo- 
Germanic Languages (translation by Wright, 1895). 

——,, Griechische Grammatik. 3. Aufl. (1900), the ed. quoted. 
Vierte vermehrte Aufl. of A. Thumb (1913). 

—, Grundrif} der vergl. Gr. d. indog. Sprachen. 2. Aufl., Bde. 
I, II (1897-1913). 

—, Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen 
Sprachen (1904). 

Buck, C. D., Introduction to the Study of the Greek Dialects 
(1910). 

BuLTMANN, R., Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch- 
stoische Diatribe (1910). 

BurescH, Γέγοναν und anderes Vulgirgriechisch (Rhein. Mus. 
f. Phil., 1891, pp. 193-232). 

Burkitt, F. C., Syriac Forms of N. T. Proper Names (1912). 

Burrows, R. M., Discoveries in Crete (1907). 

Burton, E. D., Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the N. T. 
Gk. 3d ed. (1909). 

Burton-ZwaAan, Syntax d. Wijzen etijden in ἢ. Gr. N. T. (1906). 

BurtcuHer, 8. H., Some Aspects of the Greek Genius (1893). 

, Harvard Lectures on Greek Subjects (1904). 

Burrmann, A., Grammatik d. neut. Sprachgebrauchs (1859). 

Burrmann-Tuayer, A Grammar of the N. T. Greek (1880). 











Xxll A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Bywater, J., The Erasmian Pronunciation of Greek and its Pre- 
cursors (1908). 

Byz. Z., Byzantinische Zeitschrift (Leipzig). 

Cambr. Ph. J., Cambridge Philological Journal. 

Cath. Univ. Bull., Catholic University Bulletin. 

Cavuer, Grammatica Militans. 3d ed. (1912). 

CHANDLER, H., A Practical Introduction to Greek Accentuation. 
2d ed. (1881). 

Cuasg, F. H., The Credibility of the Acts (1902). 

Curist, W., Geschichte der griech. Literatur bis auf die Zeit Jus- 
tinians. 4. Aufl. (1905). 5. Aufl. (1913). 

Cuurton, The Influence of the Septuagint upon the Progress of 
Christianity (1861). 

CLAFLIN, Epiru, Syntax of Boeotian Dialect Inscriptions (1905). 

Cuassen, J., De Grammaticae Graecae Primordiis (1829). 

Cl. Ph., Classical Philology (Chicago). 

Cl. Q., Classical Quarterly (London). 

Cl. Rev., Classical Review (London). 

Cl. W., Classical Weekly (New York). 

Cuiypbk, J., Greek Syntax (1876). 

ComPERNASS, De Sermone Gr. Volg. Pisidiae Phrygiaeque meri- 
dionalis (1895). 

ConyYBEARE and Srock, Selections from the LXX. A Gram- 
matical Introduction (1905). 

Courtoz, Les Préfixes en Grec, en Latin et en Frangais (1894). 

CrEMER, H., Biblico-Theological Lexicon of N. T. Greek (1892). 
Urwick’s translation. 

- Bibl.-theol. Worterbuch ἃ. neut. Gracitat. 9. Aufl. (1902). 
Cremer-Kogel, neue Aufl. (1912). 

CroOnERT, W., Memoria Graeca Herculanensis (1903). 

—, Questiones Herculanenses (1898). 

Crum, W. E., Coptic Ostraca from the Collections of the Egypt 
Exploration Fund, the Cairo Museum and others (1902). 

Curtius, G., Greek Etymology. 2 vols. (1886). 

- Studien zur griech. und lat. Grammatik (1868-1878). 

Daman, G., Grammatik des jiidisch-palistinischen Aramiisch 
(1894). 

——, Worte Jesu (1902). 

——, The Words of Jesus (1902). Translation by D. M. Kay. 

Dawes, E. S., Pronunciation of the Gk. Aspirates (1894). 

1). B., Dictionary of the Bible (Hastings, 1898-1904). 

1). C. G., Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels (Hastings, 1906). 


LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO XXlll 


DetssManun, A., Bible Studies (1901). Tr. by A. Grieve; cf. Bibel- 
studien (1895) and Neue Bibelstudien (1897). 

——,, Biblische Gracitit etc. (Theol. Rundschau, Okt. 1912). 

—., Die Hellenisierung des semitischen Monotheismus (N. 
Jahrb. f. d. kl. Alt., 1903). 

——.,, Die neut. Formel ‘in Christo” (1892). 

——, Die Sprache ἃ. griech. Bibel (Theol. Rundschau, 1906, 
No. 116). 

——, Die Urgeschichte des Christentums im Lichte der Sprach- 
forschung (Intern. Woch., 30. Okt. 1909). 

——,, Hellenistisches Griechisch (Herzog-Hauck’s Realencye., VII, 
1899). 

—, Licht vom Osten (1908). 

—., Light from the Ancient East (1910). Tr. by Strachan. 

——, New Light on the N. T. (1907). Tr. by Strachan. 

——, Papyri (Encye. Bibl., III, 1902). 

, St. Paul in the Light of Social and Religious History (1912). 

Dersrick, B., Ablativ Localis Instrumentalis (1867). 

, Grundrif der vergl. Gramm. d. indog. Sprachen. Syntax. 

Bde. III—V (1893, 1897, 1900). 

, Introduction to the Study of Language (1882). Einleitung 

in das Sprachstudium. 4. Aufl. (1904). 5. Aufl. (1913). 

——, Syntaktische Forschungen. 5 Bde. (1871-1888). 

Dick, Der schriftstellerische Plural bei Paulus (1900). 

Dicxkry, 8., New Points of View for the Study of the Greek of the 
N. T. (Princeton Theol. Rev., Oct., 1903). 

Diet, De enuntiatis finalibus apud graecarum rerum scriptores 
posterioris aetatis (1894). 

Drerericnu, K., Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Sprache von 
der hellen. Zeit bis zum 10. Jahrh. n. Chr. (1898). 

Donatpson, J. W., The New Cratylus (1859). 

DRAEGER, Hist. Syntax d. lat. Sprache (1878-1881). 

Dubl. Rev., The Dublin Review (Dublin). 

Dir, Sprachliche Untersuchungen (1899). 

Dyrorr, A., Geschichte des Pronomen Reflexivum (1892, 1893). 

Hare, M. L., Classical Papers (1912). 

EBELING, H., Griechisch-deutsches Worterbuch zum N. T. (1913). 

EckinGcer, Die Orthographie lateinischer Worter in griech. In- 
schriften (1893). 

E. G. T., Expositor’s Greek Testament. 

Encyc. Bibl., Encyclopaedia Biblica. 

Encyc. Brit., Encyclopaedia Britannica. 11th ed. (1910). 











XXIV A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ENGEL, E.., Die Aussprache des Griechischen (1887). 

ERNAULT, Du Parfait en Gree et en Latin (1886). 

Evans, A. J., Cretan Pictographs and Pre-Phcenician Script 

(1895). 

, Further Researches (1898). 

Exp., The Expositor (London). 

Expos. T., The Expository Times (Edinburgh). 

FARNELL, L. R., Greek Conditional and Relative Sentences (1892). 

Farrar, F. W., Greek Syntax (1876). 

Fick-BrcHTeEL, Die griechischen Personennamen. 2. Aufl. (1894). 

ΕἼ], F., Otium Norvicense. Pars Tertia (1881). 

FiLensBerG, Uber Ursprung und Bildung des Pron. αὐτός (1893). 

Fow Ler, The Negatives of the Indo-HMuropean Languages (1896). 

Foy, K., Lautsystem der griech. Vulgarsprache (1879). 

* FRANKEL, Griechische Denominativa (1906). 

FRENZEL, Die Entwick. des relativen Satzbaues im Griech. (1889). 

——, Die Entwick. der Sitze mit πρίν (1896). 

Fucus, A., Die Temporalsitze mit den Konjunktionen “bis” und 
“so lang als”’ (1902). 

FiUuHrReER, De Particulae ws cum Participiis et Praepos. punctae 
Usu Thucydideo (1889). 

GaLLoway, W. F., On the Use of Μή with the Participle in Clas- 
sical Greek (1897). 

GrEppES, A Compendious Greek Grammar (1888). 

GELDART, The Modern Greek Language in Its Relation to An- 
cient Greek (1870). 

Gersporf, C. G., Beitrige zur Sprachcharakteristik der Schrift- 
steller des N. T. (1816). 

GESENIUS-KautTzscH, Hebrew Grammar. 

GryER, M., Observationes epigraphicae de praepositionum graec. 
forma et usu (1880). 

GILDERSLEEVE, B. L., Editions of Pindar and Justin Martyr. 

, Latin Grammar. Many editions since 1867. 

——, Notes on Stahl’s Syntax of the Greek Verb (1910). 

, Numerous articles in the American Journal of Philology. 

GILDERSLEEVE and MiLuEer, Syntax of Classical Greek. Part I 
(1900), Part II (1911). 

Gildersleeve Studies. Volume in honour of Prof. Gildersleeve of 
Johns Hopkins (1902). 

Gites, P., A Short Manual of Comparative Philology. 2d ed. 
(1901). 

—, The Greek Language (Encye. Britannica, 1910). 











LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO XXV 


GiLEs-HeERTEL, Vergl. Grammatik (1896). Tr: of Giles’ Manual. 

GoETZELER, L., De Polybii elocutione (1887). 

, EinfluB d. Dion. Hal. auf ἃ. Sprachgebrauch (1891). 

GoopsPEED, EK. J., Did Alexandria Influence the Nautical Lan- 
guage of St. Luke? (The Expositor, VIII, 1908, pp. 180-141). 

Goopwin, W. W., Greek Grammar. Various editions. 
——, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb. Rev. 
Ed. (1890). | 
Granit, De Inf. et Part. in Inser. Dial. Graec. Questiones Synt. 
(1892). 

GREEN, Μή for οὐ before Lucian (Studies in Honour of B. Gil- 
_dersleeve, 1902). 

GREEN, B., Notes on Greek and Latin Syntax (1897). 

GREEN, ὃ. G., Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek N. T. 
Rev. Ed. (1904). 

GreGgory, C. R., Canon and Text of the N. T. (1907). 

, Die griech. Handschriften d. N. T. (1908). 

—., Nov. Test. Graece, ed. Tischendorf. Bd. III, Prolegomena 

(1884-1894). 

, Textkritik d. N. T. 3 Bde. (1900-1909). 

GrimM-TuHayeEr, A Greek-English Lexicon of the N. T. (1887). 

GruUNEWALD, L., Der freie formelhafte Inf. ἃ. Limitation im 
Griech. (1888). 

Gupremann, A., Grundri8 der Geschichte ἃ. klass. Philologie. 
2. Aufl. (1909). 

GUILLEMARD, W. H., Hebraisms in the Greek Testament (1879). 

Gintuer, R., Die Prapos. in ἃ. griech. Dialektinschriften (Indog. 
Forsch., 1906). 

Hapuery and ALLEN, Greek Grammar (1895). 

Hap.iey, James, Essays Philological and Critical (1873). 

——., Language of the N. T. (vol. II, Hackett and Abbott’s ed. of 
Smith’s B. D., 1898). 

Hanne, Zur sprachlichen Asthetik ἃ. Griechischen (1896). 

Hats, W. G., The Anticipatory Subj. in Gk. and Lat. (Stud. Cl. 
Phil., 1895). 

——, The Cum Constructions (Studies in Class. Phil., 1887). 

—, The Origin of Subj. and Opt. Conditions in Gk. and Lat. 
(Harvard Studies in Class. Philol., 1901). 

Hamiutron, The Negative Compounds in Greek (1899). 

Hammer, De τέ Particulae Usu Herodoteo Thucydideo Xeno- 
phonteo (1904). 

Hammerscumipt, Uber die Grundb. von Konjunktiv und Optativ. 











XXV1 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Harnack, A., Luke the Physician (1907). 

——., The Acts of the Apostles (1909). 

Harris, J. RENDEL, Side-Lights on N. T. Research (1908). 

Harrison, Gessner, A Treatise on the Philology of Greek Prepo- 
sitions (1858). 

Harrison, Miss ΦΑΝΕ, Prol. to the Study of Greek Religion (1903). 

HarsinG, C., De Optativi in Chartis Aegyptiis Usu. Diss. Bonn 
(1910). 

Harte., Abrif der Gr. d. hom. und herod. Dial. (1888). 

Hartune, J. A., Lehre von den Partikeln der griech. Spr., I, I 
(1832-1833). 

Hatcu, E., Essays in Bibl. Greek (1892). 

HAtTcH, W. H. P., Some Illustrations of N. T. Usage from Greek 
Inscriptions Fi Asia Minor (Journ. of Bibl. Lit., 1908, pp. 


134-146). 

Harzipakis, G. N., Einleitung in die neugriechische Grammatik 
(1892). 

Havers, W., Untersuch. zur Kasussyntax der indog. Sprachen 
(1911). 


Hawkins, J. C., Horae Synopticae. 2d ed. (1909). 

Herne, G., Synonymik des neutest. Griechisch (1898). 

Heinrici, Κα. F., Der literarische Charakter der neutest. Schriften 
(1908). 

HErITMULLER, W., Im Namen Jesu (1902). 

HeLBinG, R., Die Praipos. bei Herodot und andern Historikern 
(1904). 

—., Grammatik der Septuaginta. Laut- und Wortlehre (1907). 

—, Uber den Gebrauch des echten und soziativen Dativs bei 
Herodot. 

Henry, Précis de grammaire du grec et du latin. 5th ed. (1894). 
Elliott’s tr. of 1st ed. (1890). 

Hermes, Zeitschrift fiir klassische Philologie. 

Hessetina, D. C., De Koine en de oude dialekten van Griechen- 
land (1906). 

Hicks, E. L., St. Paul and Hellenism (Studia Biblica et Eccl., 
1896). 

—., Traces of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law in the N. T. 
(1896). 

——., Use of Political Terms in the N. T. (Class. Rev., March 
and April, 1887). 

Hicks, E. L., and Hii, G. F., A Manual of Greek Historical In- 
scriptions (1901). 


LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO XXVll 


Hirt, H., Handbuch der griech. Laut- und Formenlehre (1902). 
2. Aufl. (1912). 

Hosart, W. K., The Medical Language of Luke (1882). 

HOFFMANN, τ᾿, Neutestamentliche Bibelstudien. 5 Bde. (1903). 

, Uber die Entwick. des Begriffs der Grammatik bei den 

Alten (1891). 

Horrmann, O., Das Priisens der indog. Grundsprache (1889). 

, Die griechischen Dialekte, I-III (1891-1898). 

——, Die Makedonen, ihre Sprache und ihr Volkstum (1906). 

—., Geschichte d. griech. Sprache (1911). 

Hoaartu, D. G., Philip and Alexander (1897). 

Hou, K., Das Fortleben der Volkssprachen in nachchristlicher 
Zeit (Hermes, 1908, 43, pp. 243 ff.). 

Hootez, C. H., The Classical Element in the N. T. (1888). 

Hort, Εἰ. J. A., Notes on Orthography (pp. 141-173, vol. II of the 
N. T. in the Original Greek, 1882). 

Howes, The Use of Μή with the Participle (Harv. St. in Cl. Ph., 
1901). 

Hatcu and Reppatu, Concordance to the LXX (1897). 

Htsner, E., Grundrif zu Vorlesungen tiber die griech. Syntax 
(1883). 

HijpscHMann, Zur Kasuslehre (1875). 

Humpureys, M. W., The Problems of Greek (Congress of Arts 
and Sciences, 1904, vol. III, pp. 171 ff.). 

Indog. Forsch., Indogermanische Forschungen (Straf8burg). 

ImMER, J., Hermeneutics of the N. T. Tr. by A. H. Newman 
(1877). 

Intern. Woch., Internationale Wochenschrift. 

JACOBSTHAL, H. K., Der Gebrauch der Tempora und Modi in 
den kretischen Dialektinschriften (1906). 

JACQUIER, E., Histoire des Livres du N. T. Tomes I-IV. Ch. ii, 
Tome I, Langue du N. T. 

J. kl. Ph., Jahrbuch fiir klass. Philologie (Leipzig). 

JANNARIS, A. N., A Historical Greek Grammar (1897). 

—, On the True Meaning of the Kown (Class. Rev., 1903, pp. 
93 ff.). 

Jess, R. C., Attic Orators. 2d ed. (1893). 

, Introduction to the Iliad and the Odyssey (1892). 

—, On the Relation of Classical to Modern Greek (Appendix 
to Vincent and Dickson’s Handbook to Mod. Gk., 1887). 
JELF, W. E., A Grammar of the Greek Language. 2 vols. 

(1866). 











XXVill A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


JOHANNESSOHN, M., Der Gebrauch der Kasus und der Priposi- 
tionen in der Septuaginta. Teil I (1910). 

Jotuy, Ein Kapitel ἃ. vergl. Syntax. Der Konjunktiv und Op- 
tativ. 

——, Geschichte des Infinitivs im Indog. (1879). 

Joy, On the Syntax of Some Prepositions in the Greek Dialects 
(1905). 

J. of Phil., The Journal of Philology (London). 

J. B. L., The Journal of Biblical Literature (Boston). 

J. H. S., The Journal of Hellenic Studies (London). 

J. T. S., The Journal of Theological Studies (London). 

JiiticHer, A., Introduction to the N. T. Tr. by Ward (1904). 

Kaerrst, J., Geschichte des hellenistischen Zeitalters (1901). 

KAIBEL, Stil und Text der ᾿Αθηναίων Πολιτεία. 

KALKER, F., Questiones de elocutione Polybiana (1880). 

KALLENBERG, Stud. iiber den griech. Artikel (1891). 

Kaurzscu, E., Grammatik d. bibl. Aram. (1884). 

Kennepy, H. A. A., Recent Research in the Language of the 
N. T. (The Expos. T., xii, 1901). 

——, Sources of N. T. Greek (1895). 

—, St Paul and the Mystery Religions (1913). 

rearing F. G., Evidence of the Fapyn for Textual Criticism of 
the N. T. (1905). 

——, Handbook to the Textual Crit. of the N. T. 2d ed. (1912). 

—, Paleeography of the Greek Papyri (1899). 

——, Papyri (Hastings’ D. B., extra vol., 1904). 

Kine and Cookson, The Principles of Sound and Inflexion as 
Illustrated in the Greek and Latin Languages (1888). 

Krauss, 8., Griechische und lateinische Lehnwoérter in Talmud, 
Midrasch und Targum. I (1898), II (1899). 

Kress, F., Die Praipositionen bei Polybius (1882. Schanz’ Bei- 
trige). 

——, Die Priapositionsadverbien in der spateren hist. Gricitit. 
ΤΊ. I (1889). 

——, Zur Rektion der Kasus in der spiteren hist. Gracit. (1887-— 
1890). 

KRENKEL, Josephus und Lukas (1894). 

KReETSCHMER, P., Die ΕΠ]. in die Geschichte der griech. Sprache 
(1906). | 

——., Die Entstehung der Κοινή (Sitz. ber. ἃ. Wien. Akad., 1900). 

—, Die griech. Vaseninschriften ihrer Sprache nach untersucht 
(1894). 


LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO ΧΧΙΧ 


KrumpBacuer, I., Beitriige zu einer Geschichte der griech. 
Sprache (Kuhn’s Zeitschr., 1885, pp. 481-545). 

——, Das Problem d. neugriech. Schriftsprache (1902). 

——., Das Programm des neuen Thesaurus d. griech. Spr. (1909). 

- Die griech. Lit. des Mittelalters (Kultur d. Gegenwart, 
TI. I, Abt. viii, 1905). 

KUuHNER-Biass, Ausfiihrliche Grammatik d. griech. Sprache. 
3. Aufl. of Kiihner. Teil I, Bde. I, II (1890, 1892). 

KUHNER-GERTH, Ausf. Gramm. d. griech. Spr. 3. Aufl. of Kihner. 
Tl. II, Bde. I, II (1898, 1904). 

Kuurine, G., De praepositionum Graecarum in chartis Aegyp- 
tiacis (1906). 

Kuprr, Der Gebr. d. Opt. bei Diod. Sic. (1903). 

K. Z., Kuhn’s Zeitschrift fiir vergl. Sprachforschung (Berlin). 

Laroscapp, Infl. du Lat. sur le Grec (Bibl. de l’Ecole des hautes 
fit., 1892, pp. 83-158). 

LAGARDE, P. px, Septuagintastudien. I (1891). 

Lake, K., The Text of the N. T. 4th ed. (1908). 

Lambert, Etude sur le dialecte éolien (1903). 

Lane, A., Homer and His Age (1906). 

LAQueur, R., Questiones epigraphicae et papyrologicae selectae 
(1904). 

La Rocus, Beitrage zur griech. Gr. (1883). 

—, Das Augment des griech. Verbums (1882). 

LauGuutin, T. C., The Solecisms of the Apocalypse (1902). 

LAUTENSACH, Verbalflexion der attischen Inschriften (1887). 

LEFEVRE, Race and Language (1909). 

Leu, Der Absolut-Akk. im Griech. bis zu Aristoteles (1892). 

Leutner, W. G., The Article in Theocritus (1907). 

LIDDELL and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon. 7th ed. (1882). 

LiIETZMANN, H., Die klass. Philologie und das N. T. (N. Jahrb. 
f. kl. Alt., 1908, Bd. 21). 

— , Griechische Papyri ausgewahlt und erklart. 2. Aufl. (1910). 

Ligutroot, TrencH, Exuicott, The Revision of the N. T. (1878). 

Lipsius, K. H. A., Grammatische Untersuchungen iiber die bibl. 

τς Graicitat (1863). 

Livineston, The Greek Genius and Its Meaning to Us (1912). 

Lopeck, C. A., Phrynichi ecloga nominum et verborum Atticorum 
(1820). 

Lock, W., The Bible and Christian Life (1905). 

Loisy, A., Histoire critique du texte et des versions de la Bible 
(1892). 


XXX A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Lorticu, B., De sermone vulgari Atticorum (1881). 

Lutz, Die Kasus-Adverbien bei att. Rednern (1891). 

Mapvie, Bemerk. iiber einige Punkte des Griech. (1848). 

——, Syntax of the Greek Language (1880). 

Manarry, J. P., A Survey of Greek Civilization (1897). 

—, Greek Life and Thought (1896). 

——., Progress of Hellenism in Alexander’s Empire (1905). 

——, The Greek World under Roman Sway (1890). 

—, What Have the Greeks Done for Civilization? (1909). 

Mareo.tioutH, D. ὅ., Language of the O. T. (Hastings’ D. B.). 

Mareouis, The Particle 7 in O. T. Gk. (Am. J. of Sem. Lang. and 
Lit., July, 1909). 

MarsHatu, J. T., The Aramaic Gospel (The Expositor, ser. IV, 
li, lil, lv, vi, vill; The Expos. Times, iv, 260). 

Marti, K., Kurzgef. Gr. d. bibl. aram. Spr. (1911). 

Mayser, E., Grammatik der griech. Papyri aus der Ptolemierzeit. 
Laut- und Wortlehre (1906). 

ΜΕΥ, A., Introduction ἃ l'étude comparative des langues indo- 
européennes (1908). 3d ed. (1912). 

—, L’aoriste en lat. (Revue de Phil., 1897, p. 81 f.). 

——, Notes d’Etymologie Grecque (1896). 

MeistEer, R., Beitrige zur Lautlehre d. LX X (1909). 

, Der syntakt. Gebrauch d. Genitivs in den kret. Dialekt- 

inschriften (Indog. Forsch., XVIII, pp. 133-204). 

—, Die griech. Dialekte., 2 Bde. (1882-1889). 

—, Prol. zu emer Gramm. d. LXX (1907). 

MEISTERHANS-SCHWYZER, Gramm. d. attischen Inschriften. 8. 
Aufl. (1900) of Meisterhans. 

Merriaq, A. C., Temporal Coincidence of the Aor. Part. with the 
Principal Verb (Proc. Am. Phil. Assoc., 1877). 

Meyer, A., Jesu Muttersprache (1896). 

Meyer, G., Griech. Grammatik. 3. Aufl. (1896). 

Meyer, L., Griech. Aoriste (1879). 

——., Vergl. Gr. ἃ. griech. und lat. Spr. 2 Bde. 2. Aufl. (1882-— 
1884). 

Meryer-Ltsxe, Gramm. d. roman. Spr. 3 Bde. (1890-1899). 

MippietTon, Analogy in Syntax (1892). 

, The Doctrine of the Greek Article (1855). 

MiupEn, The Limitations of the Predicate Position in Greek. 

Miuter, C. W. E., The Limitation of the Imperative in the Attic 
Orators (Am. J. Ph., 1892, pp. 399-486). 

Miuuican, G., Selections from the Greek Papyri (1910). 








LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO ΧΧΧΙ 


MinuiGan, G., The Greek Papyri with Special Reference to their 

Value for N. T. Study (1912). 

, The N. T. Documents (1913). 

Mrrtsorakis, Praktische Gr. d. neugriech. Schrift- und Umgangs- 
sprache (1891). 

Mirreis und WitcKEN, Grundziige und Chrestomathie der Papy- 
ruskunde. 2 Bde. (1912). 

Morrartt, J., The New Testament. A New Translation (1913). 

Mommsen, T., Beitriige zur Lehre der griech. Pripositionen 

(1886-1895). 

, Die Prap. σύν und μετά bei den nachhom. Epikern (1879). 

Monro, D. B., Homeric Grammar (1882). 2d ed. (1891). First 
ed. used. 

Movtton, J. H., A Grammar of N. T. Greek. Vol. I, Prolego- 
mena (1906). 3d ed. (1908). 

——., Characteristics of N. T. Greek (The Expositor, 1904). 

--- Kinleitung in die Sprache des N. T. (1911). 

——, Grammatical Notes from the Papyri (The Expositor, 1901, 
pp. 271-282; 1903, pp. 104-121, 423-439. The Classical Re- 
view, 1901, pp. 31-37, 434-441; 1904, pp. 106-112, 151-155). 

——,, Introduction to N. T. Greek (1895). 2d ed. (1904). 

——, Language of Christ (Hastings’ One-vol. D. B., 1909). 

——, N. T. Greek in the Light of Modern Discovery (Cambr. 

Bibl. Essays, 1909, pp. 461-505). 

, The Science of Language (1903). 

Moutrton, W. F., and Grmprn, A. §., A Concordance to the Greek 
Testament (1897). 

Movuton and Mitiican, Lexical Notes from the Papyri (The 
Expos., 1908—). 

—. The Vocabulary of the N. T. Illustrated from the Papyri 
and other Non-Literary Sources. Part I (1914). 

Moztey, F. W., Notes on the Bibl. Use of the Present and Aorist 
Imperative (Journ. of Theol. Stud., 19038, iv, pp. 279-282). 

Moutuacu, F., Grammatik d. griech. Vulgarsprache (1856). 

Mitier, H. C., Hist. Gramm. d. hellen. Sprache (1891). 

Miuter, I., Handbuch d. klass. Altertumswissenschaft (1885—). 

Mi.uer, Max, Three Lectures on the Science of Language (1891). 

Murray, G., A History of Ancient Greek Lit. (1897). 

MurtzBavu_er, C., Die Grundbedeutung des Konjunktivs und Op- 
tativs und ihre Entwick. im Griech. (1908). 

—, Die Grundlagen der griech. Tempuslehre und des hom. 
Tempusgebrauchs. I (1893), II (1909). 











XXxll A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


NacHMANSON, E., Beitrige zur Kenntnis der altgriech. Volks- 
sprache (1910). 

——, Epigraphisch-grammatische Bemerkungen (Eranos 11, 

1912). 

, Laute und Formen der magnetischen Inschriften (1903). 

NaAgeut, T., Der Wortschatz des Apostels Paulus. a—e (1905). 

Navarre, Etude sur les particules grecques (R. E. A., vii, pp. 
116-130). 

Neste, E., Einfiihrung in das griech. N. T. 2. Aufl. (1899). 
Introd. to the Textual Crit. of the N. T. (Tr. 1901). 

——, Novum Testamentum Graece. 8th ed. (1910). 

——, Septuagint (Hastings’ D. B., 1902). 

——, Septuaginta-Studien. I-V (1886-1907). 

——, Zum neutest. Griechisch (Z. N. W., vii, 1906). 

NEUBAUER, Studia Biblica (1885). 

N.k. Z., Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift (Leipzig). 

N. Jahrb. kl. Alt., Neue Jahrbiicher fiir das klass. Altertum > 
(Leipzig). 

Nixusson, Kausalsitze im Griech. bis Aristoteles. I., Die Poesie. 

Norpen, E., Die antike Kunstprosa. 2. Aufl. (1909). 

OERTEL, H., Lectures on the Study of Language (1902). 

OgpeENn, De infinitivi finalis vel consecutivi constr. apud priscos 
poetas Graecos (1913). 

Pauey, Greek Particles and their Combinations (1881). 

Pauuis, A., A Few Notes on the Gospel (1903). 

——, ‘H Νέα Διαθήκη (1902). The N. T. (Gospels) in modern 
Greek vernacular. 

Pater, W., The Renaissance (1904). 

Paut, H., Principles of the History of Language (1888). - Tr. 

PETERSEN, W., Greek Diminutives in --ἰον (1910). 

PrerrauF, Der Artikel vor Personen- und Gétternamen bei Thuk. 
und Herod. (1908). 

PrFisTER, Die parataktische Darstellungsform in der volkstiim- 
lichen Erziihlung (Woch. f. klass. Phil., 1911, pp. 809-813). 

Ph. W., Philologische Wochenschrift. 

Ph. Z., Philologus: Zeitschrift f. ἃ. kl. Alt. (G6ttingen). 

PostTeatTE, J. P., Contrasts of Οὐ and Μή (Cambr. Phil. Jour., 1886). 

PRELLWITZ, Ktym. Worterbuch d. griech. Sprache (1893). 2d ed. 
(1905). 

PREUSCHEN, E., Vollstaindiges griechisch-deutsches Handworter- 
buch zu ioe Schriften d. N. T. und ἃ. iibrigen urchristlichen 
Literatur (1908). 





LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO  xxxiii 


Pr. Rev., The Princeton Review (Princeton). 

Starnes J., Essai sur le grec de la Septante (Rev. sts études 
juives, Apfil, 1908). 

——, Essais de grammaire historique néo-grecque (1886-1889). 

Revanietcaay. L., Neut. Grammatik. Das Griechisch des N. T. 
im Zusammenhang mit der Volkssprache (1911). 

Ramsay, W. M., Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia. 2 vols. (1895, 

1897). 

——, St. Paul the Traveller (1896). 

R. E. , Herzog-Hauck’s Realencyclopidie. 

18 i. Gr., Revue des études grecques (Paris). 

Rerret, Uber den Sprachgebr. d. Agathias. 

Retr, Der Opt. bei Polyb. und Philo (1907). 

Rernacu, §., Pap. grees et démotiques (1905). 

REINHOLD, H., De graecitate Patrum (1898). : 

Rersart, Zur Attraktion der Relativsiitze in der griech. Prosa. 

Kerrzenstein, Geschichte d. griech. Etym. (1897). 

Renavp, The Distributed Emphasis of the Pers. Pronoun (1884). 

Rev. and Exp., The Review and Expositor (Louisville). 

Rev. d. Ling., Revue de Linguistique de la Phil. comparée (Paris). 

Rev. d. Ph., Revue de Philologie (Paris). 

kev. of Th. & Ph., Review of Theology and Philosophy (Edin- 
burgh). 

Rh. M., Rheinisches Museum (Bonn). 

Ripanway, W., The Early Age of Greece. Vol. I (1901). 

RIEMANN and ΘΟΕ ΖΕ, Grammaire Comparée du Gree et du 
Latin. I (1897), II (1901). 

Rins, Was ist Syntax? (1894). 

Roserts, A Short Proof that Greek was the Language of Jesus 
(1893). 

Rosperts-GARDNER, Introduction to Greek Epigraphy (1883). 

Rosertson, A. T. A Short Grammar of the Greek N. T. (1908). 
3d ed. (1912). 

—., Syllabus on N. T. Greek Syntax (1900). 

Rosertson-Bonaccorsi, Breve grammatica del Nuovo Testa- 
mento greco (1910). . 

ROBERTSON-GROSHEIDE, Beknopte Grammatica op het Grieksche 
Nieuwe Testament (1912). 

Rosertson-Mon tet, Grammaire du grec du N. T. (1911). 

RoBertson-StTocks, KurzgefaSte Grammatik des neut. Griechisch 
(1911). 

Ross, A., Christian Greece and Living Greek (1898). 


XXXIV A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


RosssBerG, C., De priipos. graecarum in chartis aegyptiis ptolem. 
aetatis usu (1909). 

Rovurrtac, J., Recherches sur les caractéres du grec dans le N. T. 
d’aprés les inscriptions de Priéne (1911). 

RUTHERFORD, W. G., A Chapter in the History of Annotation 

(1905). 

, The New Phrynichus (1881). 

RicEr, Prip. bei Joh. Antiochenus (1896). 

, Prap. bei Pausanias (1889). 

SanpDay, W., The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel (1905). 

Sanpys, J. E., A History of Classical Scholarship. I-III (1906- 
1908). 

Sayce, A. H., Introduction to the Science of Language (1880). 

—., Language (Encye. Brit., 11th ed., 1910). 

——., Principles of Comparative Philology (1875). 

ScHAEFER, Das Partizip des Aor. bei d. Tragikern (1894). 

ScHaFrr, P., A Companion to the Greek N. T. and Engl. Vers. 
3d ed. (1889). 

Scuanz, M., Beitrige zur histor. Syntax d. griech. Sprache 
(1882—). 

ScHILLING, D., Comm. exeg.-philol. in Hebraism. d. N. T. (1886). 

ScuirRuiTz, ὃ. C., Anleitung zur Kenntnis d. neut. Grundsprache 
(1863). 

ScHLACHTER, Statist. Unters. tiber den Gebr. der Temp. und 
Modi bei einzelnen griech. Schriftst. (1908). 

ScHLAGETER, J., Der Wortschatz d. auferhalb Attikas gefunde- 
nen Inschriften (1912). 

,Zur Laut- und Formenlehre d. auf. Att. gef. attischen Inschr. 

(1908). 

ScHLEICHER, A., Compendium d. vergl. Gr. d. indog. Sprachen. 
4. Aufl. (1876). 

Scumip, J., Uber den gnomischen Aor. des Griech. (1894). 

Scumip, W., Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern. 4 Bde. 
(1887-1897). 

ScumipT, De Articulo in nominibus propiis apud Att. scriptores 
(1890). | 

ScumipT, W., De Flavii Josephi elocutione (1894). 

Scumitt, P., Uber den Ursprung des Substantivsatzes mit Rela- 
tivpartikeln im Griech. (1889). | 

ScHOEMANN, Die Lehre von den Redet. nach den Alten (1862). 

Scuroreper, Uber die form. Untersch. d. Redet. im Griech. und 
Lat. (1874). 











LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO XXXV 


ScuurERER, A., A History of the Jew. P. in the Time of Jesus 
Christ. 5 vols. (1898). Tr. by Macpherson. 

ScHuuzeE, Der schriftsteller. Charakter und Wert des Petrus, Judas 
und Jakobus (1802). 

ScHutzE, W., Graeca Latina (1901). 

ScuwaB, O., Hist. Syntax der griech. Komparative in d. klass. 
Lit. Heft I (1893), II (1894), III (1895). 

ScuweizER, E., Bericht iiber die Forschungen auf dem Gebiet der 
griech. Sprachw. mit Ausschlu8 der Koiné und der Dialekte 
in den Jahren 1890-1903 (Bursian’s Jahresbericht, exx, 1904, 
pp. 1-152). | 

——, Die griech. Sprache in Zeit d. Hellen. (N. Jahrb. f. ΚΙ. Alt., 
1901, vii, viii). 

——, Grammatik der pergamen. Inschriften (1898). 

——, Neugriech. Syntax und altgriech. (N. Jahrb. f. kl. Alt., 1908, 


pp. 498-507). 
SCHWYZER (SCHWEIZER), E., Die Weltsprachen des Altertums 
(1902). 


Scomp, H. A., The Case Absolute in the N. T. (Bibl. Sacra, April, 
1902). | 

Seymour, T. D., Homeric Language and Verse (1902). 

, Life in the Homeric Age (1907). 

—, The Use of the Gk. Aor. Part. (Trans. Am. Phil. Assoc., XII, 
1881, pp. 88 ff.). 

S. H., Sanday and Headlam on Romans. 

SHARP, G., Remarks on the Definitive Article in the Greek of the 
N. T. (1803). 

SHEFFIELD, A. D., Grammar and Thinking (1912). 

Simcox, W. H., The Language of the N. T. (1890). 

, The Writers of the N. T. 

Simonson, A., A Greek Grammar. 2 vols. (1903, 1908). 

Smitu, R. H., The Theory of Conditional Sentences in Greek and 
Latin (1894). 

SmytH, H. W., The Sounds and Inflexions of Greek Dialects. 1, 
Tonic (1894). 

SopgEn, H. von, Die Schriften des N. T. in ihrer altesten erreich- 
baren Textgestalt. Teil I, Untersuch. (1902-1910); Teil IJ, 
Text und Apparat (1913). 

——, Griechisches N. T. Text mit kurzem Apparat (1913). 

SotmseEn, F., Beitrage zur griech. Wortforschung (1909). 

—, Inscriptiones graecae selectae (1905). 

——, Untersuch. zur griech. Laut- und Verslehre (1901). 








XXXV1 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Sopuocues, E. A., Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine 
Period (1888). 

Souter, A., Novum Testamentum Graece (1910). The Revisers’ 
Text with a New Apparatus Criticus. 

SPIEKER, The Gen. Abs. in the Attic Orators (Am. J. of Ph., VI, 
pp. 310-348). 

St. B., Standard Bible Dictionary (id. by M. W. Jacobus, 1909). 

Srau., J. M., Kritisch-historische Syntax des griech. Verbums 
der klass. Zeit. (1907). 

Sraurac, Uber den Gebr. 4. Gen. bei Herodot. 

STEINTHAL, H., Geschichte der Sprachwiss. bei den Griech. und 
Romern. 2. Aufl. (1890-1891). 

—., Introduction to the Psychology and Science of Language 
(1900). 

STERENBOURG, The Use of the Cond. Sentence in the Alex. Ver- 
sion of the Pentateuch (1908). 

SrerRett, J. R. 8., Homer’s Iliad with Grammar (1907). 

Stocks, H., Das neutestamentliche Griechisch im Lichte der mo- 
dernen Sprachforschung (Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift, XXIV. 
Jahrgang, 633-700). 

Srrack, H. L., Grammatik des bibl. Aram. 4. Aufl. (1905). 

Stronc, LogeMan and WHEELER, Introduction to the Study of 
the History of Lang. (1891). 

Sturm, J., Geschichtl. Entwick. der Konstrukt. mit Πρίν (1882). 

STURTEVANT, Studies in Greek Noun Formation (Labial Termi- 
nations, I, 1910; I, 1911; III and IV, 1913). 

SUSEMIHL, Gesch. der griech. Lit. in der Alexandrinerzeit. I (1891), 
IT (1892). 

SUTTERLIN, Gesch. der Verba denom. in Altgriech. (1891). 

SWEET, History of Language (1900). 

Swete, H. B., Introduction to the O. T.in Greek (1900). 2 Ed.,’14. 

, The Apocalypse of St. John (1906). 

——, The O. T. in Greek according to the Septuagint (1887). . 
3 vols. 

SzuczuRAT, De Inf. Hom. Usu (1902). 

Tféury, Chron. und Topogr. der griech. Ausspr. nach d. Zeugnisse 
der Inschr. (1893). 

THACKERAY, H. St., A Grammar of the O. T. in Greek. Vol. I, 
Introduction, Orthography and Accidence (1909). 

——., Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Thought (1900). 

TuHayeEr, J. H., Greek-English Lexicon of the N. T. (1887). 

——, Language of the N. T. (Hastings’ D. B., 1900). 





® 


LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO XXxXvii 


TuEmmer, A., Beitrige zur Kenntnis des Sprachgebr. im N. T. 
(1896). 

Th. L.-Z., Theologische Literaturzeitung (Leipzig). 

Th. R., Theologische Rundschau (Tiibingen). 

Th. St. u. Kr., Theol. Studien und Kritiken (Gotha). 

ΤΉΙΕΜΕ, G., Die Inschr. von Magnesia am Miander und das 
N. T. (1906). 

TuHouuck, Beitrage zur Spracherklairung des N. T. 

Tuompson, E. M., Handbook of Greek and Latin Palzography 
(1893). New ed. (1913). 

Tuompson, F. E., A Syntax of Attic Greek. New ed. (1907). 

Tuomson, J. Τὰ. H., The Language of Palestine during the Time 
of Our Lord (Temple Bible Dict.). 

Tuomson, P., The Greek Tenses in the N. T. (1895). 

THOUVENIN, P., Les Négations dans le N. T. (Revue de Philologie, 
1894), | 

Tuums, A., Die Forsch. tiber die hellen. Spr. in den Jahren 
1902-1904 (Arch. f. Pap. 3, pp. 448-473). 

——,, Die griech. Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus (1901). 

—., Die sprachgesch. Stell. des bibl. Griech. (Theol. Rund., 1902). 

—, Handbuch der griech. Dial. (1909). 

—, Handbuch d. neugriech. Volkssprache. 2. Aufl. (1910). 

—., Handbuch des Sanskrits. I, Grammatik (1905). 

——, Unters. iiber d. Sp. Asper im Griech. (1889). 

Tuums-Anous, Handbook of the Modern Greek Vernacular 
(1912). 

Tiscu., Novum Testamentum Graece, by C. Tischendorf. Edi- 
tio octava critica major. 2 vols. (1869-1872). 

TRENCH, R. C., Synonyms of the N. T. 11th ed. (1890). Deutsche 
Ausgabe von Werner (1907). 

Tsountas and Manatt, The Mycenxan Age (1897). 

Tucker, T. G., Introduction to the Natural History of Language 
(1908). 

VANDACLE, L’Optatif Grec (1897). 

ΨΈΙΤΟΗ, W., Greek Verbs, Irregular and Defective.. 2d ed. (1871). 

Viereck, P., Die griech. Papyruskunde (1899-1905). 34. Jahr- 
gang 1906. III. Abt. (1907). 

——, Die Papyrusliteratur in den 70 Jahren bis 1898 (1900). 

27. Jahrgang 1899. III. Abt. 

, Sermo Graecus quo senatus populusque Romanus (1888). 

VieRKE, De μή Particulae cum Indicativo Conjunctae Usu An- 
tiquiore (1876). 





XXXV1lil A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Vincent and Dickson, A Handbook to Modern Greek (1887). 

ViTEAU, J., Essai sur la syntaxe des voix dans le grec du N. T. 
(Rev. de Phil., 1894). 

--- Etude sur le grec du N. T. I, Le Verbe (1893); II, Le Sujet 
(1896). 

VoceL, H., Zur Charakteristik des Lukas nach Sprache und Stil 
(1899). 

Voerinz, Grammatik d. hom. Dial. (1889). 

VOLKER, F., Papyrorum graecorum syntaxis specimen (1900). 

——, Syntax d. griech. Papyri. I, Der Artikel (1903). 

Votaw, C. W., The Use of the Infinitive in Bibl. Greek (1896). 

WACKERNAGEL, J., Das Dehnungsgesetz der griech. Komposita 
(1889). 

—., Die hellenistische Gemeinsprache. (Die Kult. d. Gegenwart, 
ΤΊ. I, Abt. viii, 1905, pp. 98-305). 

—., Die Sprache des Plut. etc. Teile I, II (1895-1896). 

WacGn_er, R., Questiones de epigrammatis graecis ex lapidibus 
collectis grammaticae (1883). | 

Watcu, Observationes in Matt. ex graecis inscriptionibus (1779). 

WatkeER, D., Elementary Greek Syntax (1897). 

WarrieLp, B. B., An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of 
the N. T. New ed. (1914). 

WaRREN, WINIFRED, A Study of Conjunctional Temporal Clauses 
in Thucyd. (1897). 

WeseEr, P., Entwick. der Absichtssitze. Heft I (1884), Heft II 
(1885). 

WECKLEIN, Curae epigraphicae ad grammaticam graecam et ad 
poetas scenicos pertinentes (1869). 

Weiss, B., Der Gebr. des Artikels bei den Gottesnamen (Th. 

Stu. u. Krit., 1911, pp. 319-392). 

, Textkritik (1894 ff.). 

Weiss, J., Beitrige zur paulinischen Rhetorik (1897). 

WELLHAUSEN, J., Einl. in die drei ersten Evangelien (1905). 
2. Ausg. (1911). 

Wenp.tanp, P., Christentum und Hellenismus (1907). 

, Hellen.-ré6m. Kultur. 3. Aufl. (1912). 

WESSELEY, C., Die lat. Elemente in ἃ. Gricitit d. igypt. Pap. 
(Wien. Stud., xxiv, 1902). 

—, Lit. der Papyruskunde (Stud. zur Paliogr. und Pap. 1, 

100], pp. 17-20; II, 1902, pp. 48-52). 

—, Proleg. ad papyrorum graecorum novam collectionem eden- 

dam (1888). 








LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO ΧΧΧΙΧ 


Westcott, B. F., Language of the N. T. (Smith’s B. D.). 

W. H., Westcott and Horvt’s Edition of the N. T. in the Original 
Greek. .Numerous eds. 

——, The N. T. in the Original Greek. Introduction and Appen- 
dix (1882). 

Weymoutu, On the Rendering into English of the Greek Aorist 
and Perfect (1894). 

WHEELER, B. I., The Whence and the Whither of the Modern 
Science of Language (1905). 

WHIBLEY, L., Companion to Greek Studies (1905). 2d ed. (1906). 

Wuitney, 8. W., The Revisers’ Greek Text. 2 vols. (1892). 

Wuitney, W. D., A Sanskrit Grammar (1891). 4th ed. (1913). 

——., Language and the Study of Language (1867). 

, Life and Growth of Language (1875). 

WILAMOWITZ-MOLLENDORFF, U. von, Die griech. Literatur des 
Altertums (Die Kult. d. Gegenw., 1907, Tl. I, Abt. viii, pp. 
3-238. 3. Aufl. 1912). 

—, Uber die Entstehung der griech. Schriftsprachen (Verf. 
deutscher Phil. und Schulm., 1879, pp. 36-41). 

Witcken, U., Die Forschungen tiber die hellen. Spr. in den 
Jahren 1902-1904 (Archiv f. Pap., 1906, pp. 443-473). 

WILHELM, A., Beitrige zur griech. Inschriftenkunde (1909). 

WILHELMUS, De Modo Irreali qui Vocatur (1881). 

WiLkeE, Neutestamentliche Rhetorik (1843). 

Wiuuiams, C. B., The Participle in the Book of Acts (1908). 

Witson, A. J.,. Emphasis in the N. T. (Jour. of Th. Stud., VIII, 
pp. 75 ff.). 

Winer, G. B., De verborum cum praep. compos. in N. T. Usu 
(1834-1843). 

—, Gramm. d. neut. Sprachidioms (1822). 7. Aufl. von Liine- 
mann (1867). 

Winer-Masson, A Grammar of the N. T. Gk. (1859). 

Winer-Moutton, A Treatise of the Grammar of N. T. Gk. 3d 
ed. (1882). Various eds. 

WINER-SCHMIEDEL, Winer’s Grammatik des neutest. Sprach- 
idioms. 8. Aufl. (1894—). 

Winer-THAYER, A Grammar of the Idiom of the N. T. (1869). 
Various eds. 

WITkowskI, St., Bericht iiber die Lit. zur Koiné aus den Jahren 
1898-1902 (Bursian’s Jahrb. CXX, 1904, pp. 153-256). 
—, Bericht iiber die Lit. zur Koiné aus den Jahren 1903-1906 

(Jahresber. f. Alt., 1912, III. Bd., 159). 





xl A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


WITKOWSKI, ST., Epistulae privatae graecae (1906). 

, Prodromus grammaticae papyrorum graecarum aetatis 
Lagidarum (1897). 

Woch. f. kl. Ph., Wochenschrift fiir klassische Philologie. 

Wricut, J., A Comparative Grammar of the Greek Language 
(1912). 

Wounpt, Volkerpsychologie. 2. Aufl. (1904). 3. Aufl. (1911 f.). 

Youna, Language of Christ (Hastings’ D. C. G.). 

Zaun, Tu., Einl. in das N. T. Bd. I (1906), II (1907). 

——, On the Language of Palestine. Vol. I, pp. 1-72. Introduc- 
tion to the N. T. Tr. by Jacobus (1909). 

ZARNCKE, E., Die Entstehung der griech. Literatursprachen 
(1890). 

ZEITLIN, The Acc. with Inf. and Some Kindred Constrs. in Eng- 
lish (1908). 

ZEZSCHWITZ, Profangric. und bibl. Sprachg. (1859). 

ZIEMER, Vergl. Syntax der indog. Kompar. (1884). 

Z.N.-T. W., Zeitschrift fiir neut. Wissenschaft (GieBen). 








te PART I 
INTRODUCTION ὁ 





CHAPTER I 
NEW MATERIAL 


The Ideal Grammar? Perhaps the ideal grammar of the New 
Testament Greek may never be written. It is a supremely diffi- 
cult task to interpret accurately the forms of human speech, for 
they have life and change with the years. But few themes have 
possessed greater charm for the best furnished scholars of the 
world than the study of language.! 

The language of the N. T. has a special interest by reason of 
the message that it bears. Every word and phrase calls for 
minute investigation where so much is at stake. It is the task 
and the duty of the N. T. student to apply the results of linguistic 
research to the Greek of the N. T. But, strange to say, this has 
not been adequately done.’ 

New Testament study has made remarkable progress in the 
sphere of criticism, history and interpretation, but has lagged 
behind in this department. A brief survey of the literary history 
of the subject shows it. 

I. The Pre-Winer Period. It was Winer who in 1822 made a 
new epoch in N. T. grammatical study by his Newtestamentliches 
Sprachidiom. It is hardly possible for the student of the present 
day to enter into sympathy with the inanities and sinuosities 
that characterized the previous treatises on the N. T. idiom. 
Not alone in the controversy between the Purists and Hebraists 
was this true, but writers like Storr, by a secret system of quid 
pro quo, cut the Gordian knot of grammatical difficulty by ex- 
plaining one term as used for another, one preposition for an- 
other, one case for another, etc. As a university tutor Winer 


1 See J. Classen, De Gr. Graecae Primordiis, 1829, p. 1, who says: ‘‘Inter 
humani ingenii inventa, quae diuturna consuetudine quasi naturae iura adepta 
sunt, nullum fere magis invaluit et pervulgatum est, quam grammaticae ratio 
et usus.”’ 

2 “And despite the enormous advance since the days of Winer toward a 
rational and unitary conception of the N. T. language, we still labour to-day 
under the remains of the old conceptions.”” Samuel Dickey, Prince. Theol. 
Rev., Oct., 1903, ‘“New Points of View.”’ 

3 


4 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


combated “this absurd system of interpretation,’? and not 
without success in spite of receiving some sneers. He had the 
temerity to insist on this order of interpretation: grammatical, 
historical, theological. He adhered to his task and lived to see 
‘an enlightened philology, as deduced and taught by Herrmann 
and his school,”’ triumph over the previous ‘‘unbridled license.’’! 

II. The Service of Winer. 

(a) WINER’S INCONSISTENCIES. It must be said, however, that 
great as was the service of Winer to this science, he did not at all 
points carry out consistently his own principles, for he often ex- 
plained one tense as used for another. He was not able to rise 
entirely above the point of view of his time nor to make persist- 
ent application of the philosophical grammar. It is to be borne 
in mind also that the great science of comparative philology had 
not revolutionized linguistic study when Winer first wrote. In a 
true sense he was a pathfinder. 

(ὁ) Winer Hpocu-MAkiIna.— WINER IN ENGLISH. But none the 
less his work has been the epoch-making one for N. T. study. 
After his death Dr. Gottlieb Liinemann revised and improved the 
Neutestamentliches Sprachidiom. Translations of Winer’s Gram- 
matik into English were first made by Prof. Masson of Edin- 
burgh, then by Prof. Thayer of Harvard (revision of Masson), 
and finally by Prof. W. F. Moulton of Cambridge, who added 
excellent footnotes, especially concerning points in modern Greek. 
The various editions of Winer-Thayer and Winer-Moulton have 
served nearly two generations of English and American scholars. 

(c) ScumreDEL. But now at last Prof. Schmiedel of Ziirich is 
thoroughly revismg Winer’s Grammatik, but it is proceeding 
slowly and does not radically change Winer’s method, though 
use is made of much of the modern knowledge.2 Deissmann,? 
indeed, expresses disappointment in this regard concerning 
Schmiedel’s work as being far ‘‘too much Winer and too little 
Schmiedel.’”’ But Deissmann concedes that Schmiedel’s work 
‘‘marks a characteristic and decisive turning-point in N. T. 
philology.’’ 


1 See Pref. to the sixth and last ed. by Winer himself as translated by Dr. 
J. H. Thayer in the seventh and enlarged ed. of 1869. 

2 Winer’s Gr. des neutest. Sprachid. 8. Aufl. neu bearbeitet von Dr. Paul 
Wilhelm Schmiedel, 1894—. 

3 Die sprachl. Erforsch. der griech. Bibel, 1898, p. 20. He adds, “‘ Der 
alte Winer war seiner Zeit ein Protest des philologischen Gewissens gegen 
die Willkiir eines anmafenden Empiricismus.” Cf. also Exp., Jan., 1908, 
p. 63. 


NEW MATERIAL 5 


(d) BuTtMANN. Buttmann’s Grammatik des neutestamentlichen 
Sprachgebrauchs had appeared in 1859 and was translated by 
Thayer as Buttmann’s Grammar of N.T. Greek (1873), an able work. 

(e) Buass. It is not till the Grammatik des neutestamentlichen 
Griechisch by Prof. Blass in 1896 that any other adequate gram- 
mar appears in this field. And Blass departs a little from tradi- 
tional methods and points of view. He represents a transition 
towards a new era. The translation by H. St. John Thackeray 
has been of good service in the English-speaking world. 

III. The Modern Period. It is just in the last decade that 
it’ has become possible to make a real advance in New Testa- 
ment grammatical study. The discovery and investigation that 
have characterized every department of knowledge have borne 
rich fruit here also. 

(a) DrIssMANN. Deissmann? sees rightly the immensity of the 
task imposed upon the N. T. grammarian by the very richness of 
the new discoveries. He likewise properly condemns the too fre- 
quent isolation of the N. T. Greek from the so-called ‘profane 
Greek.”’* Deissmann has justly pointed out that the terms “pro- 
fane”’ and “biblical” do not stand in linguistic contrast, but 
rather ‘classical’? and ‘“‘biblical.”? Even here he insists on the 
practical identity of biblical with the contemporary later Greek 
of the popular style.‘ | 

It was in 1895 that Deissmann published his Bibelstudien, and 
his Neue Bibelstudien followed in 1897. The new era has now 
fairly begun. In 1901 the English translation of both volumes 
_ by Grieve appeared as Bible Studies. In 1907 came the Philol- 


1 First ed. 1898, second ed. 1905, as Blass’ Gr. of N. T. Gk. A revision 
of the work of Blass (the 4th German edition) by Dr. A. Debrunner has ap- 
peared as these pages are going through the press. 

2 Die sprachl. Erforsch. der griech. Bibel, 1898, p. 5: ‘ Durch neue Erkennt- 
nisse befruchtet steht die griechische Philologie gegenwiirtig im Zeichen einer 
vielverheiBenden Renaissance, die fordert von der sprachlichen Erforschung 
der griechischen Bibel, dafi sie in engste Fiihlung trete mit der historischen 
Erforschung der griechischen Sprache.” 

3 Ib., p. 7. Like, for instance, Zezschwitz, Profangriic. und bibl. Sprachg., 
1859. 

4 Die Spr. der griech. Bibel, Theol. Runds., 1898, pp. 463-472. He aptly 
says: “Nicht die Profangricitit ist der sprachgeschichtliche Gegensatz zur 
‘biblischen,’ sondern das classische Griechisch. Die neueren Funde zur Ge- 
schichte der griechischen Sprache zeigen, daf die Higentiimlichkeiten des 
‘biblischen’ Formen- und Wortschatzes (bei den original-griechischen Schrif- 
ten auch der Syntax) im grofen und ganzen Higentiimlichkeiten des spiteren 
und zwar zumeist des unliterarischen Griechisch iiberhaupt sind.” 


6 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ogy of the Bible. His Licht vom Osten (1908) was his next most 
important work (Light from the Ancient East, 1910, translated 
by Strachan). See Bibliography for full list of his books. The 
contribution of Deissmann is largely in the field of lexicography. 

(b) THums. It was in 1901 that A. Thumb published his great 
book on the κοινή, Die griechische Sprache im Zertalter des Hel- 
lenismus, which has done so much to give the true picture of the 
xown. He had already in 1895 produced his Handbuch der neu- 
griechischen Volkssprache. In 1912 the second enlarged edition 
was issued in English by 8. Angus, as Handbook of Modern 
Greek Vernacular. This book at once took front place for the 
study of the modern Greek by English students. It is the only 
book in English that confines itself to the vernacular. 

(c) Moutton. In 1895, J. H. Moulton, son of W. F. Moulton, 
the translator of Winer, produced his Introduction to N. T. 
Greek, in a noble linguistic succession. In 1901 he began to pub- 
lish in The Classical Review and in The Expositor, ‘‘Grammatical 
Notes from the Papyri,” which attracted instant attention by 
their freshness and pertinency. In 1906 appeared his now famous 
Prolegomena, vol. I, of A Grammar of N. T. Greek, which 
reached the third edition by 1908. With great ability Moulton 
took the cue from Deissmann and used the papyri for grammatical 
purposes. He demonstrated that the Greek of the N. T. is in 
the main just the vernacular κοινή of the papyri. In 1911 the 
Prolegomena appeared in German as Einleitung in die Sprache des 
Neuen Testaments. 

(d) OTHER ConTRIBUTIONS. It is not possible to mention here 
all the names of the workers in the field of N. T. grammar (see 
Bibliography). The old standpoint is still found in the books of 
Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek (1889); Hoole, The Classical Ele- 
ment in the N. T. (1888); Simcox, The Language of the N. T. 
(1890); Schaff, A Companion to the Greek Testament and English 
Version (1889); Viteau, Htude sur le grec du N. T.— Le Verbe 
(1893); Le Sujet (1896). The same thing is true of Abbott’s Jo- 
hannine Vocabulary (1905) and Johannine Grammar (1906); Bur- 
ton’s Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the N. T. Greek (1888, 
third ed. 1909) is yet a genuine contribution. In Kennedy’s 
Sources of N. T. Greek (1895) we see a distinct transition toward 
the new era of N. T. grammar. In 1911 Radermacher’s Neu- 
testamentliche Grammatik is in fact more a grammar of the κοινή 
than of the N. T., as it is designed to be an Hinleitung. The au- 
thor’s Short Grammar of the Greek N. T. (1908) gives the new 


NEW MATERIAL 7 


knowledge in a succinct form. The Italian translation (1910) by 
Bonaccorsi has additional notes by the translator. Stocks (1911) 
made numerous additions to the Laut- wnd Formenlehre of the 
German edition. Grosheide in the Dutch translation (1912) has 
made a revision of the whole book. The French edition (1911) 
by Montet is mainly just a translation. The third enlarged edi- 
tion in English appeared in 1912. Many special treatises of 
great value have appeared (see Bibliography), by men like Angus, 
Buttmann, Heinrici, Thieme, Vogel, Votaw, J. Weiss, Wellhausen. 

(ὁ) RicuNEss oF Matertau. Now indeed it is the extent of 
the material demanding examination that causes embarrassment. 
And only thirty years ago K. Krumbacher! lamented that it was 
not possible to give ‘““a comprehensive presentation of the Greek 
language’’ because of the many points on which work must be 
done beforehand. But we have come far in the meantime. The 
task is now possible, though gigantic and well-nigh insurmount- 
able. But it is not for us moderns to boast because of the material 
that has come to our hand. We need first to use it. Dieterich? 
has well said that the general truth that progress is from error to 
truth ‘finds its confirmation also in the history of the develop- 
ment that the Greek language has received in the last two thou- 
sand years.’’ By the induction of a wider range of facts we can 
eliminate errors arising from false generalizations. But this is a 
slow process that calls for patience. Dionysius Thrax,’ one of the 
Alexandrian fathers of the old Greek grammar (circa 100 B.c.), 
sald: Γραμματική ἐστιν ἐμπειρία τῶν Tapa ποιηταῖς τε Kal συγγρα- 
φεῦσιν ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ λεγομένων. Andrew Lang‘ indeed is a dis- 
ciple of Dionysius Thrax in one respect, for he contends that 
students are taught too much grammar and too little language. 
They know the grammars and not the tongue. A bare outline 
can be given of the sources of the new material for such gram- 
matical study. 


1 Beitr. zu einer Gesch. der griech. Spr., Kuhn’s Zeits. fiir vergl. Sprach- 
forsch., 1882, p. 484: ‘Eine zusammenhingende Darstellung des Entwick- 
lungsganges der griechischen Sprache ist gegenwirtig nicht méglich. Auf 
allzu vielen Punkten eines langen und viel verschlungenen Weges gebricht 
es an den Vorarbeiten, welche fiir ein solehes Unternehmen unerliflich sind.” 

2 Unters. zur Gesch. der griech. Spr. von der hell. Zeit bis zum 10. Jahrh. 
n. Chr., 1898, p. x. 

3 As quoted in Bekker, Anec. Graeca (1816), vol. II, p. 629. Dionysius 
Thrax mentions six μέρη in grammar: ἀνάγνωσις, ἐξήγησις, γλωσσῶν τε Kal ἱστο- 
ριῶν πρόχειρος ὑπόδοσις, ἐτυμολογίας εὕρησις, ἀναλογίας ἐκλογισμός, κρίσις ποι- 
ἡμάτων. A generous allowance truly! 4 Morning Post, Lond., May 5, 1905. 


8 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


IV. The New Grammatical Equipment for N. T. Study. 

(a) COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY. We must consider the great ad- 
vance in comparative philology. The next chapter will deal 
somewhat at length with various phases of the historical method 
of linguistic study. 

1. The Linguistic Revolution. A revolution has been wrought 
in the study of language. It must be confessed that grammatical 
investigation has not always been conducted on the inductive 
principle nor according to the historical method. ‘Too often the 
rule has been drawn from a limited range of facts. What is 
afterwards found to conflict with a rule is called an “exception.” 
Soon the exceptions equal or surpass the rule. Unfortunately the 
ancients did not have the benefit of our distinctions of “regular” 
and ‘irregular.’ Metaphysical speculation with lofty superi- 
ority to the facts is sometimes charged upon grammarians.! 
“Grammar and logic do not coincide.” Comparative grammar’ 
is merely the historical method applied to several languages to- 
gether instead of only one.’ 

2. A Sketch of Greek ΟΝ, History. The Greek has 
had its own history, but it is related to the history of kindred 
tongues. ‘‘From the days of Plato’s Kratylus downward ... the 
Greek disputed as to whether language originated by convention 
(νόμῳ) or by nature (dtce).’’* Indeed formal Greek: grammar 
was the comparison with the Latin and began “with Dionysius 
Thrax, who utilized the philological lucubrations of Aristotle and 
the Alexandrian critics for the sake of teaching Greek to the sons 
of the aristocratic contemporaries of Pompey at Rome.’> His 
Greek grammar is still in existence in Bekker’s Anecdota,® and is 
the cause of much grotesque etymology since.” 

This period of grammatical activity came after the great crea- 
tive period of Greek literature was over, and in Alexandria, not 


1 So Dr. John H. Kerr, sometime Prof. of N. T. in the Pac. Theol. Sem., 
in conversation with me. 2 Paul, Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., 1888, p. 18. 

3 Ib., pp. 1ff. So Oertel, Lect. on the Study of Lang., 1901, Ὁ. 42, 
“Comparative grammar in Schleicher’s sense is in its essence nothing but 
historical grammar by the comparative method.”’ 

4 Sayce, Prin. of Comp. Philol., 1875, p. 259 f. 

5 .Ib., p. 261, 6 Op. cit., pp. 629-648. 

7 See Sayce, Intr. to the Sci. of Lang., 1880, vol. I, p. 19 f.; Dionysius 
Thrax’s τέχνη γραμματική was developed into a system by Apollonius Dysco- 
lus (ii/A.D.) and his son Herodian. Dionysius Thrax was born B.c. 166. Dys- 
colus wrote a systematic Gk. Syntax of accentuation in 20 books (known to 
us only in epitome) about 200 a.p. 


NEW MATERIAL 9 


in Athens. Rhetoric was scientifically developed by Aristotle 
long before there was a scientific syntax. Aristotle perfected log- 
ical analysis of style before there was historical grammar.? With 
Aristotle ὁ γραμματικός was one that busied himself with the let- 
ters (γράμματα). He was not ἀγράμματος; ἡ γραμματική then had 
to do with the letters and was exegetical.’ Plato does not treat 
grammar, though the substantive and the adjective are distin- 
guished, but only dialectics, metaphysics, logic.t The Stoic gram- 
marians, who succeeded Plato and Aristotle, treated language from 
the logical standpoint and accented its psychological 51:46. So 
the Alexandrian grammarians made γραμματική more like κριτική. 
They got hold of the right idea, though they did not attain the 
true historical method.® 

Comparative grammar was not wholly unknown indeed to the 
ancients, for the Roman grammarians since Varro made a com- 
parison between Greek and Latin words.’ The Roman writers 
on grammar defined it as the ‘‘scientia recte loquendi et scri- 
bendi,’’* and hence came nearer to the truth than did the Alex- 
andrian writers with their Stoic philosophy and exegesis. It has 
indeed been a hard struggle to reach the light in grammar.? But - 
Roger Bacon in this “blooming time” saw that it was necessary 
for the knowledge of both Greek and Latin to compare them.’ 
And Bernhardy in 1829 saw that there was needed a grammatico- 
historical discussion of syntax because of the ‘‘distrust of the 
union of philosophy with grammar." We needed ‘“‘the view- 

1 See Jebb in Whibley’s Comp. to Gk. Stud., 1905, p. 147 f. 

2 See Steinthal, Gesch. der Sprachw. bei den Griech. und Rém., 2. TL, 
1891, p. 179. 

3 Τὶ, Hoffmann, Uber die Entwickelung des Begriffs der Gr. bei den Alten, 
1891, p. 1. 

4 Ib., p. 144. The early Gk. grammarians were ‘ohne richtiges historisches 
Bewuftsein” (Steinthal, Gesch. der Sprachw. etc., 1. Tl., 1863, p. 89). Even 
in Plato’s Kratylus we do not see “‘das Ganze in seiner Ganzheit”’ (p. 40). 

5 Ib., p. 277f. For a good discussion of Dion. Thr. see Jannaris, Hist. 
GE: Gr., p. 34 f. 

6 See Kretschmer, Einl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1896, p. 1. 

7 See Kretschmer, op. cit., p. 4. 

8 I’. Blass, Hermen. und Krit., 1892, p. 157 f. 

9 Steinthal, Gesch. etc., 2. Tl. 1891, p. 1, calls this time of struggle ‘‘ihre 
Bliitezeit.” ἢ 

10 Roger Bacon, Oxford Gk. Gr., edited by Nolan and Hirsch, 1902, p. 27: 
“Et in hac comparatione Grammaticae Graecae ad Latinam non solum est 
necessitas propter intelligendam Grammaticam Graecam, sed omnino neces- 


sarium est ad intelligentiam Latinae Grammaticae.”’ 
11 Wissensch. Synt. der griech. Spr., 1829, pp. 7, 12. 


10 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


point of the historical Syntax.’”’ Humboldt is quoted by Oertel! 
as saying: ‘Linguistic science, as I understand it, must be based 
upon facts alone, and this collection must be neither one-sided 
nor incomplete.’’ So Bopp conceived also: ‘‘A grammar in the 
higher scientific sense of the word must be both history and 
natural science.” This is not an unreasonable demand, for it is 
made of every other department of science.? 

3. The Discovery of Sanskrit. It is a transcendent fact which 
has revolutionized grammatical research. The discovery of San- 
skrit by Sir William Jones is what did it. In 1786 he wrote thus?: 
“The Sanskrit language, whatever may be its antiquity, is of 
wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious 
than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either; yet 
bearing to both of them’‘a stronger affinity, both in the roots of 
verbs and the forms of grammar, than could have been produced 
by accident; so strong that no philologer could examine all the 
three without believing them to have sprung from some common 
source which no longer exists. There is a similar reason, though 
not so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and the Celtic, 
though blended with a different idiom, had the same origin with 
the Sanskrit.”” He saw then the significance of his own discovery, 
though not all of it, for the Teutonic tongues, the Lithuanian 
and Slav group of languages, the Iranian, Italic, Armenian and 
Albanian belong to the same Aryan, Indo-Germanic or Indo- 
European family as it is variously called. 

4. From Bopp to Brugmann. But Bopp? is the real founder of 
comparative philology. Before Bopp’s day “‘in all grammars the 
mass of ‘irregular’ words was at least as great as that of the 
‘regular’ ones, and a rule without exception actually excited 
suspicion.’”’®> Pott’s great work laid the foundation of scientific 
phonetics.6 Other great names in this new science are W. von 


1 Lect. on the Study of Lang., 1901, p. 47. | 

2 See C. Herrmann, Philos. Gr., 1858, p. 422: ‘‘Die Natur der philoso- 
phischen Grammatik war von Anfang an bestimmt worden als die eine 
Grenzwissenschaft zwischen Philosophie und Philologie.’”? But it is a more 
objective task now. 

3 Cf. Benfey, Gesch. der Sprachw., p. 348. ‘This brilliant discovery, de- 
clared in 1786, practically lies at the root of all linguistic science.” J. H. 
Moulton, Sci. of Lang., 1903, p. 4. 

4 See his Vergl. Gr., 1857. He began publication on the subject in 
1816. 

5 Delbriick, Intr. to the Study of Lang., 1882, p. 25. 

68 Ktym. Forsch. auf dem Gebiet der indoger. Spr., 1833-1836. 


NEW MATERIAL 11 


Humboldt,! Jacob Grimm,? Schlegel,* Schleicher,4 Max Miiller,® 
Curtius,® Verner,’ Whitney,’ L. Meyer.® 

But in recent years two men, K. Brugmann and B. Delbriick, 
have organized the previous knowledge into a great monumental 
work, Grundri& der vergleichenden Grammatik der windogerma- 
nischen Sprachen. This achievement is as yet the high-water- 
mark in comparative grammar. Brugmann has issued a briefer 
and cheaper edition giving the main results."! Delbriick has also a 
brief treatise on Greek syntax in the light of comparative gram- 
mar,!? while Brugmann has applied comparative philology to the 
Laut- und Formenlehre of Greek grammar.” In the Grundrif 
Brugmann has Bde. I, II, while Delbriick treats syntax in Bde. 
III-V. In the new edition Brugmann has also that part of the 
syntax which is treated in Vol. III and IV of the first edi- 
tion. The best discussion of comparative grammar for begin- 
ners is the second edition of P. Giles’s Manual.“ Hatzidakis 
successfully undertakes to apply comparative grammar to the 
modern Greek.& Riemann and Goelzer have made an exhaustive 
comparison of the Greek and Latin languages.!® There are, in- 
deed, many interesting discussions of the history and principles 
growing out of all this linguistic development, such as the works 


1 Always mentioned by Bopp with reverence. 

2 Deutsche Gr., 1822. Author of Grimm’s law of the interchange of let- 
ters. Next to Bopp in influence. 

8. Indische Bibl. 

4 Vergl. Gr. der indoger. Spr., 1876, marks the next great advance. 

5 Lect. on the Sci. of Lang., 1866. He did much to popularize this study. 

6 His most enduring work is his Prin. of Gk. Etym., vols. I, I, fifth ed., 
1886. 

7 The discovery of Verner’s law, a variation from Grimm’s law, according 
to which p, ¢ and k, pass into ὃ, d and g, instead of f, th and kh when not im- 
mediately followed by the word-accent. 

_ 8 Life and Growth of Lang., 1875; Sans. Gr., 1892, etc. 

® Vergl. Gr., 1865. 

10 Bd. I-V, Ist ed. 1886-1900; 2d ed. 1897—-; cf. also Giles-Hertel, Vergl. 
Gr., 1896. 

1 Kurze vergl. Gr., 1902-1904. 

22 Die Grundl. der griech. Synt., 1879. 

13 Griech. Gr., 1900, 3. Aufl.; 4. Aufl., 1918, by Thumb. See also G. Meyer, 
Griech. Gr., 3. verm. Aufl., 1896. 

M4 A Short Man. of Comp. Philol., 1901. 

16 inl. in die neugr. Gr., 1892. 

16 Gr. comparée du Gree et du Lat.: Syntaxe, 1897; Phonétique et Etude 
de Formes, 1901. Cf. also King and Cookson’s Prin. of Sound and Inflexion 
as illustrated in the Gk. and Lat. Lang., 1888. 


12 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


of Jolly,! Delbriick,? Sweet,? Paul,* Oertel,> Moulton,® Whit- 
ney,’ Max Miiller,? Sayce.’ It is impossible to write a grammar 
of the Greek N. T. without taking into consideration this new 
conception of language. No language lives to itself, and least of 
all the Greek of the N. T. in the heart of the world-empire.’ It 
is not necessary to say that until recently use of this science had 
not been made by N. T. grammars.!! * 

(b) ADVANCE IN GENERAL GREEK GRAMMAR. There has been 
great advance in the study of general Greek grammar. The 
foundations laid by Crosby and Kihner, Kriiger, Curtius, Butt- 
mann, Madvig, Jelf and others have been well built upon by 
Hadley, Goodwin, Gildersleeve, Gerth, Blass, Brugmann, G. 
Meyer, Schanz, Hirt, Jannaris, etc. To the classical student this 
catalogue of names” is full of significance. The work of Kiihner 
has been thoroughly revised and improved in four massive vol- 
umes by Blass and Gerth,'* furnishing a magnificent apparatus 
for the advanced student. Hirt’s handbook" gives the modern 
knowledge in briefer form, a compendium of comparative gram- 
mar, while G. Meyer!® and Brugmann’’ are professedly on the 


1 Schulgr. und Sprachw., 1874. 

2 Intr. to the Study of Lang., 1882; 5th Germ. ed. 1908. Uber die 
Resultate der vergl. Synt., 1872. Cf. Wheeler, The Whence and Whither of 
the Mod. Sci. of Lang., 1905; Henry, Précis de gr. du grec et du latin, 5th 


ed., 1894. 8. The Hist. of Lang., 1899. 
4 Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., 1888; 4th Germ. ed. 1909. 
5 Lect. on the Study of Lang., 1901. 6 The Sci. of Lang., 1903. 


7 Lang. and the Study of Lang., 1867. 

8 Three Lect. on the Sci. of Lang., 1891. 9 Prin. of Comp. Philol., 1875. 

10 By ‘die historische Sprachforschung”’ the Gk. tongue is shown to be a 
member of the Indo-Germanic family; thus is gained ‘‘der sprachgeschicht- 
liche Gesichtspunkt,” and then is gained ‘ein wesentlich richtiges Verstiind- 
nis... fiir den Entwicklungsgang der Sprache.’”’?’ Brugmann, Griech. Gr., 
1885, p. 4. Cf. p. 3 in third ed., 1901. 

11 See J. H. Moulton’s Prol. to the N. T. Gk. Gr., 1906, and A. T. Robert- 
son’s N. T. Syll., 1900, and Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., 1908. 

12 The late G. N. Hatzidakis contemplated a thesaurus of the Gk. language, 
~ but his death cut it short. 

13 Ausfiihrl. Gr. der griech. Spr. von Dr. Raphael Kiihner, 1. Tl.: Elemen- 
tar- und Formenlehre, Bd. I, II. Besorgt von Dr. Friedrich Blass, 1890, 1892. 

4 ΤΌ., 2. ΤΊ. : Satzlehre, Bd. I, II. Besorgt von Dr. Bernhard Gerth, 1898, 
1904. . 
18 Handb. der griech. Laut- und Formenlehre, 1902, 1. Aufl.; 2. Aufl., 1912. 

16 Griech. Gr., 3. Aufl., 1896. i 

17 Tb., 1900; 4. Aufl., 1918, by Thumb; 3d ed. quoted in this book. And 
now (1912) Wright has given in English a Comp. Gr. of the Gk. Lang. 


NEW MATERIAL 13 


basis of comparative philology.  Jannaris! is the first fairly suc- 
cessful attempt to present in one volume the survey of the prog- 
ress of the language as a whole. Schanz? makes a much more 
ambitious undertaking and endeavours in a large number of mono- 
graphs to furnish material for a future historical grammar. Gil- 
dersleeve® has issued only two volumes of his work, while the 
grammars of Hadley-Allen and Goodwin are too well known to 
call for remark. New grammars, like I’. EH. Thompson’s (1907, 
new ed.) and Simonson’s (2 vols., 1903, 1908), continue to appear. 

(c) CriticAL Eiprrions oF GREEK AuTHOoRsS. The Greek authors 
in general have received minute and exhaustive investigation. The 
modern editions of Greek writers are well-nigh ideal. Careful 
and critical historical notes give the student all needed, sometimes 
too much, aid for the illumination of the text. The thing most 
lacking is the reading of the authors and, one may add, the study 
of the modern Greek. Butcher* well says ‘‘Greek literature is 
the one entirely original literature of Europe.” Homer, Aris- 
totle, Plato, not to say Auschylus, Sophocles and Euripides are 
still the modern masters of the intellect. Translations are better ἢ 
than nothing, but can never equal the original. The Greek lan- 
guage remains the most perfect organ of human speech and 
largely because “they were talkers, whereas we are readers.’’® 
They studied diligently how to talk.® 

(d) Works on INDIvipDUAL Writers. In nothing has the ten- 
dency to specialize been carried further than in Greek grammatical 
research. The language of Homer, Thucydides, Herodotus, the 
tragic poets, the comic writers, have all called for minute investi- 


1 An Hist. Gk. Gr., chiefly of the Att. Dial., 1897. Cf. also Wackernagel, 
Die griech. Spr. (pp. 291-318), Tl. I, Abt. VIII, Kultur der Gegenw. 

2 Beitr. zur histor. Synt. der griech. Spr., Tl. I. Cf. also Hiibner, Grundr. 
zur Vorlesung iiber die griech. Synt., 1883. A good bibliography. Krum- 
bacher, Beitr. zu einer Gesch. der griech. Spr., Kuhn’s Zeitschr. etc., 1885, 
pp. 481-545. 

3 Synt. of Class. Gk., 1900, 1911. 

4 Harv. Lect. on Gk. Subj., 1904, p. 129. See also Butcher, Some Aspects 
of the Gk. Genius, 1893, p. 2: “Greece, first smitten with the passion for 
truth, had the courage to put faith in reason, and, in following its guidance, 
to take no account of consequences.’ So p. 1: “ΤῸ see things as they really 
are, to discern their meanings and adjust their relations was with them an 
instinct and a passion.” 5 Ib., p. 208. 

6 See Bernhardy, Griech. Lit., Tl. I, IJ, 1856; Christ, Gesch. der griech. 
Lit. bis auf die Zeit Justinians, 4. revid. Aufl., 1905; 5. Aufl., 1908 ff. Far- 
nell, Gk. Lyric Poetry, 1891, etc. A. Croiset and M. Croiset, An Abr, Hist. 
of Gk. Lit., transl. by Heffelbower, 1904. 


14 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


gation,! and those of interest to N. T. students are the mono- 
graphs on Polybius, Josephus, Plutarch, etc. The concordances 
of Plato, Aristotle, etc., are valuable. The Apostolic Fathers, 
Greek Christian Apologists and the Apocryphal writings illus- 
trate the tendencies of N. T. speech. Cf. Reinhold, De Graec. 
Patr. Apost. (1898). The universities of America and Europe 
which give the Ph.D. degree have produced a great number of 
monographs on minute points like the use of the preposition in 
Herodotus, etc. These all supply data of value and many of 
them have been used in this grammar. Dr. Mahaffy,? indeed, is 
impatient of too much specialism, and sometimes in linguistic 
study the specialist has missed the larger and true conception of 
the whole. 

(ὁ) THe Greek Inscriptions. The Greek inscriptions speak 
with the voice of authority concerning various epochs of the lan- 
guage. Once we had to depend entirely on books for our knowl- 
edge of the Greek tongue. There is still much obscurity, but it 
is no longer possible to think of Homer as the father of Greek 
nor to consider 1000 B.c. as the beginning of Greek culture. The 
two chief names in epigraphical studies are those of August 
Boeckh (Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum) and Theodor Momm- 
sen (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum). For a careful review of 
“the Nature of the New Texts” now at our service in the in- 
scriptions see Deissmann, Light, etc., pp. 10-20. See W. H. P. 
Hatch’s article (Jour. of Bibl. Int., 1908, pp. 134-146, Part 2) 
on “Some Illustrations of N. T. Usage from Greek Inscriptions 
of Asia Minor.” Cf. also Thieme, Die Inschriften von Magnesia 
am Mdander und das Neue Test. (1906), and Rouffiac, Recherches 
sur les Caractéres du Grec dans le N. T. d’aprés les Inscriptions 
de Priéne (1911). Deissmann, op. cit., p. 18, thinks that ἀγά[πη]ν 
is rightly restored in a pagan inscription in Pisidia of the imperial 
period. For the Christian inscriptions see Deissmann, op. cit., 
p. 19. Schliemann’ has not only restored the story of Troy to 
the reader of the historic past, but he has revealed a great civi- 


1 Cf., for instance, Die Spr. des Plut. etc., ΤΊ. I, II, 1895, 1896; Krebs, Die - 
Prapositionen bei Polybius, 1881; Goetzeler, Einfl. des Dion. Hal. auf die 
Sprachgesch. etc., 1891; Schmidt, De Flavii Josephi eloc. observ. crit., 1894; 
Kaelker, Quest. de Eloc. Polyb. ete. 

2 “A herd of specialists is rising up, each master of his own subject, but 
absolutely ignorant and careless of all that is going on around him in kindred 
studies.”” Survey of Gk. Civilization, 1897, p. 3. 

3 Mycenz and Tiryns, 1878. 


NEW MATERIAL 15 


lization at Mycene.! Homer stands at the close of a long ante- 
cedent history of linguistic progress, and once again scholars are 
admitting the date 850 or even 1000 B.c. for his poems as well as 
their essential unity, thus abandoning Wolff’s hypothesis.2, They 
have been driven to this by the abundant linguistic testimony 
from the inscriptions from many parts of Greece. So vast is this 
material that numerous grammatical discussions have been made 
concerning the inscriptions, as those by Roehl,*? Kretschmer,‘ 
Lautensach,®> Rang,® Meisterhans,’ Schweizer,’ Viteau,® Wagner,!® 
Nachmanson,!" etc. 

These inscriptions are not sporadic nor local, but are found in 
Egypt, in Crete, in Asia Minor, the various isles of the 568,12 in 
Italy, in Greece, in Macedonia, ete. Indeed Apostolides! seems 
to show that the Greeks were in Egypt long before Alexander 
the Great founded Alexandria. The discoveries of Dr. A. J. 


1 See also Tsountas and Manatt, The Mycenzan Age, 1897. 

2 Ridgeway (Early Age of Greece, vol. I, 1901, p. 635) says that the methods 
applied to dissection of the Iliad and the Odyssey would pick to pieces the 
Paradise Lost and The Antiquary. ‘‘The linguistic attack upon their age 
may be said to have at last definitely failed.”’ (T. W. Allen, Cl. Rev., May, 
1906, p. 193.) Lang, Homer and His Age (1906), advocates strongly the 


unity of the Homeric poems. 3 Inser. Graecae Antiq., 1882. 
4 Die griech. Vaseninschr. und ihre Spr., 1894. 
5 Verbalfl. der att. Inschr., 1887. 6. Antiquités hellén., 1842. 


7 Gr. der att. Inschr., 3. Aufl. von E. Schwyzer, 1900. 

8 Gr. der perg. Inschr., 1898. 

9 La decl. dans les inser. att. de l’Empire, 1895. 

10 Quest. de epigram. Graecis, 1883. 

11 TLaute und Formen der magn. Inschr., 1903; cf. also Solmsen, Inscr. 
Graecae ad illustr. Dial. sel.; Audollent, Defix. Tabellae, 1904; Michel, Rec. 
d’inser. Graec., 1883; Dittenberger, Or. Graeci Inscr. Sel., 1903-1905; Roberts- 
Gardner, Intr. to Gk. Epigr., 1888. See Bibliography. Cf. especially the 
various volumes of the Corpus Inscr. Graecarum. 

12 As, for example, Paton and Hicks, The Inscr. of Cos, 1891; Kern, Die 
Inschr. von Magn., 1900; Girtingen, Inschr. von Priene, 1906; Giirtingen 
and Paton, Inscr. Maris Aegaei, 1903; Letronne, Rec. des inser. lat. et grec. 
de l’Egypte, 1842. As early as 1779 Walch made use of the inscriptions for 
the N. T. Gk. in his Observationes in Matt. ex graecis inscriptionibus. Cf. 
also the works of E. L. Hicks, Lightfoot, Ramsay. 

13 Hssai sur l’Hellénisme Egypt., 1908, p. vi. He says: ‘‘Les découvertes 
récentes des archéologues ont dissipé ces illusions. Des ruines de Naucratis, 
de Daphné, de Gurob, et de |’Illahoun (pour ne citer que les localités dans 
lesquelles les recherches ont donné le plus de résultats) est sortie toute une 
nouvelle Gréce; une Gréce antérieure aux Ramsés . . .; et, si les recherches se 
continuent, on ne tardera pas, nous en sommes convaincus, ἃ acquérir la 
certitude que les Grees sont aussi anciens en Egypte qu’en Gréce méme.” 


16 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Evans in Crete have pushed back the known examples of Greek 
a thousand years or more. The linear script of Knossos, Crete, 
may be some primitive form of Greek 500 years before the first 
dated example of Phoenician writing. The civilization of the 
Hellenic race was very old when Homer wrote, — how old no 
one dares say.! For specimens of the use of the inscriptions see 
Buck’s Introduction to the Study of the Greek Dialects (Gram- 
mar, Selected Inscriptions, Glossary), 1910. . 

(f) FuLLER KNOWLEDGE OF THE D1ALects. The new knowledge 
of the other dialects makes it possible to form a juster judgment 
of the relative position of the Attic. There has been much confu- 
sion on this subject and concerning the relation of the various 
Greek races. It now seems clear that the Pelasgians, Achzans, 
Dorians were successively dominant in Greece.? Pelasgian ap- 
pears to be the name for the various pre-Achzan tribes, and it 
was the Pelasgian tribe that made Mycenz glorious.* Homer 
sings the glories of the Achzans who displaced the Pelasgians, 
while “‘the people who play a great part in later times — Dorians, 
/Kolians, Ionians—are to Homer little more than names.’’4 
The Pelasgian belonged to the bronze age, the Achzan to the 
iron age The Pelasgians may have been Slavs and kin to the 
Etruscans of Italy. The Achsans were possibly Celts from 
northern Europe.’ The old Ionic was the base of the old Attic.” 
This old Ionic-Attic was the archaic Greek tongue, and the 
choruses in the Attic poets partly represent artificial literary 
Doric. There was not a sharp division’ between the early dia- 
lects owing to the successive waves of population “sweeping over 
the country. There were numerous minor subdivisions in the 
dialects (as the Arcadian, Boeotian, Northwest, Thessalian, etc.) 
due to the mountain ranges, the peninsulas, the islands, etc., 
and other causes into which we cannot enter. For a skilful at- 
tempt at grouping and relating the dialects to each other see 
Thumb’s Handbuch, p. 54f. The matter cannot be elaborated 
here (see ch. 111}. But the point needs to be emphasized that 


A. J. Evans, Ann. Rep. of the Smiths. Inst., p. 436. 

See Ridgeway, The Early Age of Greece, vol. I, p. 84. 

Ib., p. 293. For the contribution of the dialects to the κοινή see ch. III. 
Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., 1901, p. 526. 5 Ib., p. 406. 
Ridgeway, op. cit., vol. I, p. 337. 7 Ib., pp. 666-670. 

8 Hoffmann, Die griech. Dial., Bd. I, p. 7. A more recent treatment of the 
dialects is Thumb’s Handb. der griech. Dial. (1909), which makes use of all 
the recent discoveries from the inscriptions. On the mixing of the dialects 
see Thumb, p. 61 f. 


δ -» SBS NH μ» 


NEW MATERIAL 14 


the literary dialects by no means represent the linguistic history 
of Greece itself and still less that of the islands and other colonies 
(ef. Buck’s Greek Dialects, p. 1). The blending of these dialects 
into the κοινή was not complete as we shall see! “Of dialects the 
purest Hellenic is Dorian, preserved in religious odes, — pure be- 
cause they kept aloof from their subjects. The next is the AXolic, 
preserved in lyric odes of the Lesbian school. The earliest to be 
embodied in literature was Ionic, preserved in epic poems. The 
most perfect is Attic, the language of drama, philosophy and 
oratory. This arose out of the Ionic by introducing some of 
the strength of Doric-Aolic forms without sacrificing the sweet 
smoothness of Ionic.” In general concerning the Greek dialects 
one may consult the works of Meister,’ Ridgeway,’ Hoffmann,°® 
Thumb,* Buck,’ Boisacq,® Pezzi,® etc. 

(σὺ THe Papyri AND Ostraca. Thiersch in 1841 had pointed 
out the value of the papyri for the study of the LXX in his De 
Pentateuchi versione Alexandrina, but nobody thought it worth 
while to study the masses of papyri in London, Paris and Ber- 
lin for the N. T. language. Farrar (Messages of the Books, 1884, 
p. 151) noted the similarity of phrase between Paul’s correspon- 
dence and the papyri in the Brit. Mus. “Ν. T. philology is at 
present undergoing thorough reconstruction; and probably all the 
workers concerned, both on the continent and in English-speaking 
countries, are by this time agreed that the starting-point for the 
philological investigations must be the language of the non-literary 
papyri, ostraca, and inscriptions” (Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 55). 
The κοινή is now rich in material for the study of the vernacular 
or popular speech as opposed to the book language. This distinc- 
tion belongs to all languages which have a literature and to all 
periods of the language. It is particularly true of the modern 


1 See Dieterich, Die Kow7 und die heut. kleinasiat. Mundarten-Unters. zur 
Gesch. etc., pp. 271-310. Cf. Chabert, Hist. sommaire des ét. d’épigr. grecque, 
1906. 

2 MS. Notes on Gk. Gr. by H. H. Harris, late Prof. of Gk. at Richmond 
College. 

8 Griech. Dial., Bd. I, 1882, Bd. II, 1889; cf. Hicks, Man. of Gk. Hist. 
Inser., 1888. 4 Op. cit.. 

5 Op. cit. and Bd. II, 1893, Bd. III, 1898. See also various volumes of the 
Samm. der griech. Dial.-Inschr. 

6 Handb. der griech. Dial., 1909. 7 Gk. Dialects. 

8 Les dialectes Doriens, 1891; cf. also H. W. Smyth, The Gk. Dial. (Ionic 
only), 1894. 

9 Lingua Greca Antica, 1888. Cf. Lambert, Et. sur le dial. éolien, 1903. 


18 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Greek to-day as it was true in the early period. Witness the 
Athenian riot over the Pallis vernacular translation. Occasion- 
ally a writer like Aristophanes would on purpose write in the lan- 
guage of the street. It is not therefore a peculiarity of the κοινή 
that the vernacular Greek prevailed then. It always prevails. 
But the καθαρεύουσα has secured a more disastrous supremacy 
over the δημοτική than in any other language. And we are now 
able to estimate the vernacular κοινή, since the great papyri 
discoveries of Flinders-Petrie, Grenfell and Hunt and others. 
We had already the excellent discussions of Mullach,! Niebuhr,? 
Blass,? Foy* and Lottich.2 But in the last fifteen years or so a 
decided impetus has been given to this phase of Greek grammatical 
research. It is in truth a new study, the attention now paid to 
the vernacular, as Moulton points out in his Prolegomena (p. 22). 
“T will go further and say that if we could only recover letters 
that ordinary people wrote to each other without being literary, 
we should have the greatest possible help for the understanding 
of the language of the N. T. generally” (Bishop Lightfoot, 1863, 
as quoted in Moulton’s Prol., 2d and 3d ed., p. 242). If Lightfoot 
only lived now! Cf. Masson’s Preface to Winer (1859). 

The most abundant source of new light for the vernacular κοινή 
is found in the papyri collections, many volumes of which have 
already been published (see Index of Quots. for fuller list), while 
more are yet to be issued. Indeed, Prof. W. N. Stearns® com- 
plains: “‘There would seem to be a plethora of such material 
already as evidenced by such collections as the Berlinische Ur- 
kunde and the Rainier Papyri.”’ But the earnest student of the 
Greek tongue can only rejoice at the ‘‘extraordinary and in part 
unexpected wealth of material from the contemporary and the 
later languages.’’? See the publications of Drs. Grenfell and Hunt,® 


1 Gr. der griech. Vulgarspr., 1856. 

2 Uber das Agyp.-Griech., KI. Schr., II, p. 197 f. 

3. Die griech. Beredsamkeit von Alex. bis auf Aug., 1865. 

4 Lauts. der griech. Vulgarspr., 1879. | 

5 De Serm. vulg. Att., 1881. 

6. Am. ’Jour. of Theol., Jan., 1906, p. 134. 

7 Samuel Dickey, New Points of View for the Study of the Gk. of the N.T. 
(Prince. Theol. Rev., Oct., 1903). 

8 Oxyrhyn. Pap., vols. I-VIII, 1898-1911; Fayim Pap., 1900; Tebtunis 
Pap., 1902 (Univ. of Cal. Publ., pts. I, II, 1907; Hibeh Pap., pt. I, 1906; vol. 
IV, Oxyrhyn. Pap., pp. 265-271, 1904; Grenfell and Hunt, The Hibeh Pap., 
1906, pt. I. In general, for the bibliography of the papyri see Hohlwein, 
La papyrol. grec., bibliog. raisonnée, 1905. 


NEW MATERIAL 19 


Mahaffy,! Goodspeed,? the Berlinische Urkunde,? Papyri in the 
British Museum,’ the Turin Papyri,> the Leyden Papyri,® the 
Geneva Papyri,’ Lord Amherst’s collection (Paris, 1865), etc. For 
general discussions of the papyri see the writings of Wilcken,® 
Kenyon,? Hartel,!° Haberlin, Viereck,” Deissmann,* de Ricci,“ 
Wessely.“ A great and increasing literature is thus coming into 
existence on this subject. Excellent handbooks of convenient 
size are those by H. Lietzmann, Greek Papyri (1905), and by 
G. Milligan, Greek Papyri (1910). For a good discussion of the 
papyri and the literature on the subject see Deissmann, Light, 
etc., pp. 20-41. The grammatical material in the papyri has not 
been exhausted. There are a number of excellent workers in the 
field such as Mayser,!® St. Witkowski,!?7 Deissmann,!* Moulton,!® 
H. A. A. Kennedy,?° Jannaris,2" Kenyon,” Voelker,?? Thumb.” 


1 Flinders-Petrie Pap., 1891, 1892, 1893. 

2 Gk. Pap. from the Cairo Mus., 1902, 1903. 

3 Griech. Urk., 1895, 1898, 1903, 1907, etc. 

4 F. G. Kenyon, Cat. of Gk. Pap. in the B. M., 1898; Evid. of the Pap. for 
Text. Crit. of the N. T., 1905; B. M. Pap., vol. I, 1898, vol. II, 1898. 

5 Peyron, 1826, 1827. 

6 Zauber Pap., 1885; Leeman’s Pap. Graeci, 1843. 

7 J. Nicole, 1896, 1900; cf. Wessely’s Corpus Pap., 1895. 

8 Griech. Papyrusurk., 1897; Archiv fiir Papyrusforsch. und verw. Gebiete, 
1900—. 

9 Palswog. of Gk, Pap., 1899; art. Papyri in Hast. D. B. (ext. vol.). 

10 Uber die griech. Pap. 

1 Griech. Pap., Centralbl. fiir Bibliothekswesen, 14. 1 f. 

12 Ber. iiber die altere Pap.-Lit., Jahresb. iiber d. Fortschr. etc., 1898, 1899. 

13 Art. Papyri in Encye. Bibl. 

4 Bul. papyrologique in Rev. des Et. grecques since 1901. 

1 Papyrus-Samml. since 1883. Cf. also Crénert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., 
1903; Reinach, Pap. grecs et démot. ete., 1905. 

16 Gr. der griech. Pap., ΤΊ. I, Laut- und Wortl., 1906. 

17 Prodromus Gr. Pap. Graec. aetatis Lagidarum, 26. Bd. der Abhandl. 
der Phil. class. der Acad. zu Krakau, 1897, pp. 196-200. 

18 B. §., 1901; Light, etc.; art. Hell. Griech. in Hauck’s Realencyc.; art. 
Papyrus in Encye. Bibl., ete. 

19 Gr. Notes from the Pap., Cl. Rev., 1901; Notes on the Pap., Exp., 
April, 1901, Feb., 1903; Characteristics of N. T. Gk., Exp., March to Dec., 
1904; Prol. to Gr. of N. T. Gk., 1908, 3d ed., ete. 

20 Sources of N. T. Gk., 1895; Recent Res. in the Lang. of the N. T., Exp. 
Times, May, July, Sept., 1901. 

2 Hist. Gk. Gr., 1897; The Term Κοινή, Cl. Rev., March, 1903. 

2 Art. Papyri in Hast. D. B. 

23 Syntax der griech. Pap., Tl. I, 1903. 

24 Die Forsch. iiber die hell. Spr. in d. Jahr. 1896-1901, Archiv fiir Papyrus- 
forsch., 1903, pp. 396-426; Die Forsch. iiber die hell. Spr. in d. Jahr. 1902-4, 


20 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


These are all helpful, but Crénert! is right in urging that we 
need a comprehensive discussion of the syntax of the Ptolemaic 
papyri in order to set forth properly the relation of the papyri 
both to the N. T. Greek and to the older Attic. This will require 
time, for the mass of material is very great and is constantly 
growing.2 But enough already is clear for us to see the general 
bearing of the whole on the problem of the N. T. It is just here 
that the papyri have special interest and value. They give the 
language of business and life. The N. T. writers were partly 
ἀγράμματοι, but what they wrote has become the chief Book of 
Mankind.’ Hear Deissmann‘ again, for he it is who has done 
most to blaze the way here: “The papyrus-leaf is alive; one sees 
autographs, individual peculiarities of penmanship — in a word, 
men; manifold glimpses are given into inmost nooks and crannies 
of personal life in which history has no eyes and historians no 
glasses ... It may seem a paradox, but it can safely be affirmed 
that the unliterary papyri are more important in these respects 
than the literary.”” Some of the papyri contain literary works, 
fragments of Greek classics, portions of the LX-X or of the N. T., 
though the great mass of them are non-literary documents, let- 
ters and business papers. Cf. also Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 29. 
Unusual interest attaches to the fragments containing the Logia 
of Jesus, some of which are new, dating from the second or third 
centuries A.D. and showing a Gnostic tinge.® It is no longer pos- 
sible to say, what even Friedrich Blass* did in 1894, that the N. T. 
Greek “15 to be regarded something by itself and following laws 
of its own.”’ That view is doomed in the presence of the papyri. 
Hatch’ in particular laboured under this error. The N. T. Greek 


Archiv fiir Pap., 111. 4; also Jahresb. iiber die Fortschr. des Class., 1906; 
Die griech. Papyrusurk., 1899-1905, pp. 36-40; Die griech. Spr. ete., 1901. 

1 Archiv fiir Pap.-Forsch., 1900, p. 215. 

2 “Zum ersten Mal gewinnen wir reale Vorstellungen vom dem Zustand 
und der Entwickelung der handschriftlichen Lebenslieferung im Altertum 
selbst. Neue wichtige Probleme sind damit der Philologie gestellt.’? N. 
Wilcken, Die griech. Papyrusurk., 1897, p. 7. Mayser’s ΤΊ. II will supply 
this need when it appears. 

3 See Deissmann, Die sprachl. Erforsch. der griech. Bibel, 1898, p. 27. 

4 Art. Papyri in Encye. Bibl. 

5 See Λόγια ᾿Ιησοῦ, Sayings of Jesus, by Grenfell and Hunt, 1897. New 
Sayings of Jesus, by Grenfell and Hunt, 1904. See also two books by Dr. C. 
Taylor, The Oxyrhyn. Logia, 1899; The Oxyrhyn. Sayings of Jesus, 1905; 
Lock and Sanday, Two Lect. on the Sayings of Jesus, 1897. 

5’ Theol. Literaturzeit., 1894, p. 338. 

7 Hssays in Bibl. Gk., 1892, p. 11 f. The earliest dated papyrus is now 


NEW MATERIAL 21 


will no longer be despised as inferior or unclassical. It will be 
seen to be a vital part of the great current of the Greek language. 
For the formal discussion of the bearing of the papyri on the N. T. 
Greek see chapter IV. A word should be said concerning the 
reason why the papyri are nearly all found in Egypt.! It is due 
to the dryness of the climate there. Elsewhere the brittle material 
soon perished, though it has on the whole a natural toughness. 
The earliest known use of the papyri in Egypt is about 3400 B.c. 
More exactly, the reign of Assa in. the fifth dynasty is put at 
3360 B.c. This piece of writing is an account-sheet belonging 
to this reign (Deissmann, Light from A. E., p. 22). The oldest 
specimen of the Greek papyri goes back to “the regnal year of 
Alexander Aigus, the son of Alexander the Great. That would 
make it the oldest Greek papyrus document yet discovered”’ 
(Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 29). The discoveries go on as far as 
the seventh century A.pD., well into the Byzantine period. The 
plant still grows in Egypt and it was once the well-nigh universal 
writing material.. As waste paper it was used to wrap the mum- 
mies. Thus it has come to be preserved. The rubbish-heaps at 
Faytim and Oxyrhynchus are full of these papyri scraps. 

Mention should be made also of the ostraca, or pieces of pot- 
tery, which contain numerous examples of the vernacular κοινή. 
For a very interesting sketch of the ostraca see Deissmann, Light, 
ete. (pp. 41-53). Crum and Wilcken have done the chief work on 
the ostraca. They are all non-literary and occur in old Egyptian, 
Arabic, Aramaic, Coptic, Greek and Latin. ‘Prof. Wilcken, in 
his Griechische Ostraka,? has printed the texts of over sixteen 
hundred of the inscribed potsherds on which the commonest re- 
ceipts and orders of Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt were written.’ ὃ 
It was the material used by the poorer classes. 

(Ὁ) Tue ByzANTINE AND THE Moprrn Greek. The Byzantine 
and modern Greek has at last received adequate recognition. 


P. Eleph. 1 (311 B.c.), not P. Hibeh, as Thackeray has it in his Gr. of the O. T. 
in Gk., p. 56. This was true in 1907; cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., March, 1910, p. 53. 

1 The practical limitation of the papyri to Egypt (and Herculaneum) has 
its disadvantages; cf. Angus, The Kow#, The Lang. of the N. T. (Prince. 
Theol. Rev., Jan., 1910, p. 80). 

2 Griech. Ostraka aus Agypten und Nubien, Bd. I, II, 1899; cf. also Crum, 
Coptic Ostraca, 2 vols. (1899); cf. Hilprecht, S. S. Times, 1902, p. 560. ‘In 
many Coptic letters that are written on potsherds the writers beg their cor- 
respondents to excuse their having to use an ostrakon for want of papyrus”’ 
(Deissmann, Exp. Times, 1906, Oct., p. 15). 

3. EK. J. Goodspeed, Am. Jour. of Theol., Jan., 1906, p. 102. 


22 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


The student of the N. T. idiom has much to learn from the new 
books on this subject. The scorn bestowed on the κοινή by the 
intense classicists was intensified by the modern Greek, which 
was long regarded as a nondescript Jumble of Greek, Albanian, 
Turkish, Italian, etc. Indeed the modern Greeks themselves 
have not always shown proper appreciation of the dignity of the 
modern vernacular, as is shown, for instance, in the recent up- 
heaval at Athens by the University students over the translation 
of the Gospels into the Greek vernacular (δημοτική) of to-day, 
though the N. T. was manifestly written in the vernacular of its 
day. ‘While the later Greeks, however, could no longer write 
classically, they retained a keen sense for the beauties of the 
classical language.”! Just as the “popular Latin finally sup- 
pressed the Latin of elegant literature,”? so the vernacular κοινή 
lived on through the Roman and Byzantine periods and survives 
to-day as the modern Greek. There is unity in the present-day 
Greek and historical continuity with the past. Dr. Rose is pos- 
sibly extreme in saying: ‘‘There is more difference between the 
Greek of Herodotus and the Greek of Xenophon than there is 
between the Greek of the latter and the Greek of to-day.”? And 
certainly Prof. Dickey‘ is right in affirming ‘‘that the Greek of 
N. T. stands in the centre of the:development of which classical 
and modern Greek may be called extremes, and that of the two 
it is nearer to the second in character than the first. The inter- 
pretation of the N. T. has almost entirely been in the sole light 
of the ancient, i.e. the Attic Greek, and, therefore, to that ex- 
tent has been unscientific and often inaccurate.” Hatzidakis® 
indeed complained that the whole subject had been treated with 


1 Dr. Achilles Rose, Chris. Greece and Living Gk., 1898, p. 7. 

2 R. C. Jebb, On the Rela. of Mod. to Class. Gk., in V. and D.’s Handb. 
to Mod. Gk., 1887, p. 287. ‘In other words, the Bible was cast into spoken 
Latin, familiar to every rank of society though not countenanced in the 
schoolroom; and thus it foreshadowed the revolution of ages whereby the 
Roman tongue expanded into what we may label as Romance.” W. Barry, 
“Our Latin Bible,” in Dublin Rev., July, 1906, p. 4; ef. also art. on The 
Holy Latin Tongue, in April number. 

3. Chris. Greece and Living Greek, p. 253. 

4 New Points of View for the Study of N. T. Gk. (Prince. Theol. Rev., 
Oct., 1903). See also S. Angus, Mod. Methods in N. T. Philol. (Harv. Theol. 
Rev., Oct., 1911, p. 499): ‘“That the progress of philology has thus broken 
down the wall of partition of the N. T. and removed its erstwhile isolation is 
a great service to the right understanding of the book’s contents.”’ 

5 Winl. in die neugr. Gr., 1892, p. ix; cf. also H. C. Miiller, Hist. Gr. der 
hell. Spr., 1891. 


NEW MATERIAL 5 


unworthy “dilettanteism”’ and not without ground for the com- 
plaint. He himself did much by his great work to put the study 
of modern Greek on a scientific basis,! but he has not worked 
alone in this important field. Another native Greek, Prof. Sopho- 
cles, has produced a Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine 
Periods in which there is an excellent discussion for that time? of 
the κοινή, the Byzantine and the modern Greek. Other scholars 
have developed special phases of the problem, as Krumbacher,? 
who has enriched our knowledge of the Byzantine‘ or Middle 
Ages Greek. Dieterich® also has done fine work in this period of 
Greek, as has Thumb. Worthy of mention also is the work of 
G. Meyer,’ Geldart® and Prestel,® though the latter have not 
produced books of great value. See also Meyer-Liibke’s gram- 
mar,’° Jannaris’ Historical Greek Grammar and the writings of 
Psichari." In general great progress has been made and it is now 
possible to view the development of the N. T. idiom in the 
light of the modern Greek. The apparent drift-in the vernacular 


1 “‘Und wenn es mir gelingt, die wissenschaftliche Welt von ihrer wohl- 
berechtigten Zuriickhaltung abzubringen und ihr nachzuweisen, daf das 
Mittel- und Neugriechische ein vielversprechendes unkultivirtes Gebiet der 
Wissenschaft ist, woraus man viel, sehr viel beziiglich der Sprachwissenschaft 
_tiberhaupt wie des Altgriechischen speciell lernen kann, so ist mein Zweck 
vollkommen erreicht.”’ Ib., p. x. 

2 1870. One of the pressing needs is a lexicon of the papyri also. See 
Contopoulos, Lex. of Mod. Gk., 1868, and others. 

3 Das Problem der neugr. Schriftspr., 1903. ‘‘ Heute bedarf das Studien- _ 
gebiet der byzantinischen und neugriechischen Philologie keine Apologie,”’ p. 3. 
In his hands the middle Gk. (Byzantine) is shown to be a rich field for the 
student both of philology and literature; cf. also Gesch. der byzant. Lit., 
p. 20. 

4 Gesch. der byzant. Lit. etc.; οἵ. also his Byz. Zeitschr. and his Beitr. 
zu einer Gesch. der griech. Spr., Kuhn’s Zeitschr., 1885. 

5 Unters. zur Gesch. d. griech. Spr. etc., 1898; Gesch. der byz. und neugr. 
Lit., 1902. . 

6 Handb. d. neugr. Volkspr., 1895; Thumb-Angus, Handb. of Mod. Gk. Ver- 
nac., 1912; Die neugr. Sprachforsch. in d. Jahr. 1890 u. 1891 (Anz. fiir indoger. 
Spr., I, 1892; VI, 1896, and IX, 1898); Die griech. Spr. im Zeitalter des 
Hellen., 1901; Die sprachgesch. Stellung des bibl. Griechisch, Theol. Runds., 
March, 1902. 

7 Neugr. Stud., 1894. 

8 The Mod. Gk. Lang. in its Rela. to Anc. Gk., 1870. On the Orig. and 
Devel. of the Mod. Gk. Lang., Jour. of Philol., 1869. 

9 Zur Entwickelungsgesch. der griech. Spr. 

10 Gr. der romanischen Spr. 

11 Fissais de Gr. hist. Néogrecque, 1886; cf. also Boltz, Die hell. Spr. der 
Gegenw., 1882. 


24 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


κοινὴ of the N. T., like ἵνα in the non-final clause, is too common 
for remark in the modern Greek. Indeed the N. T. had a pre- 
dominant influence on the later Greek as the chief literature of 
the period, and especially as Christianity won the victory over 
heathenism. The Byzantine Greek is in subject-matter largely 
ecclesiastical. 'The sermons and treatises of the Greek Christian 
Fathers constitute a large and valuable literature and amply il- 
lustrate the language of the time.! The modern Greek is in all 
essential points the same as the Byzantine Greek of 1000 A.D. 
In forty years? we have seen a revolution in the study of the 
modern Greek. But as late as 1887 Vincent and Dickson*® could 
say: “ΒΥ many it is believed that a corrupt patois of Turkish 
and Italian is now spoken in Greece; and few even among pro- 
fessed scholars are aware how small the difference is between the — 
Greek of the N. T. and the Greek of a contemporary Athenian 
newspaper.” The new Greek speech was developed not out of 
the Byzantine literary language, but out of the Hellenistic popular 
speech. 

(i) Tor Hrsprew AnD ARAmatc. Less that is new has come 
from the Hebrew and Aramaic field of research. Still real ad- 
vance has been made here also. The most startling result is the 
decrease of emphasis upon Hebraisms in the N. T. style. In 
chapter IV, 111 the Semitic influence on the N. T. language is dis- 
cussed. Here the literary history is sketched. 

1. The Old View. It was only in 1879 that Guillemard® issued 
his Hebraisms in the Greek Testament, in which he said in the 
Preface: ‘‘I earnestly disavow any claim to an exhaustive exhibi- 
tion of all the Hebraisms, or all the deviations from classical 
phraseology contained in the Greek Testament; of which I have 
gathered together and put forward only a few specimens, in the 
hope of stimulating others to fuller and more exact research.” 
Even in, 1889, Dr. Edwin Hatch® says: “Biblical Greek is thus a 


1 See the Migne Lib. and the new Ber. Royal Lib. ed. 

2 Dieterich, op. cit., p. 10. 

8 Handb. to Mod. Gk., p. 3. See also Horae Hellenicae, by Stuart Blackie, 
1874, p. 115: “Byzantine Gk. was classical Gk. from beginning to end, with 
only such insignificant changes as the altered circumstances, combined with 
the law of its original genius, naturally produced.” Cf. Rangabé, Gr. Abré- 
gée du grec actuel; Γεννάδιος, Γραμματικὴ τῆς ᾿Ελλενικῆς Γλώσσης. 

4 Dieterich, op. cit., p. 5. 

5 See also A. Miiller, Semit. Lehnw. in dlteren Griech., Bezzenb. Beitr., 
1878, I, pp. 273 ff.; S. Krauss, Griech. und lat. Lehnw. im Tal., 1898, 1899. 

¢ Essays in Bibl. Gk., p. 11. 


NEW MATERIAL oo 


language by itself. ‘What we have to find out in studying it is 
what meaning certain Greek words conveyed to a Semitic mind.” 
Again he says!: ‘The great majority of N. T. words are words 
which, though for the most part common to biblical and to con- 
temporary secular Greek, express in their biblical use the concep- 
tions of a Semitic race, and which must consequently be examined 
by the light of the cognate documents which form the LXX.”’ 
And W. H. Simcox? says: ‘‘Thus it is that there came to exist a 
Hellenistic dialect, having real though variable differences from 
the Common or Hellenic.” 

2. A Change with Kennedy. But a turn comes when H. A. A. 
Kennedy? says: ‘‘But while the writer began with a complete, 
though provisional, acceptance of Hatch’s conclusions, the far- 
ther the inquiry was pushed, the more decidedly was he com- 
pelled to doubt those conclusions, and finally to seek to establish 
the connection between the language of the LXX and that of 
the N. T. on a totally different basis.”’ He finds that common 
bond in “the colloquial Greek of the time.’’4 

3. Deissmann’s Revolt. The full revolt against the theory of a 
Semitic or biblical Greek is seen in the writings of Deissmann,' 
who says®: “‘The theory indicated is a great power in exegesis, 
and that it possesses a certain plausibility is not to be denied. 
It is edifying, and what is more, is convenient. But it is absurd. 
It mechanizes the marvellous variety of the linguistic elements 
of the Greek Bible and cannot be established either by the psy- 
chology of language or by history.’”’ There is here some of the 
zeal of new discovery, but it is true. The old view of Hatch is 
dead and gone. The ‘‘clamant need of a lexicon to the LXX”’ 
is emphasized by Deissmann’ himself. Prof. H. B. Swete of 
Cambridge has laid all biblical students under lasting obligation 


1 Tb., p. 34. See also p. 9: “ Biblical Gk. belongs not only to a later period 
of the history of the language than classical Gk., but also to a different coun- 
try.” On page 14 we read: “It is a true paradox that while, historically as 
well as philologically, the Gk. (LXX) is a translation of the Hebrew, philo- 
logically, though not historically, the Hebrew may be regarded as a trans- 
lation of the Gk.’’ 

2 The Lang. of the N. T., 1890, p. 15. Note the date, as late as 1890. 


* Sources of N. T. Gk., 1895, p. v. 4 Tb., p. 146. 
5 Die sprachl. Erforsch. der griech. Bibel, 1898; B. S., 1901; Hell. Griech., 
Hauck’s Realencye., New Light (1907), ete. 6 B.S., p. 65. 


7 Ib., p. 73. Schleusner, 1821, is hopelessly inadequate and out of date. 
Hatch and Redpath have issued in six parts (two volumes) a splendid con- 
cordance to the LX X and other Gk. versions of the O. T., 1892-1896, 1900. 


26 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


to him by his contribution to the study of the Septuagint, con- 
sisting of an edition of the LX X! with brief critical apparatus 
and a general discussion? of the Septuagint. Brooke and McLean 
are publishing an edition of the Septuagint with exhaustive crit- 
ical apparatus.’ Students of the LXX now rejoice in Helbing’s Gr. 
der Septuaginta: Laut- u. Formenlehre (1907) and Thackeray’s 
Gr. of the O. T. in Greek, vol. I (1909). Conybeare and Stock’s 
Selections from the Septuagint (1905) has the old standpoint. 
Other modern workers in this department are Nestle, Lagarde,® 
Hartung,® Ralfs,7 Susemihl,® Apostolides.?® 

4. The Language of Jesus. Another point of special interest in 
this connection, which may be discussed as well now as later, is 
the new light concerning the Aramaic as the language habitually 
spoken by Jesus. This matter has been in much confusion and 
the scholars are not at one even now. Roberts’? maintains that 
Greek, not Hebrew, was ‘‘the language of the common public 
intercourse in Palestine in the days of Christ and His apostles.’’ 
By Hebrew he means Aramaic. In The Expositor (1st series, vols. 
VI, VII) Roberts argued also that Christ usually spoke Greek. 
He was replied to (vol. VID) by Sanday. Lightfoot (on Gal. 4 : 6) 
holds that Jesus said ᾿Αββά ὁ πατήρ thus, Mark not having trans- 
lated it. Thomson, “The Language of Palestine” (Temple ἢ. of 
the Bible), argues strongly that Christ spoke Greek, not Aramaic. 
Neubauer!" contends that there was spoken besides at Jerusalem 
and in Judea a modernized Hebrew, and comments” on “how 


1 The O.T. in Gk. according to the LXX, vols. I-III, 1887-1894. He does 
not give an edited text, but follows one MS. at a time with critical apparatus 
in footnotes. 

2 An Intr. to the O. T. in Gk., 1900. 

8 The Larger Camb. LXX, 1906—. 

* Ed. of the LXX with Crit. Apparatus, 1880-1887; Sept.-Stud., 1886- 
1896; Urtext und Ubersetz. der Bibel, 1897. Nestle died in 1913. 

5 Sept.-Stud., 1891-1892. 6 Ib., 1886. 7 Tb., 1904. 

8 Gesch. der griech. Lit. in der Alexandrinzeit, Bd. I, II, 1891, 1892. 

9 Du grec Alexandrin et de ses rapports avec le grec ancien et le grec mo- 
derne, 1892. Cf. among the older discussions, Sturz, De dial. Maced. et 
Alexan., 1808; Lipsius, Gr. Unters. iiber die bibl. Gric., 1853; Churton, The 
Infl. of the LXX upon the Prog. of Chris., 1861. See also Anz, Subs. ad 
cognos. Graec. serm. vulg. e Pent. vers. Alexan., 1894. 

10 Disc. on the Gosp., pt. I, On the Lang. Employed by Our Lord and His 
Apost., 1864, p. 316; A Short Proof that Greek was the Language of Jesus 
(1893). 

4 On the Dial. of Palestine in the Time of Ch., Stud. Bibl., 1885. 

12. Stud. Bibl., p. 54. 


NEW MATERIAL vat 


little the Jews knew Greek.” A. Meyer! urges that the vernacular 
of Jesus was Aramaic and shows what bearing this fact has on 
the interpretation of the Gospels. A. Jiilicher? indeed says: “ΤῸ 
suppose, however (as, e.g. G. B. Winer supposes, because of 
Mk. 7: 24; Jo. 7:25; 12:20) that Jesus used the Greek language 
is quite out of the question.’’ But Young, vol. II, Dictionary of 
Christ and the Gospels (Hastings), article ‘Language of Christ,”’ 
admits that Christ used both, though usually he spoke Aramaic. 
So Moulton, Prolegomena, Ὁ. 8. But Dalman* has done more 
than any one in showing the great importance of the Aramaic for 
the interpretation of the words of Jesus. He denies the use of a 
modernized Hebrew in Jerusalem and urges that proper names 
like Βηθεσδά, S37 072, are Aramaic (but see J. Rendel Harris, 
Side Lights on the N. T., p. 71 f.). Dalman further urges that 
“‘Aramaic was the mother tongue of the Galileans.”4 J. T. 
Marshall® makes out a plausible case for the idea of a primitive 
Aramaic Gospel before our Mark, and this would make it more 
probable that Jesus spoke Aramaic. EK. A. Abbott® also attempts 
to reproduce the original Aramaic of the words of Jesus from the 
Greek. But Prof. Mahaffy’ can still say: ‘And so from the very 
beginning, though we may believe that in Galilee and among His 
intimates our Lord spoke Aramaic, and though we know that 
some of His last words upon the cross were in that language, yet 
His public teaching, His discussions with the Pharisees, His talk 


1 Jesu Mutterspr.: das galiliische Aram. in seiner Bedeut. fiir die Erkl. der 
Reden Jesu und der Evang. itiberhaupt, 1896. So Deissmann (Light, etc., 
p. 57) says that Jesus ‘did not speak Gk. when He went about His public 
work,” and, p. 1, “Jesus preaches in his Aramaic mother-tongue.”’ 

2 Art. Hellenism in Encye. Bibl. Canon Foakes-Jackson (Interp., July, 1907, 
p. 392) says: “‘The Jews of high birth or with areputation for sanctity are 
said to have refused to learn any language but their own, and thus we have 
the strange circumstance in Roman Palestine of the lower orders speaking 
two languages and their leaders only one.”’ 

3 The Words of Jesus considered in the Light of the post-Bibl. Jewish 
Writings and the Aram. Lang., 1902. Cf. also Pfannkuche (Clark’s Bibl. 
Cab.). 

* Tb:; p.‘10. 

5 Exp., ser. IV, VI, VIII. See also Brockelmann, Syrische Gr., 1904; 
Schwally, Idioticon des christl.-palestinischen Aramiisch, 1893; Riggs, Man. 
of the Chaldean Lang., 1866; Wilson, Intr. Syriac Meth. and Man., 1891; 
Strack, Gr. des bibl. Aramiischen. 

6 Clue, A Guide through Gk. to Heb., 1904. 

7 The Prog. of Hellen. in Alexan. Emp., 1905, p. 130f. Hadley (Ess. Phil. 
and Crit., p. 413) reaches the conclusion that Jesus spoke both Gk. and Aram. 


28 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


with Pontius Pilate, were certainly carried on mainly in the 
Greek.” Zahn (Jntr. to the N. T.) labours needlessly to show 

that Hebrew was no longer the language of Palestine, but he does — 
not prove that Aramaic was everywhere spoken, nor that Jesus 
always spoke Aramaic. Wellhausen (Hinl. in die drei erst. Evang.) 
is prejudiced in favour of the Aramaic theory. It may be admitted 
at once that Aramaic was known to the majority of the Jews in 
Palestine, particularly in Judea. Cf. Ac. 1:19: τῇ διαλέκτῳ αὐτῶν 
᾿Ακελδαμάχ; 22:2, ἀκούσαντες ὅτι τῇ Ἔβραϊΐδι διαλέκτῳ προσε- 
φώνει αὐτοῖς μᾶλλον παρέσχον ἡσυχίαν. There is no doubt which 
language is the vernacular in Jerusalem. Cf. also 20:14. Jo- 
sephus confirms Luke on this point (War, V, 6. 3), for the people 
of Jerusalem cried out τῇ πατρίῳ γλώσσῃ, and Josephus also acted 
intermediary for Titus, τῇ πατρίῳ γλώσσῃ (War, VI, 2. 1). See 
also 2 Mace. 7:8, 21. Josephus wrote his War first in Aramaic 
and then in Greek. The testimony of Papias that Matthew 
wrote his λόγια in Aramaic bears on the question because of the 
tradition that Mark was the interpreter of Peter. The brogue 
that Peter revealed (Mt. 26:73) was probably due to his Gali- 
lean accent of Aramaic. Aramaic was one of the languages for 
the inscription on the cross (Jo. 19:20). It is clear therefore that 
the Hellenizing work of Jason and Menelaus and Antiochus 
Epiphanes received a set-back in Palestine. The reaction kept 
Greek from becoming the one language of the country. Even in 
Lycaonia the people kept their vernacular though they under- 
stood Greek (Ac. 14:11). On the other hand Peter clearly spoke 
in Greek on the Day of Pentecost, and no mention is made of 
Greek as one of the peculiar “‘tongues,’”’ on that occasion. It 
is clear that Paul was understood in Jerusalem when he spoke 
Greek (Ac. 22:2). Jesus Himself laboured chiefly in Galilee 
where were many gentiles and much commerce and travel. He 
taught in Decapolis, a Greek region. He preached also in the 
regions of Tyre and Sidon (Phcenicia), where Greek was neces- 
sary, and he held converse with a Greek (Syro-Phcenician) 
woman. Near Cesarea-Philippi (a Greek region), after the 
Transfiguration, Jesus spoke to the people at the foot of the 
mountain. At the time of the Sermon on the Mount Jesus ad- 
dressed people from Decapolis and Perea (largely Hellenized), be- 
sides the mixed multitudes from Galilee, Jerusalem and Judea 
(Mt. 4:25). Luke (6:17) adds that crowds came also from Tyre 
and Sidon, and Mark (3: 8) gives “from Idumza.”’ It is hardly pos- 
sible that these crowds understood Aramaic. The fact that Mark 


NEW MATERIAL 29 


twice (5:41; 7:34) uses Aramaic quotations from the words of 
Jesus does not prove that He always spoke in that tongue nor 
that He did so only on these occasions. In Mk. 14:36, ᾿Αββά ὁ 
πατήρ, it is possible that Jesus may. have used both words as 
Paul did (Ro. 8:15). In the quotation from Ps. 22:1, spoken 
on the cross, Mt. 27:46 gives the Hebrew, while Mk. 15: 34 
has an Aramaic adaptation. There is no reason to doubt that 
Jesus knew Hebrew also. But Thomson (Temple Bible, Lang. of 
Palestine) proves that Matthew gives the quotations made by 
Christ in the words of the LX X, while his own quotations are 
usually from the Hebrew. It is clear, therefore, that Jesus spoke 
both Aramaic and Greek according to the demands of the occa- 
sion and read the Hebrew as well as the Septuagint, if we may 
argue from the O. T. quotations in the Gospels which are partly 
like the Hebrew text and partly like the LXX.! In Lu. 4:17 it 
is not clear whether it was the Hebrew text or the LX X that was 
read in the synagogue at Nazareth.2 One surely needs no argu- 
ment to see the possibility that a people may be bilingual when 
he remembers the Welsh, Scotch, Irish, Bretons of the present 
day.’ The people in Jerusalem understood either Greek or Ara- 
maic (Ac. 22: 2). 

(j) GRAMMATICAL COMMENTARIES. A word must be said con- 
cerning the new type of commentaries which accent the gram- 
matical side of exegesis. This is, to be sure, the result of the 
emphasis upon scientific grammar. The commentary must have 
other elements besides the grammatical. Even the historical 
element when added does not exhaust what is required. There 
still remains the apprehension of the soul of the author to which 
historical grammar is only an introduction. But distinct credit 
is to be given to those commentators who have lifted this kind 
of exegesis out of the merely homiletic vein. Among the older 
writers are to be mentioned Meyer, Ellicott, Godet, Broadus, 
Hackett, Lightfoot and Westcott, while among the more recent 
commentators stand out most of the writers in the International 


1 See C. Taylor, The Gospel in the Law, 1869; Boehl, Alttestamentl. Cit. 
im N. T., 1878; Toy, Quota. in the N. T., 1884; Huhn, Die alttestamentl. 
Cit. etc., 1900; Gregory, Canon and Text of the N. T., 1907, p. 394. 

2 On the Gk. in the Tal. see art. Greek in Jew. Encyc.; Krauss, Griech. 
und lat. Lehnw. im Tal.; Schiirer, Jew. Hist., div. 11, vol. I, p. 29 f. 

3 See Zahn, Einl. in das N. T., ch. 11. On the bilingual character of many 
of the Palestinian Jews see Schiirer, Jew. Peo. in the Time of Ch., div. I, 
vol. I, p. 48 f.; Moulton, Prol., p. 7 f. 


30 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Critical Commentary, Holtzmann’s Hand Comm., The Expositor’s 
Greek Test., Swete, Mayor, G. Milligan, Lietzmann’s Handbuch, 
Zahn’s Kommentar, The Camb. Gk. Test., etc. In works like these, 
grammatical remarks of great value are found. There has been 
great advance in the N. T. commentaries since Winer’s day, when 
these comments ‘‘ were rendered useless by that uncritical empi- 
ricism which controlled Greek philology.’ ! 

V. The New Point of View. It will hardly be denied, in view 
of the preceding necessarily condensed presentation of the new 
material now at hand that new light has been turned upon the 
problems of the N. T. Greek. The first effect upon many minds 
is to dazzle and to cause confusion. Some will not know how to 
assimilate the new facts and to co-ordinate them with old theories 
nor be willing to form or adopt new theories as a result of the 
fresh phenomena. But it is the inevitable duty of the student in 
this department to welcome the new discoveries and to attack 
the problems arising therefrom. The new horizon and wider out- 
look make possible real progress. It will not be possible to avoid 
some mistakes at first. A truer conception of the language is 
now offered to us and one that will be found to be richer and more 
inspiring.? Every line of biblical study must respond to the new 
discovery in language. ‘‘A new Cremer, a new Thayer-Grimm, 
a new Winer will give the twentieth century plenty of editing to 
keep its scholars busy. New Meyers and Alfords will have fresh 
matter from which to interpret the text, and new Spurgeons and 
Moodys will, we may hope, be ready to pass the new teaching 
on to the people.”* The N. T. Greek is now seen to be not an 
abnormal excrescence, but a natural development in the Greek 
language; to be, in fact, a not unworthy part of the great stream 
of the mighty tongue. It was not outside of the world-language, 
but in the very heart of it and influenced considerably the future 
of the Greek tongue. j 


1 Winer, Gr. of the N. T. Idiom, Thayer’s transl., p. 7. 

2 “Nun hat man aber die Sprache der heiligen Biicher mit den Papyrus- 
denkmialern und den Inschriften der alexandrinischen und rémischen Zeit 
genau verglichen, und da hat sich die gar manchen Anhidnger der alten Dok- 
trin verbliffende, in Wahrheit ganz natiirliche Tatsache ergeben, daf8 die 
Sprache des N. T. nichts anderes ist als eine fiir den literarischen Zweck 
leicht temperierte Form des volkstiimlich Griechisch.” Krumbacher, Das 
Prob. der neugr. Schriftspr., 1903, p. 27. 

3 J. H. Moulton, New Lights on Bibl..Gk., Bibl. World, March, 1902. 


CHAPTER II 


_THE HISTORICAL METHOD 


I. Language as History. The scientific grammar is at bottom 
a grammatical history, and not a linguistic law-book. The seat of 
authority in language is therefore not the books about language, 
but the people who use the language. The majority of well-edu- 
cated people determine correct usage (the mos loquendi as Horace 
says). Even modern dictionaries merely record from time to 
time the changing phenomena of language. Wolff was right 
when he conceived of philology as the “biography of a nation.’’ 
The life of a people is expressed in the speech which they use.! 
We can well agree with Benfey? that “speech is the truest picture 
of the soul of a people, the content of all that which has brought a 
people to self-consciousness.’? However, we must not think that 
we can necessarily argue race from language.2 The historical 
conception of grammar has had to win its way against the purely 
theoretical and speculative notion. Etymology was the work 
of the philosophers. The study of the forms, the syntax, the 
dialects came later. The work of the Alexandrians was originally 
philology, not scientific grammar.’ 

(a) COMBINING THE VARIOUS ELEMENTS. It is not indeed easy 
to combine properly the various elements in the study of language. 
Sayce considers Steinthal too psychological and Schleicher too 
physical. The historical element must be added to both. Paul® 
objects to the phrase “philosophy of language” as suggesting 
“metaphysical speculations of which the historical investigation 


1 See Oertel, Lect. on the Study of Lang., 1902, p. 9 f. 

2 Kleinere Schr., 1892, 2. Bd., 4. Abt., p. 51. 

3 See Sayce, Prin. of Comp. Philol., 1875, p. 175 f. 

4 See Kretschmer, Einl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1896, pp. 2, 3. 

5 Prin. of Comp. Philol., p. xvi. 

6 Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., 1888, p. xxi. “The truth is that the science 
of which we are thinking is philosophy in the same way as physics or physi- 
ology is philosophy, neither more, nor less.” 

31 


32 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


of language needs to take no count.” He prefers the term “sci- 
ence of principles.’ The study of language is a true science, a 
real philosophy, with a psychical as well as a physical basis. It 
is properly related to the historical natural sciences which have 
been subject “to the misdirected attempt at excluding them 
from the circle of the sciences of culture.”! Language is capable 
of almost perfect scientific treatment. Kretschmer? outlines as 
modern advances over ancient grammar the psychological treat- 
ment of language, the physiology of sound, the use of the com- 
parative method, the historical development of the language, the 
recognition of speech as a product of human culture, and not to 
be separated from the history of culture, world-history and life 
of the peoples. He thinks that no language has yet received such 
treatment as this, for present-day handbooks are only “speech- 
pictures,” not “speech-histories.”’ 

(b) PracticAL GRAMMAR A CoMpROoMISE. Historical practical 
grammars have to make a compromise. ‘They can give the whole 
view only in outline and show development and interrelation in 
part. It is not possible then to write the final grammar of Greek 
either ancient or modern. The modern is constantly changing 
and we are ever learning more of the old. What was true of 
Mistriotes* and Jannaris‘ will be true of the attempts of all. — 
But none the less the way to study Greek is to look at it as a 
history of the speech-development of one of the greatest of peo- 
ples. But it is at least possible now to have the right attitude, 
thanks to the books already mentioned and others by Bernhardy,°® 


1 Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., 1888, p. xxvii. See Von Ulrich’s Grundl. und 
Gesch. der Philol., 1892, p. 22: ‘Zu der wissenschaftlichen Grammatik gesellt 
sich die historische Betrachtung. Sie unterscheidet die Periodisierung der 
Satze von deren loser Verkniipfung, die wechselnde Bedeutung der Partikeln, 
den Gebrauch der Modi und Tempora, die erfahrungsmifig festgestellten 
Regeln der Syntax, den Sprachgebrauch der Schriftsteller.’’ On the scientific 
study of the Gk. language sketched historically see Wackernagel, Die Kult. 
der Gegenw., Tl. I, Abt. 8, pp. 314-316. 

2 Hinl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., pp. 3-5. He himself here merely 
outlines the historical background of the Gk. language. 

3 “Kara ταῦτα λοιπὸν ἡ γὙραμματολογία δὲν εἶναι οὔτε ἀμιγὴς ἱστορική, οὔτε ἀμι- 
γὴς αἰσθητικὴ ἐπιστήμη ἀλλὰ μετέχει ἀμφοτέρων. Ἑλληνικὴ ΓΠραμματολογία, 1894, 
Ρ. 0. 

4 “As a matter of course, I do not presume to have said the last word on 
all or most of these points, seeing that, even in the case of modern Gk., I 
cannot be expected to master, in all its details, the entire vocabulary and 
grammar of every single Neohellenic dialect.” Hist. Gk. Gr., 1897, p. x. 

5 Wissensch. Synt. der griech. Spr., 1829. 


THE HISTORICAL METHOD 3y3! 


Christ,! Wundt,? Johannsen,’ Krumbacher,* Schanz,® G. Meyer,® 
I. Miller,’ Hirt, Thumb,® Dieterich, Steinthal.!. The Latin 
syntax received historical treatment by Landgraf,!” not to men- 
tion English and other modern languages. 

II. Language as a Living Organism. 

(a) THE OrIGIN oF LANGUAGE. Speech is indeed a character- 
istic of man and may be considered a divine gift, however slowly 
the gift was won and developed by him. Sayce is undoubtedly 
correct in saying that language is a social creation and the effort 
to communicate is the only true solution of the riddle of speech, 
whether there was ever a speechless man or not. “Grammar has 
grown out of gesture and gesticulation.”* But speech has not 
created the capacities which mark the civilized man as higher 
than the savage.” Max Miller remarks that “language forms an 
impassable barrier between man and beast.’’ Growls and signs 
do not constitute “intellectual symbolism.” !® Paul indeed, in op- 
position to Lazarus and Steinthal, urges that “every linguistic 
creation is always the work of a single individual only.’’!” The 
psychological organisms are in fact the true media of linguistic 


1 Gesch. der griech. Lit., 1893. 

2 Volkerpsychol., 1900, 3. Aufl., 1911 f. 

3 Beitr. zur griech. Sprachk., 1890. 

4 Beitr. zu einer Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1885. 

5 Beitr. zur hist. Synt. der griech. Spr., Bd. I-XVII. 

6 Ess. und Stud. zur Sprachgesch. und Volksk., Bd. I, IT; 1885, 1893. 

7 Handb. der Altertumswiss. He edits the series (1890—). 

8 Handb. der griech. Laut- und Formenl. Eine Einfiihr. in das sprach- 
wiss. Stud. des Griech., 1902, 2. Aufl., 1912. 

9 Die griech. Spr. im Zeitalter des Hellen., 1901. 

10 Untersuch. zur Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1898. 

1 Gesch. der Sprachwiss. bei den Griech. und Rém., ΤΊ. I, IT, 1891. 

2 Hist. Gr. der lat. Spr., 1903. Cf. Stolz und Schmalz, Lat. Gr., 4. Aufl., 
1910; Draeger, Hist. Synt. der lat. Spr., Bd. I, I], 1878, 1881; Lindsay, The 
Lat. Lang., 1894. In Bd. III of Landgraf’s Gr., Golling says (p. 2) that Latin 
Grammar as a study is due to the Stoics who did it “in der engsten Verbin- 
dung mit der Logik.’”’ Cf. origin of Gk. Gr. 

13 See Whitney, Lang. and the Study of Lang., 1868, p. 399. 

4 Sayce, Intr. to the Sci. of Lang., vol. II, p. 301. 

16 Whitney, Darwinism and Lang., Reprint from North Am. Rev., July, 
1874. 

16 ‘Three Lect. on the Sci. of Lang., 1891, p. 9. See also The Silesian Horse- 
herd: ‘‘Language and thought go hand in hand; where there is as yet no 
word, there is as yet no idea.’”’ Many of the writers cn animals do not 
accept this doctrine. 

17 Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., p. xliil. 


94 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


development. Self-observation and analogy help one to strike a 
general average and so make grammar practical as well as scien- 
tific. 

(b) EvoLuTIoN IN LANGuaGE. Growth, then, is to be expected 
in a living tongue. Change is inseparable from life. No language 
is dead so long as it is undergoing change, and this must be true 
in spoken and written usage. It is not the function of the gram- 
marian to stop change in language, a thing impossible in itself. 
Such change is not usually cataclysmic, but gradual and varied. 
“A written language, to serve any practical purpose, must change 
with the times, just like a living dialect.”! In general, change 
in usage may be compared to change in organic structure in 
“greater or lesser fitness.”? The changes by analogy in the 
speech of children are very suggestive on this point. The vocab- 
ulary of the Greek tongue must therefore continually develop, 
for new ideas demand new words and new meanings come to old 
words. Likewise inflections vary in response to new movements. 
This change brings great wealtheand variety. The idea of prog- 
ress has seized the modern mind and has been applied to the 
study of language as to everything else. 

(c) CHANGE CHIEFLY IN THE VERNACULAR. Linguistic change 
occurs chiefly in the vernacular. From the spoken language new 
words and new inflections work their way gradually into the 
written style, which is essentially conservative, sometimes even 
anachronistic and purposely archaic. Much slang is finally ac- 
cepted in the literary style. The study of grammar was originally 
confined to the artificial book-style. Dionysius Thrax expressly 
defined grammar as ἐμπειρία τῶν παρὰ ποιηταῖς τε Kal συγγραφεῦσιν 
ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ λεγομένων. It was with him a concern for the 
poets and writers, not “die Sprache des Lebens.”’? Grammar 
(γραμματική, ypadw), then, was first to write and to understand 
what was written; then the scientific interpretation of this litera- 
ture; later the study of literary linguistic usage. It is only the 
moderns who have learned to investigate the living speech for 
its own historical value. Before the discovery of the Greek in- 
scriptions the distinction between the vernacular and the literary 
style could not be so sharply drawn for the Greek of the classical 


1 Paul, Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., p. 481. 

2 Ib., p. 13. Kiihner speaks of “das organische Leben der Sprache” and 
of ‘ein klares, anschauliches und lebensvolles Bild des grofen und kriiftig 
bliihenden Sprachbaums.” Ausfiihrl. Gr. der griech. Spr., 1. Bd., 1890, p. iii. 

3 Kretschmer, Einl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1896, pp. 3-5. 


THE HISTORICAL METHOD 35 


period, though Aristophanes should have taught us much. We 
have moved away from the position of Mure! who said: “The 
distinction between the language of letters and the vulgar tongue, 
so characteristic of modern civilization, is imperceptible or but 
little defined in the flourishing age of Greece. Numerous peculi- 
arities in her social condition tended to constitute classical ex- 
pression in speaking or writing, not, as with us, the privilege of a 
few, but a public property in which every Hellene had an equal 
interest.’’ The people as a whole were wonderfully well educated, 
but the educated classes themselves then, as now with us, used a 
spoken as well as a literary style. Jannaris? is clear on this point: 
“But, speaking of Attic Greek, we must not infer that all Athe- 
nians and Atticized Greeks wrote and spoke the classical Attic 
portrayed in the aforesaid literature, for this Attic is essentially 
what it still remains in modern Greek composition: a merely 
historical abstraction; that is, an artistic language which nobody 
spoke but still everybody understood.”” We must note therefore 
both the vernacular and the literary style and expect constant 
change in each, though not in the same degree. Zarncke indeed 
still sounds a note of warning against too much attention to the 
vernacular, though a needless one.*? In the first century a.p. the 
vernacular Greek was in common use all over the world, the char- 
acter of which we can now accurately set forth. But this non- 
literary language was not necessarily the speech of the illiterate. 
Mahaffy4 is very positive on this point. “I said just now that 
the Hellenistic world was more cultivated in argument than we 
are nowadays. And if you think this is a strange assertion, ex- 
amine, I pray you, the intellectual aspects of the Epistles of St. 
Paul, the first Christian writer whom we know to have been thor- 
oughly educated in this training. Remember that he was a practi- 
cal teacher, not likely to commit the fault of speaking over the 
heads of his audience, as the phrase is.”’ Hatzidakis® laments that 
the monuments of the Greek since the Alexandrian period are no 
longer in the pure actual living speech of the time, but in the ar- 


1 A Crit. Hist. of the Lang. and Lit. of Anc. Greece, 1850, vol. I, p. 117. 

2 Op. ctt., 1897, p. 3 f. 

8 Die Entst. der griech. Literaturspr., 1890, p. 2: “‘Denn man liefe Gefahr, 
den Charakter der Literaturdenkmiler ginzlich zu zerstéren, indem man, 
ihre eigenartige Gestaltung verkennend, sie nach den Normen einer gespro- 
chenen Mundart corrigirt.”” But see Lottich, De Serm. vulg. Att., 1881; and 
Apostolides, op. cit. 

4 Prog. of Hellen. in Alex. Emp., 1905, p. 137. 

5 Hinleitung, p. ὃ. 


36 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


tificial Attic of a bygone age. The modern Greek vernacular is 
a living tongue, but the modern literary language so proudly 
called καθαρεύουσα is artificial and unreal.! This new conception 
of language as life makes it no longer possible to set up the Greek 
of any one period as the standard for all time. The English 
writer to-day who would use Hooker’s style would be affected 
and anachronistic. Good English to-day is not what it was two 
hundred years ago, even with the help of printing and (part of 
the time) dictionaries. What we wish to know is not what 
was good Greek at Athens in the days of Pericles, but what was 
good Greek in Syria and Palestine in the first century a.p. The 
direct evidence for this must be sought among contemporaries, 
not from ancestors in a distant land. It is the living Greek that 
we desire, not the dead. | 

III. Greek not an Isolated Language. 

(a) THE IMPORTANCE OF COMPARATIVE GRAMMAR. Julius Cesar, 
who wrote a work on grammar, had in mind Latin and Greek, for 
both were in constant use in the Roman world.?, Formal Sanskrit 
grammar itself may have resulted from the comparison of San- 
skrit with the native dialects of India. Hence comparative 
grammar seems to lie at the very heart of the science. It cannot 
be said, however, that Panini, the great Sanskrit scholar and 
grammarian of the fourth century B.c., received any impulse 
from the Greek civilization of Alexander the Great.4 The work 
of Panini is one of the most remarkable in history for subtle orig- 
inality, “une histoire naturelle de la langue sanscrite.” The 
Roman and Greek grammarians attended to the use of words in 
sentences, while the Sanskrit writers analyzed words into syl- 
lables® and studied the relation of sounds to each other. It is 
not possible to state the period when linguistic comparison was 
first made. Max Miller in The Science of Language even says: 
“From an historical point of view it is not too much to say that 
the first Day of Pentecost marks the real beginning of the Science 
of language.’”’ One must not think that the comparative method 
is “more characteristic of the study of language than of other 


1 “ine Literatursprache ist nie eine Art Normalsprache.”” Schwyzer, 
Weltspr. des Altert., 1902, p. 12. 

2 King, Intr. to Comp. Gr., p. 2. 

8 Sayce, Prin. of Comp. Philol., p. 261. 

4 Goblet d’Alviella, Ce que |’Inde doit ἃ la Gréce, 1897, p. 129. 

5 King, op. cit., p. 2f. “The method of comparative grammar is merely 
auxiliary to Hiourionl grammar,’ Wheeler, δρνοίς and Whither of the 
Mod. Sci. of Lang., p. 96. 


THE HISTORICAL METHOD 37 


branches of modern inquiry.’’! The root idea of the new gram- 
mar is the kinship of languages. Chinese grammar is said to be 
one of the curiosities of the world, and some other grammatical 
works can be regarded in that light. But our fundamental obli- 
gation is to the Hindu and Greek grammarians.? 

(b) THe Common ΒΟΝΡ ΙΝ Laneuace. Prof. Alfredo Trom- 
betti, of Rome, has sought the connecting link in all human 
speech.? It is a gigantic task, but it is doubtless true that all 
speech is of ultimate common origin. The remote relationships 
are very difficult to trace. As a working hypothesis the compara- 
tive grammarians speak of isolating, agglutinative and inflectional 
languages. In the isolating tongues like the Chinese, Burmese, 
etc., the words have no inflection and the position in the sen- 
tence and the tone in pronunciation are relied on for clearness 
of meaning. Giles* points out that modern English and Persian 
have nearly returned to the position of Chinese as isolating lan- 
guages. Hence it is inferred that the Chinese has already gone 
through a history similar to the English and is starting again on 
an inflectional career. Agglutinative tongues like the Turkish ex- 
press the various grammatical relations by numerous separable 
prefixes, infixes and suffixes. Inflectional languages have made 
still further development, for while a distinction is made between 
the stem and the inflexional endings, the stems and the endings 
do not exist apart from each other. There are two great families 
in the inflexional group, the Semitic (the Assyrian, the Hebrew, 
the Syriac, the Arabic, etc.) and the Indo-Germanic or Indo-Euro- 
pean (the Indo-Iranian or Aryan, the Armenian, the Greek, the 
Albanian, the Italic, the Celtic, the Germanic and the Balto- 
Slavic).». Indo-European also are Illyrian, Macedonian, Phrygian, 
Thracian and the newly-discovered Tocharian. Some of these 
groups, like the Italic, the Germanic, the Balto-Slavic, the Indo- 
Iranian, embrace a number of separate tongues which show an 
inner affinity, but all the groups have a general family likeness.® 


1 Whitney, Life and Growth of Lang., 1875—, p. 315. 

2 F. Hoffmann, Uber die Entwickel. des Begriffs der Gr. bei den Alten, 
1891, p. 1. 

8 See his book, The Unity of Origin of Lang. Dr. Allison Drake, Disc. in 
Heb., Gaelic, Gothic, Anglo-Sax., Lat., Basque and other Caucasic Lang., 
1908, undertakes to show “fundamental kinship of the Aryan tongues and 
of Basque with the Semitic tongues.”’ 

4 Man. of Comp. Philol., 1901, p. 36. 

5’ Brugmann, Kurze vergl. Gr. der indoger. Spr., 1. Lief., 1902, p. 4. 

6 See Misteli, Characteristik der hauptsiichlichsten Typen des Sprach- 


38 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(c) Tae OricinaL Inpo-GrerManic Sprecu. It is not claimed 
that the original Indo-Germanic speech has been discovered, 
though Kretschmer does speak of “die indogermanische Ur- 
sprache,”’ but he considers it only a necessary hypothesis and a 
useful definition for the early speech-unity before the Indo-Ger- 
manic stock separated.!. Brugmann speaks also of the original 
and ground-speech (Ur- und Grundsprache) in the prehistoric back- 
ground of every member of the Indo-Germanic family.2 The 
science of language has as a historic discipline the task of inves- 
tigating the collective speech-development of the Indo-Germanic 
peoples. Since Bopp’s day this task is no longer impossible. The 
existence of an original Indo-Germanic speech is the working 
hypothesis of all modern linguistic study. This demands indeed 
a study of the Indo-Germanic people. Horatio Hale* insists that 
language is the only proper basis for the classification of man- 
kind. But this test breaks down when Jews and Egyptians speak 
Greek after Alexander’s conquests or when the Irish and the 
American Negro use English. The probable home and wander- 
ings of the original Indo-Germanic peoples are well discussed by 
Kretschmer.> It is undeniable that many of the same roots exist 
in slightly different forms in all or most of the Indo-Germanic 
tongues. They are usually words that refer to the common do- 
mestic relations, elementary agriculture, the ordinary articles of 
food, the elemental forces, the pronouns and the numerals. In- 
flexional languages have two kinds of roots, predicative (nouns 
and verbs) and pronominal. Panini found 1706 such roots in 
Sanskrit, but Edgren has reduced the number of necessary San- 
skrit roots to 587.6 But one must not suppose that these hypo- 
thetical roots ever constituted a real language, though there was 
an original Indo-Germanic tongue.’ 


baues, 1893. For further literature on comparative grammar sce ch. I, 2 (ἢ) 
of this book. There is an English translation of Brugmann’s Bde. I and II 
called Elements of the Comp. Gr. of the Indo-Ger. Lang., 5 vols., 1886-97. 
But his Kurze vergl. Gr. (1902-4) is the handiest edition. Meillet (Intr. ἃ 
l’Etude Comp. ete., pp. 441-455) has a discriminating discussion of the litera- 
ture. 

1 Einl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1896, pp. 7-9. 

2 Kurze vergl. Gr., 1. Lief., 1902, p. 3. 

JA bebe hare 

4 Pop. Sci. Rev., Jan., 1888. 

5 Einl. in die Gaol? ΤῊ pp. 7-92. 

8 See Max Miiller, Three Lect. on the Sci. of Lang., 1891, p. 29. 

.7 Sayce, Prin. of Comp. Philo!., 1875, p. vi. 


THE HISTORICAL METHOD 39 


(d) GREEK AS A “DIALECT” OF THE INDO-GERMANIC SPEECH. 
Greek then can be regarded as one of the branches of this original 
Indo-Germanie speech, just as French is one of the descendants of 
the Latin,! like Spanish, Portuguese, Italian. Compare also the re- 
lation of English to the other Teutonic tongues.? To go further, 
the separation of this original Indo-Germanic speech into various 
tongues was much like the breaking-up of the original Greek into 
dialects and was due to natural causes. Dialectic variety itself 
implies previous speech-unity.* Greek has vital relations with all 
the branches of the Indo-Germanic tongues, though in varying 
degrees. The Greek shows decided affinity with the Sanskrit, the 
Latin and the Celtic* languages. Part of the early Greek stock 
was probably Celtic. The Greek and the Latin flourished side by 
side for centuries and had much common history. All the com- 
parative grammars and the Greek grammars from this point of 
view constantly compare the Greek with the Latin. See especially 
the great work of Riemann and Goelzer, Grammaire comparée 
du Grec et du Latin.® On the whole subject of the relation of the 
Greek with the various Indo-Germanic languages see the excel- 
lent brief discussion of Kretschmer.’ But the hypothesis of an 
original Graeco-Italic tongue cannot be considered as proved, 
though there are many points of contact between Greek and 
Latin.’ But Greek, as the next oldest branch known to us, 
shows more kinship with the Sanskrit. Constant use of the San- 
skrit must be made by one who wishes to understand the 
historical development of the Greek tongue. Such a work as 
Whitney’s Sanskrit Grammar is very useful for this purpose. 
See also J. Wackernagel, Altindische Grammatik. I, Lautlehre 
(1896). II, 1, Einleittung zur Wortlehre (1905). So Thumb’s 


1 See Meyer-Liibke, Gr. der rém. Spr., 3 Bde., 1890, 1894, 1899. 

2 See Hirt, Handb. der griech. Laut- und Formenl., 2d ed., 1912, p. 13. 
Cf. Donaldson, New Crat., p. 112 (Ethn. Affin. of the Anc. Greeks). 

3 Whitney, Lang. and the Study of Lang., 1868, p. 185. See Brugmann, 
Griech. Gr., p. 5: ‘Die griechische, lateinische, indische u.s.w. Grammatik 
sind die konstitutiven Teile der indogermanischen Grammatik in gleicher 
Weise, wie z. B. die dorische, die ionische u.s.w. Grammatik die griechische 
Grammatik ausmachen.” 

4 See Holder, Altcelt. Sprachsch., 1891 ff. 

5 Synt., 1897. Phonét. et Et. des Formes Grq. et Lat., 1901. 

6 Hinl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., pp. 153-170. 

7 Prof. B. L. Gildersleeve, Johns Hopkins Univ., has always taught Greek, 
but his Latin. Grammar shows his fondness for Latin. See also Henry, A 
Short Comp. Gr. of Gk. and Lat., 1890, and A Short Comp. Gr. of Eng. and 
Ger., 1893. 


40 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Handbuch des Sanskrit. I, Grammatik (1905). Max Miller! 
playfully remarks: “It has often been said that no one can know 
anything of the science of language who does not know Sanskrit, 
and that is enough to frighten anybody away from its study.” 
It is not quite so bad, however. Sanskrit is not the parent stock 
of the Greek, but the oldest member of the group. The age of 
the Sanskrit makes it invaluable for the study of the later speech- 
developments. 

The Greek therefore is not an isolated tongue, but sustains vital 
relations with a great family of languages. So important does 
Kretschmer consider this aspect of the subject that he devotes 
his notable Hinleitung in die Geschichte der griechischen Sprache 
to the setting forth of “the prehistoric beginnings of the Greek 
speech-development.”? This effort is, of necessity, fragmentary 
and partly inferential, but most valuable for a scientific treat- 
ment of the Greek language. He has a luminous discussion of the 
effect of the Thracian and Phrygian stocks upon the Greek when 
the language spread over Asia Minor.’ 

IV. Looking at the Greek Language as a Whole. We cannot 
indeed make an exhaustive study of the entire Greek language in 
a book that is professedly concerned only with one epoch of that 
history. As a matter of fact no such work exists. Jannaris‘* in- 
deed said that “an ‘historical’ grammar, tracing in a connected 
manner the life of the Greek language from classical antiquity to 
the present time, has not been written nor even seriously at- 
tempted as yet.’? Jannaris himself felt his limitations when he 
faced so gigantic a task and found it necessary to rest his work 
upon the classical Attic as the only practical basis.° But so far 


1 Three Lect. on the Sci. of Lang., 1891, p. 72. 

2 P.5. Prof. Burrows (Disc. in Crete, 1907, pp. 145 ff.) raises the question 
whether the Greek race (a blend of northern and southern elements) made 
the Gk. language out of a pre-existing Indo-European tongue. Or did the 
northerners bring the Gk. with them? Or did they find it already in the 
igean? It is easier to ask than to answer these questions. 

3 See pp. 171-243. . 4 Hist. Gk. Gr., 1897, p. v. 

5 Ib., p..xi. Thumb says: “ Wir sind noch sehr weit von einer Geschichte 
oder historischen Grammatik der griechischen Sprache entfernt; der, Ver- 
such von Jannaris, so dankenswert er ist, kann doch nur provisorische Gel- 
tung beanspruchen, wobei man mehr die gute Absicht und den Fleif als das 
sprachgeschichtliche Verstiindnis des Verfassers loben muf.’’ Die griech. 
Spr., etc., 1901, p. 1. Cf. also Krumbacher, Beitr. zu einer Gesch. der griech. 
Spr. (1884, p. 4): “Hine zusammenhingende Darstellung des Entwickelungs- 
ganges der griechischen Sprache ist gegenwirtig nicht méglich.” But it is 
more possible now than in 1884. 


THE HISTORICAL METHOD 41 


he departed from the pure historical method. But such a gram- 
mar will come some day. 

(a) DescrIPTIVE HistortcAL GRAMMAR. Meanwhile descriptive 
historical grammar is possible and necessary. “Descriptive gram- 
mar has to register the grammatical forms and grammatical con- 
ditions in use at a given date within a certain community speaking 
a common language.’! There is this justification for taking 
Attic as the standard for classical study; only the true historical 
perspective should be given and Attic should not be taught as 
the only real Greek. It is possible and essential then to correlate 
the N. T. Greek with all other Greek and to use all Greek to 
throw light on the stage of the language under review. If the 
Greek itself is not an isolated tongue, no one stage of the lan- 
guage can be so regarded. ‘‘ Wolff? deprecates the restriction of 
grammar to a set of rules abstracted from the writings of a 
‘golden’ period, while in reality it should comprise the whole his- 
tory of a language and trace its development.” H. C. Miiller? 
indeed thought that the time had not arrived for a grammar of 
Greek on the historical plan, because it must rest on a greater 
amount of material than is now at hand. But since then a vast 
amount of new material has come to light in the form of papyri, 
inscriptions and research in the modern Greek. Miiller’s own 
book has added no little to our knowledge of the subject. Mean- 
while we can use the historical material for the study of N. T. 
Greek. 

(0) Unity oF THE GREEK LanauaaE. At the risk of slight repe- 
tition it is worth while to emphasize this point. Miller‘ is apolo- 
getic and eager to show that “the Greek language and literature 
is one organic, coherent whole.” The dialectical variations, while 
confusing to a certain extent, do not show that the Greek did not 
possess original and continuous unity. As early as 1000 B.c. these 
dialectical distinctions probably existed and the speech of Homer 
is a literary dialect, not the folk-speech.® The original sources of 


1 Paul, Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., 1888, p. 2. 

2 Oertel, Lect. on the Study of Lang., 1902, p. 27. Thumb (Theol. Litera- 
turzeit., 1903, p. 424) expresses the hope that in a future edition of his Gr. 
des N. T., Blass may do this for his book: “Die Sprache des N. T. auf dem 
grofen Hintergrund der hellenistischen Sprachentwicklung beschreiben zu 
k6nnen.” 8. Hist. Gr. der hell. Spr., 1891, p. 14f. 

4 Tb., p. 16. On ‘die griechische Sprache als Einheit’”’ see Thumb’s able 
discussion in Handb. d. griech. Dial. (pp. 1-12). With all the diversity of 
dialects there was essential unity in comparison with other tongues. 

5 Brugmann, Vergl. Gr., 1902, p. 8. 


42 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the Greek speech go back to a far distant time when as one single 
language an Asiatic idiom had taken Europe in its circle of in- 
fluence... The translator of Buttmann’s Greek Grammar speaks 
of Homer “almost as the work of another language.” ‘This was 
once a common opinion for all Greek that was not classic Attic. 
But Thiersch entitled his great work Griechische Grammattk vor- 
ztiglich des homerischen Dialekts, not simply because of the worth 
of Homer, “but because, on the contrary, a thorough knowledge 
of the Homeric dialect is indispensably necessary for those who 
desire to comprehend, in their whole depth and compass, the 
Grecian tongue and literature.”? But Homer is not the gauge by 
which to test Greek; his poems are invaluable testimony to the 
early history of one stage of the language. It is a pity that we 
know so little of the pre-Homeric history of Greek. “Homer pre- 
sents not a starting-point, but a culmination, a complete achieve- 
ment, an almost mechanical accomplishment, with scarcely a 
hint of origins.” * But whenever Greek began it has persisted as a 
linguistic unit till now. It is one language whether we read the 
Epic Homer, the Doric Pindar, the Ionic Herodotus, the Attic 
Xenophon, the AZolic Sappho, the Atticistic Plutarch, Paul the 
exponent of Christ, an inscription in Pergamus, a papyrus letter 
in Egypt, Tricoupis or Vlachos in the modern time. None of 
these representatives can be regarded as excrescences or imperti- 
nences. There have always been uneducated persons, but the 
Greek tongue has had a continuous, though checkered, history all 
the way. The modern educated Greek has a keen appreciation of 
“die Schénheiten der klassischen Sprache.”* Miiller® complained 
that “almost no grammarians have treated the Greek language 
as a whole,” but the works of Krumbacher, Thumb, Dieterich, 
Hatzidakis, Psichari, Jannaris, etc., have made it possible to ob- 
tain a general survey of the Greek language up to the present 
time. Like English,* Greek has emerged into a new sphere of 
unity and consistent growth. 


1 Kretschmer, Einl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1896, p. 6. On the un- 
mixed character of the Gk. tongue see Wackernagel, Die griech. Spr., p. 294, 
TI. I, Abt. 8 (Die Kult. der Gegenw.). On the antiquity of Gk. see p. 292 f. 

2 Sandford, Pref. to Thiersch’s Gk. Gr., 1830, p. viii. 

8 Miss Harrison, Prol. to the Study of Gk. Rel., 1903, p. vii. 

4 Hatzidakis, ἘΠ]. in die neugr. Gr., 1892, p. 4. 

5 Hist. Gr. der hell. Spr., 1891, p. 2. 

6 See John Koch, Eng. Gr., for an admirable Res ad of works on Eng. 
(in Ergeb. und Fortschr. ake germanist. Wiss. im letzten Vierteljahrh., 1902, 
pp. 89-188, 325-437). ‘The Germans have taught us how to study English! 


THE HISTORICAL METHOD 43 


(c) PERIODS OF THE GREEK LANGUAGE. It will be of service to 
present a brief outline of the history of the Greek tongue. And 
yet it is not easy to give. See the discussion by Sophocles in his 
Greek Lexicon (p. 11 f.), inadequate in view of recent discoveries 
by Schliemann and Evans. The following is a tentative outline: 
The Mycensean Age, 1500 B.c. to 1000 B.c.; the Age of the Dia- 
lects, 1000 B.c. to 300 B.c.; the Age of the Kow7, 300 B.c. to 330 
A.D.; the Byzantine Greek, 330 A.D. to 1453 a.p.; the modern 
Greek, 1453 a.p. to the present time. The early stage of the 
Byzantine Greek (up to 600 A.D.) is really κοινή and the rest is 
modern Greek. See a different outline by Jannaris! and Hadley 
and Allen.2 As a matter of fact any division is arbitrary, for 
the language has had an unbroken history, though there are 
these general epochs in that history. We can no longer call the 
pre-Homeric time mythical as Sophocles does.’ In naming this 
the Mycenean age we do not wish to state positively that the 
Mycenzans were Greeks and spoke Greek. “Of their speech we 
have yet to read the first syllable.”* Tsountas> and Manatt, 
however, venture to believe that they were either Greeks or of 
the same stock. They use the term “to designate all Greek 
- peoples who shared in the Mycenean civilization, irrespective of 
their habitat.”® Obhnefalsch-Richter (Cont. Rev., Dec., 1912, 
p. 862) claims Cyprus as the purveyor of culture to the Creto- 
Mycenzean age. He claims that Hellenes lived in Cyprus 1200 to 
1000 p.c. The Mycenzean influence was wide-spread and comes 
‘“‘down to the very dawn of historical Greece.” 7 That Greek was 
known and used widely during the Mycenzean age the researches 
of Evans at Knossos, in Crete, make clear.6 The early linear 


1 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. xxii. Cf. also Schuckburgh, Greece, 1906, p. 24 f. 
Moulton (Prol., p. 184) counts 32 centuries of the Gk. language from 1275 
B.c., the date of the mention of the Achzans on an Egyptian monument. 

2 Gk. Gr., 1885, p. 1 f. Deissmann indeed would have only three divisions, 
the Dialects up to 300 B.c., Middle Period up to 600 a.p., and Mod. Gk. up 
to the present time. Hauck’s Realencyc., 1889, p. 680. Cf. Miiller, Hist. 
Gr. der hell. Spr., 1891, pp. 42-62, for another outline. 

ee Or ΠΟΥ το ΒΡ. 11: 

4 Tsountas and Manatt, The Mycenzan Age, 1897, p. 316. 

5. Ib:, p. 335 ΠῚ 

ΘΠ 250. 

7 Ib., p. 325. See also Beloch, Griech. Gesch., I., 85: ‘Auch sonst kann 
kein Zweifel sein, dafS die mykeniische Kultur in Griechenland bis in das 
VIII. Jahrhundert geherrscht.””’ Flinders-Petrie (Jour. of Hell. Stud., ΧΙ, 
204) speaks of 1100 to 800 B.c. as the “age of Mycenean decadence.’ 

8 Cretan Pictographs and Pre-Phcenician Script, 1895, p. 362; cf. also 


44 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ᾿ 


writing of the Cretans came from a still earlier pictograph. The 
Greek dialects emerge into light from about 1000 B.c. onward and 
culminate in the Attic which flourished till the work of Alexander 
is done. The Homeric poems prove that Greek was an old language 
by 1000 to 800 B.c. The dialects certainly have their roots deep 
in the Mycenzan age. Roughly, 300 B.c. is the time when the 
Greek has become the universal language of the world, a Welé- 
sprache. 330 A.D. is the date when the seat of government was re- 
moved from Rome to Constantinople, while a.p. 1453 is the date 
when Constantinople was captured by the Turks. With all the 
changes in this long history the standards of classicity have not 
varied greatly from Homer till now in the written style, while 
the Greek vernacular to-day is remarkably like the earliest known 
inscriptions of the folk-speech in Greece.!. We know something 
of this history for about 3000 years, and it is at least a thousand 
years longer. Mahaffy has too poor an idea of modern Greek, 
but even he can say: “Even in our miserable modern pigeon- 
Greek, which represents no real pronunciation, either ancient or 
modern, the lyrics of Sophocles or Aristophanes are unmistakably 
lovely.’’? 

(d) MopERN GREEK IN PARTICULAR. It is important to single out 
the modern Greek vernacular’ from the rest of the language for 
the obvious reason that it is the abiding witness to the perpetuity 
of the vernacular Greek as a living organism. It is a witness 
also that is at our service always. The modern Greek popular 
speech does not differ materially from the vernacular Byzantine, 
and thus connects directly with the vernacular κοινή. Alexandria 
was “the great culture-reservoir of the Greek-Oriental world . . . 
the repository of the ancient literary treasures.”4 With this 


Jour. of Hell. Stud., xiv, 270-372. See Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 22, for fur- 
ther proofs of the antiquity of Gk. as a written tongue. Mosso (Palaces of 
Crete, 1907, p. 73 1.) argues that the Mycenzean linear script was used 1900 
B.c. Cf. Evans, Further Researches, 1898. 

1 Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 18. -See also Hatzidakis, Hinl. in die neugr. 
Gr., 1892, p. 3. 

2 Survey of Gk. Civiliz., 1896, p. 209. Cf. further Mosso, Dawn of Civiliz. 
in Crete, 1910; Baike, Kings of Crete, 1910; Firmen, Zeit und Dauer der 
kretisch- myken. Kult., 1909. 

3 The modern literary language (καθαρεύουσα) is really more identical with 
the ancient classical Gk. But it is identity secured by mummifying the dead. 
It is identity of imitation, not identity of life. Cf. Thumb-Angus, Handb. of 
Mod. Gk. Vern., Foreword (p. xi f.). 

4 Dieterich, Gesch. der byz. und neugr. Lit., 1902, p. 2. 


THE HISTORICAL METHOD 45 


general position Thumb heartily agrees. Hatzidakis? even says: 
“The language generally spoken to-day in the towns differs less 
from the tommon language of Polybius than this last differs from 
the language of Homer.”’ Since this is true it at first seems odd 
that the students at the University of Athens should object so 
much to the translation of the N. T. into the modern vernacular. 
They forget that the N. T. is itself written in the vernacular 
κοινῆ. But that was so long ago that it is now classic to them. 
Certainly in the Gospels, as Wellhausen® insists, the spoken 
Greek became literature. Knowledge of the modern Greek‘ helps 
the student to escape from “the Procrustean bed of the old 
Greek” which he learned as a fixed and dead thing.’ It is prob- 
able that Roger Bacon had some Byzantine manual besides the 
old Greek grammars.® “In England, no less than in the rest of 
Western Europe, the knowledge of Greek had died away, and 
here also, it was only after the conquest of Constantinople that a 
change was possible.”7 Western Christians had been afraid of 
the corruptions of paganism if they knew Greek, and of Moham- 
medanism if they knew Hebrew (being kin to Arabic!). But at 
last a change has come in favour of the modern Greek. Boltz in- 
deed has advocated modern Greek as the common language for 
the scholars of the world since Latin is so little spoken.’ There is 
indeed need of a new world-speech, as Greek was in the N. T. 
times, but there is no language that can now justly make such a 
claim. English comes nearer to it than any other. This need 
has given rise to the artificial tongues like Volapiik and Espe- 


1 “T)ie heutige griechische Volkssprache ist die natiirliche Fortsetzung der 
alten Κοινή." Die neugr. Spr., 1892, p. 8. See Heilmeier’s book on the Ro- 
maic Gk. (1834), who first saw this connection between the mod. vern. and 
the vern. κοινή. 

2 Transl. by J. H. Moulton in Gr. of N. T. Gk., 1906 and 1908, p. 30, from 
Rey. des Et. Grq., 1903, p. 220. Cf. Krumbacher, Das Prob. der neugr. 
Schriftspr., 1902. 3. Hinl. in die drei ersten Evang., 1905, p. 9. 

4 See Riiger, Prap. bei Joh. Antiochenus, 1896, p. 7. 

5 Thumb, Handb. der neugr. Volkspr., 1895, p. x. 

6 Roger Bacon’s Gk. Gr., edited by Nolan and Hirsch, 1902, p. Ix f. 

IMs Ne xii, 

8 Hell. die internat. Gelehrtenspr. der Zukunft, 1888. Likewise A. Rose: 
“Die griechische Sprache... hat... eine glinzende Zukunft vor sich.” 
Die Griechen und ihre Spr., 1890, p. 4. He pleads for it as a “‘ Weltsprache,”’ 
p. 271. But Schwyzer pointedly says: ‘Die Rolle einer Weltsprache wird 
das Griechische nicht wieder spielen.” Weltspr. des Altert., 1902, p. 38. Cf. 
also A. Boltz, Die hell. Spr. der Gegenw., 1882, and Gk. the Gen. Lang. of 
the Future for Scholars. 


40 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ranto,! the latter having some promise in it. But the modern 
Greek vernacular has more merit than was once conceded to it. 
The idioms and pronunciation of the present-day vernacular are 
often seen in the manuscripts of the N. T. and other Greek docu- 
ments and much earlier in inscriptions representing one or an- 
other of the early dialects. The persistence of early English forms 
is easily observed in the vernacular in parts of America or Eng- 
land. In the same way the late Latin vernacular is to be compared 
with the early Latin vernacular, not with the Latin of elegant 
literature. “Speaking generally, we may say that the Greek of a 
well-written newspaper [the literary language] is now, as a rule, 
far more classical than the Hellenistic of the N. T., but decidedly 
less classical than the Greek of Plutarch.”? What the rela- 
tion between the N. T. Greek and the modern Greek is will be 
shown in the next chapter. It should be noted here that the 
N. T. Greek had a strong moulding influence on the Byzantine, 
and so on the modern Greek because of the use of the Greek New 
Testament all over the world, due to the spread of Christianity 
throughout the Roman Empire. The great Christian preachers 
did not indeed use a peculiar ecclesiastical Greek, but the N. T. 
did tend to emphasize the type of κοινή in which it was written. 
“The diction of the N. T. had a direct influence in moulding 
the Greek ordinarily used by Christians in the succeeding cen- 
turies.””4 Compare the effect of the King James Version on the 
English language and of Luther’s translation of the Bible on 
German. 

V. The Greek Point of View. It sounds like a truism to 
insist that the Greek idiom must be explained from the Greek 
point of view. But none the less the caution is not superfluous. 
Trained linguists may forget it and so commit a grammatical 
vice. Even Winer® will be found saying, for instance: “ Appel- 
latives which, as expressing definite objects, should naturally 


1 Cf. J. C. O’Connor, Esperanto Text-book, and Eng.-Esper. Dict. 

2 Jebb, On the Rela. of Mod. to Class..Gk., in Vincent and Dickson’s 
Handb. to Mod. Gk., 1887, p. 294. Blass actually says: ‘‘ Der Sprachge- 
brauch des Neuen Testaments, der vielfaltig vom Neugriechischen her eine 
viel bessere Beleuchtung empfaingt als aus der alten klassischen Literatur.” 
Kiihner’s Ausf. Gr. etc., 1890, p. 25. Blass also says (ib., p. 26) that ‘‘eine 
wissenschaftliche neugriechische Grammatik fehlt.” But Hatzidakis and 
others have written since. 

3 See Reinhold, De Graecitate Patrum, 1898. 

4 Jebb, ib., p. 290. 

5 Gr. of the N. T. Gk., Moulton’s transl., 1877, p. 147. 


THE HISTORICAL METHOD 47 


have the article, are in certain cases used without 10.) That 
“should” has the wrong attitude toward Greek. The appel- 
lative in Greek does not need to have the article in order to be 
definite. So when Winer often admits that one tense is used 
“for” another, he is really thinking of German and how it would 
be expressed in German. Each tongue has its own history and 
genius. Parallel idioms may or may not exist in a group of lan- 
guages. Sanskrit and Latin, for instance, have no article. It is 
not possible to parallel the Hebrew tenses, for example, with the 
Greek, nor, indeed, can it be done as between Greek and English. 
The English translation of a Greek aorist may have to be in the 
past perfect or the present perfect to suit the English usage, but 
that proves nothing as to how a Greek regarded the aorist tense. 
We must assume in a language that a good writer knew how to 
use his own tongue and said what he meant to say. Good Greek 
may be very poor English, as when Luke uses ἐν τῷ εἰσαγαγεῖν τοὺς 
γονεῖς TO παιδίον ᾿Ιησοῦν (Lu. 2:27). A literal translation of this 
neat Greek idiom makes barbarous English. The Greeks simply 
did not look at this clause as we do. “One of the commonest and 
gravest errors in studying the grammar of foreign languages is 
to make a half-conjectural translation, and then reason back 
from our own language to the meaning of the original; or to ex- 
plain some idiom of the original by the formally different idiom 
which is our substantial equivalent.’”’! Broadus was the greatest 
teacher of language that I have known and he has said nothing 
truer than this. After all, an educated Greek knew what he 
meant better than we do. It is indeed a great and difficult task 
that is demanded of the Greek grammarian who to-day under- 
takes to present a living picture of the orderly development of 
the Greek tongue “zu einem schénen und grofen Ganzen” and 
also show “in the most beautiful light the flower of the Greek 
spirit and life.”2 Deissmann? feels strongly on the subject of the 
neglect of the literary development of Primitive Christianity, “a 


1 Broadus, Comm. on Mt., 1886, p. 316. See also Gerber, Die Spr. als 
Kunst, 1. Bd., 1871, p. 321: ‘‘ Der ganze Charakter dieser oder jener Sprache 
ist der Abdruck der Natur des Landes, wo sie gesprochen wird. Die griechi- 
sche Sprache ist der griechische Himmel selbst mit seiner tiefdunklen Blaue, 
die sich in dem sanft wogenden Agiischen Meere spiegelt.’’ 

2 Kiihner, Ausf. Gr. der griech. Spr., 1834, p. iv. How much more so 
now! 

8 Expos. Times, Dec., 1906, p. 103. Cf. also F. Overbeck, Hist. Zeitschr., 
neue Folge, 1882, p. 429 ff. 


48 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


subject which has not yet been recognized by many persons in its 
full importance. Huge as is the library of books that have been 
written on the origin of the N. T. and of its separate parts, the 
N. T. has not often been studied by historians of literature; that 
is to say, as a branch of the history of ancient literature.” 


CHAPTER III 


THE KOINH 


The Greek of the N. T. has many streams that flow into it. 
But this fact is not a peculiarity of this phase of the language. 
The κοινή itself has this characteristic in a marked degree. If 
one needs further examples, he can recall how composite English 
is, not only combining various branches of the Teutonic group, 
but also incorporating much of the old Celtic of Britain and re- 
ceiving a tremendous impress from the Norman-French (and so 
Latin), not to mention the indirect literary influence of Latin and 
Greek. The early Greek itself was subject to non-Greek influ- 
ence as other Indo-Germanic tongues were, and in particular from 
the side of the Thracians and Phrygians in the East,! and in the 
West and North the Italic, Celtic and Germanic pressure was 
strong.” 

I. The Term Kowy. The word κοινή, sc. διάλεκτος, Means 
simply common language or dialect common to all, a world- 
speech (Weltsprache). Unfortunately there is not yet uniformity 
in the use of a term to describe the Greek that prevailed over 
Alexander’s empire and became the world-tongue. Kiihner- 
Blass’ speak of “ἡ κοινή oder ἑλληνικὴ διάλεκτος." So also Schmie- 
del‘ follows Winer exactly. But Hellenic language is properly 
only Greek language, as Hellenic culture® is Greek culture. Jan- 
naris® suggests Panhellenic or new Attic for the universal Greek, 


1 Kretschmer, Ein]. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1896, pp. 171-243. But 
the true Phrygians were kin to the Greeks. See Percy Gardner, New Ch. 
of Gk. Hist., p. 84. 

2 Kretschmer, op. cit., pp. 153-170, 244-282. 

2 Griech. Gr., Bd. I, p. 22. SW OCH Ne Le Gri, p.l7. 

5 Mahaffy, Prog. of Hellen. in Alex. Emp., p. 3. Mahaffy does use Hel- 
lenism like Droysen in his Hist. of Hellenism, as corresponding to Hellen- 
istic, but he does so under protest (p. 3f.). He wishes indeed that he had 
coined the word ‘“‘Hellenicism.’”?’ But Hogarth (Philip and Alexander, p. 277) 
had already used “ Hellenisticism,’”’ saying: “‘ Hellenisticism grew out of Hel- 
lenism.”’ 

6 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 6. 

49 


50 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the Greek par excellence as to common usage. Hellenistic Greek 
would answer in so far as it is Greek spoken also by Hellenists 
differing from Hellenes or pure Greeks. Krumbacher applies Hel- 
lenistic to the vernacular and κοινή to the “conventional literary 
language” of the time,! but this is wholly arbitrary. Krumbacher 
terms the Hellenistic “ein verschwommenes Idiom.” Hatzida- 
kis and Schwyzer include in the κοινή both the literary and the 
spoken language of the Hellenistic time. This is the view adopted 
in this grammar. Deissmann dislikes the term Hellenistic Greek 
because it was so long used for the supposedly peculiar biblical 
Greek, though the term itself has a wide significance.? He also 
strongly disapproves the terms “vulgar Greek,” “bad Greek,” 
“sraecitas fatiscens,’ in contrast with the “classic Greek.” 
Deissmann moreover objects to the word κοινή because it 15 used 
either for the vernacular, the literary style or for all the Greek 
of the time including the Atticistic revival. So he proposes 
“Hellenistic world-speech.”? But this is too cumbersome. It is 
indeed the world-speech of the Alexandrian and Roman period 
that is meant by the term κοινή. There is on the other hand the 
literary speech of the orators, historians, philosophers, poets, the 
public documents preserved in the inscriptions (some even Atti- 
cistic); on the other hand we have the popular writings in the 
LXX, the N. T., the Apostolic Fathers, the papyri (as a rule) 
and the ostraca. The term is thus sufficient by itself to express 
the Greek in common use over the world, both oral and literary, 
as Schweizer‘ uses it followmg Hatzidakis. 'Thumb® identifies 
κοινή and Hellenistic Greek and applies it to both vernacular and 
written style, though he would not regard the Atticists as proper 
producers of the xow7. Moulton® uses the term κοινή for both 

spoken and literary κοινή. The doctors thus disagree very widely. ὁ 
On the whole it seems best to use the term κοινή (or Hellenistic 
Greek) both for the vernacular and literary κοινή, excluding the 
Atticistic revival, which was a conscious effort to write not κοινή 


1 Miinchener Sitzungsber., 1886, p. 435. 

2 Art. Hell. Griech., Hauck’s Realencyc., p. 629. 

3 Tb., p. 630. . 

4 Gr. der perg. Inschr., p. 19 f. 5 Die griech. Spr. ete., p. 9. 

6 Prol., p. 23. It is not necessary to discuss here the use of ‘‘ Hellenistic ”’ 
Gk. as “Jewish-Gk.”’ (see “Semitic Influence” in ch. IV), for it is absurd. 
The notion that the κοινή is Macedonian Gk. is quite beside the mark, for 
Mae. Gk. is too barbarous. The theory of an Alexandrian dialect is obsolete. 
Du Canges, in his Glossarium called Hell. Gk. “corruptissima lingua,” and 
Niebuhr (Uber das Agyp.-Griech., K1. Schr., p. 197) calls it “jargon.” 


THE KOINH 51 


but old Attic.!. At last then the Greek world has speech-unity, 
whatever was true of the beginning of the Greek language.? 

II. The Origin of the Kouvy. 

(a) ΤΕΙΜΡΗ oF THE Attic. This is what happened. Even 
in Asiatic Ionia the Attic influence was felt. The Attic ver- 
nacular, sister to the Ionic vernacular, was greatly influenced 
by the speech of soldiers and merchants from all the Greek 
world. Attic became the standard language of the Greek world 
in the fifth and the fourth centuries B.c. “We must not 
infer that all Athenians and Atticized Greeks wrote and spoke 
the classical Attic portrayed in the aforesaid literature, for this 
Attic is essentially what it still remains in modern Greek compo- 
sition: a merely historical abstraction, that is, an artistic language 
which nobody spoke, but still everybody understood.”* This is 
rather an overstatement, but there is much truth in it. This 
classic literary Attic did more and more lose touch with the ver- 
nacular. ‘It is one of our misfortunes, whatever be its practical 
convenience, that we are taught Attic as the standard Greek, and 
all other forms and dialects as deviations from it ... when many 
grammarians come to characterize the later Greek of the Middle 
Ages or of to-day, or even that of the Alexandrian or N. T. 
periods, no adjective is strong enough to condemn this ‘verdor- 
benes, veruneinigtes Attisch’” (S. Dickey, Princeton Rev., Oct., 
1903). The literary Attic was allied to the literary Ionic; but 
even in this crowning development of Greek speech no hard and 
fast lines are drawn, for the artificial Doric choruses are used in 
tragedy and the vernacular in comedy.* There was loss as well 
as gain as the Attic was more extensively used, just as is true 


1 Blass indeed contrasts the literature of the Alex. and Rom. periods on 
this principle, but wrongly, for it is type, not time, that marks the difference. 
“Tf then the literature of the Alexandrian period must be called Hellenistic, 
that of the Roman period must be termed Atticistic. But the popular lan- 
guage had gone its own way.” Gr. of the N. T. Gk., 1898 and 1905, p. 2. On 
the Gk. of Alexandria and its spread over the world see Wackernagel, Die 
Kult. der Gegenw., ΤΊ. I, Abt. 8, p. 304 f. 

2 See Kretschmer, Einl., p. 410. Dieterich: ‘‘Das Sprachgebiet der ΚΚοινή 
bildet eben ein Ganzes und kann nur im Zusammenhang betrachtet werden.” 
Unters., p. xvi. 

3 Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., 1897, p. 3f. On the superiority of the Attic see 
Wackernagel, Die Kult. der Gegenw., Tl. I, Abt. 8, p. 299. 

4 Rutherford, Zur Gesch. des Atticismus, Jahrb. fiir class. Phil., suppl. 
xill, 1884, pp. 360, 399. So Audoin says: “Ce n’est point arbitrairement que 
les écrivains grecs ont employé tel ou tel dialecte.”? Et. sommaire des Dial. 
Grecs. Litt., 1891, p. 4. 


52 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


of modern English. “The orators Demosthenes and Aischines 
may be counted in the new Attic, where other leading representa- 
tives in literature are Menander, Philemon and the other writers 
of the New Comedy.’’! As the literary Attic lived on in the literary 
κοινή, so the vernacular Attic survived with many changes in the 
vernacular κοινή. We are at last in possession of enough of the 
old Attic inscriptions and the κοινή inscriptions and the papyri to 
make this clear. The march of the Greek language has been 
steadily forward on this Attic vernacular base even to this pres- 
ent day.2. In asense, therefore, the κοινή became another dialect 
(Holic, Doric, Ionic, Attic, κοινή). Cf. Krétschmer, Die Ent- 
stehung der Kownh, pp. 1-387. But the κοινή was far more than a 
dialect. Kretschmer holds, it is fair to say, that the κοινή is “eine 
merkwiirdige Mischung verschiedenster Dialecte”’ (op. cit., p. 6). 
He puts all the dialects into the melting-pot in almost equal pro- 
portions. Wilamowitz-Mo6llendorff considers the Ionic as the 
chief influence in the κοινή, while W. Schmidt denies all Doric 
and Ionic elements. Schwyzer rightly sees that the dialectical 
influences varied in different places, though the vernacular Attic 
was the common base. 

(b) Fate oF THE OTHER Diatects. The triumph of the Attic was 
not complete, though in Ionia, at the end of the third century B.c., 
inscriptions in Attic are found, showing that in Asia Minor pure 
Ionic had about vanished. In the first century B.c. the Attic 
appears in inscriptions in Boeotia, but as late as the second cen- 
tury A.D. Ionic inscriptions are found in Asia Minor. Ionic first 
went down, followed by the Aiolic. The Doric made a very stub- 
born resistance. It was only natural that the agricultural com- 
munities should hold out longest. See Thumb, Hellen., p. 28 f. 
Even to-day the Zaconian patois of modern Greek vernacular 


1 Simonson, Gk. Gr., Accidence, 1903, p. 6. He has a good discussion of 
the dialects, pp. 221-265. 

2 Riemann and Goelzer well say: ‘‘Quant au dialecte attique, grace aux 
grands écrivains qui l’illustrérent, grace ἃ la prépondérance politique et com- 
merciale d’Athénes, grace aussi ἃ son caractére de dialecte intermédiaire entre 
Vionien et les dialectes en a, il se répandit de bonne heure, hors de son domaine 
primitif, continua ἃ s’étendre méme aprés la chute de l’empire politique 
d’Athénes et finit par embrasser tout le monde sur le nom de langue com- 
mune (κοινὴ διάλεκτος) (Phonétique, p. 16). And yet the common people 
understood Homer also as late as Xenophon. Cf. Xenophon, Com. 8, 5, 
καὶ νῦν δυναίμην ἂν ᾿Ιλιάδα ὅλην καὶ ᾿Οδύσσειαν ἀπὸ στόματος εἰπεῖν. Cf. Lottich, 
De Serm. vulg. Attic., 1881. On the “Growth of the Attic Dialect’’ see 
Rutherford, New Phrynichus, pp. 1-31. 





THE KOINH | 53 


has preserved the old Laconic Doric “whose broad a holds its 
ground still in the speech of a race impervious to literature and 
proudly conservative of a language that was always abnormal to 
an extreme.”’! It is not surprising that the Northwest Greek, 
because of the city leagues, became a kind of Achzan-Dorian 
κοινή and held on till almost the beginning of the Christian era 
before it was merged into the κοινή of the whole Graeco-Roman 
world. There are undoubtedly instances of the remains of the 
Northwest Greek and of the other dialects in the κοινή and so in 
the N. T. The Ionic, so'near to the Attic and having flourished 
over the coast of Asia Minor, would naturally have considerable 
influence on the Greek world-speech. The proof of this will ap- 
pear in the discussion of the κοινή where remains of all the main 
dialects are naturally found, especially in the vernacular. 

(c) PartiaL Koines. The standardizing of the Attic is the 
real basis. The κοινή was not a sudden creation. There were 
quasi-koines before Alexander’s day. These were Strabo’s alli- 
ance of Ionic-Attic, Doric-Aiolic (Thumb, Handb., p. 49). It is 
therefore to be remembered that there were “various forms of 
κοινή" before the κοινή which commenced with the conquests of 
Alexander (Buck, Gk. Dialects, pp. 154-161), as Doric κοινή, Ionic 
κοινή, Attic κοινή, Northwest κοινή. Hybrid forms are not un- 
common, such as the Doric future with Attic ov as in ποιησοῦντι 
(cf. Buck, p. 160). There was besides a revival here and there of 
local dialects during the Roman times. 

(d) Errects or ALEXANDER’S CAMPAIGNS. But for the conquests 
of Alexander there might have been no κοινή in the sense of a 
world-speech. The other Greek koines were partial, this alone 
was a world-speech because Alexander united Greek and Persian, 
east and west, into one common world-empire. He respected the 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 32. + Ib p. 37. 

3 Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 1) puts it clearly: “Es geniigt zu sagen, da die 
κοινή stirksten Zusammenhang mit dem Attischen, in zweiter Linie mit dem 
Ionischen, verriit. In der altesten Periode des Hellenismus zeigt sich daneben 
geringer Einflu8 anderer Dialekte, des Dorischen und Aolischen.” 

4 “Tl est ἃ peine besoin de répéter que ces caractéres s’effacent, ἃ mesure 
que l’on descend vers l’ére chrétienne. Sous l’influence sans cesse grandis- 
sante de l’atticisme, il s’établit une sorte d’uniformité.”’ Boisacq, Les Dial. 
Dor., 1891, p. 204. ‘The Gk. of the N. T. is not, however, mere κοινή. In 
vocabulary it is fundamentally Ionic” (John Burnet, Rev. of Theol. and 
Phil., Aug., 1906, p. 95). ‘‘Fundamentally”’ is rather strong, but ἀπόστολος, 
as ambassador, not mere expedition, εὐλογία, νηστεία, give some colour to the 
statement. But what does Prof. Burnet mean by “mere κοινή ? 


δά A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


customs and language of all the conquered nations, but it was in- 
evitable that the Greek should become the lingua franca of the 
world of Alexander and his successors. In a true sense Alexander 
made possible this new epoch in the history of the Greek tongue. 
The time of Alexander divides the Greek language into two peri- 
ods. “The first period is that of the separate life of the dialects 
and the second that of the speech-unity, the common speech or 
κοινή (Kretschmer, Die Entst. d. Kowy, p. 1). 

(6) Tae Marcu TtowArRp UNIverRSALISM. The successors of 
Alexander could not stop the march toward universalism that had 
begun. The success of the Roman Empire was but another proof 
of this trend of history. The days of ancient nationalism were 
over and the κοινή was but one expression of the glacial move- 
ment. The time for the world-speech had come and it was ready 
for use. 

III. The Spread of the Κοινή. 

(a) A Worup-SpEecH. What is called ἡ κοινή was a world- 
speech, not merely a general Greek tongue among the Greek 
tribes as was true of the Achzean-Dorian and the Attic. It is not 
speculation to speak of the κοινή as a world-speech, for the in- 
scriptions in the κοινή testify to its spread over Asia, Egypt, Greece, 
Italy, Sicily and the isles of the sea, not to mention the papyri. 
Marseilles was a great centre of Greek civilization, and even Cy- 
rene, though not Carthage, was Grecized.t The κοινή was in 
such general use that the Roman Senate and imperial governors 
had the decrees translated into the world-language and scattered 
over the empire.? It is significant that the Greek speech becomes 
one instead of many dialects at the very time that the Roman 
rule sweeps over the world. The language spread by Alexander’s 
army over the Eastern world persisted after the division of the 
kingdom and penetrated all parts of the Roman world, even ~ 
Rome itself. Paul wrote to the church at Rome in Greek, and 
Marcus Aurelius, the Roman Emperor, wrote his Meditations 
(τῶν eis ἙἙαυτόν) in Greek. It was the language not only of letters, 
but of commerce and every-day life. A common language for all 


1 See Churton, πῆ. of the LXX Vers., 1861, p. 14. 

2 Viereck, Sermo Graecus quo Senatus Popul. Rom. etc., 1888, p. xi. 

3 See Wilamowitz-MoOllendorff: ‘‘In demselben Momente, wo die cisari- 
sche Weltmonarchie alle Stréme hellenischer und italischer Kultur in einem 
Bette leitet, kommt die griechische Kunst auf allen Gebieten zu der Erkennt- 
nis, daf} ihre Kreise erfiillt sind, das einzige das ihr bleibt, Nachahmung ist.’’ 
Uber die Entst. der griech. Schriftspr., Abhandl. deuts. Phil., 1878, p. 40. 


THE KOINH 5 


men may indeed be only an ideal norm, but “the whole character 
of a common language may be strengthened by the fact of its 
transference to an unquestionably foreign linguistic area, as we 
may observe in the case of the Greek xow?.”! The late Latin 
became a κοινή for the West as the old Babylonian had been for 
the East, this latter the first world-tongue known to us.? Xeno- 
phon with the retreat of the Ten Thousand* was a forerunner of 
the cow. Both Xenophon and Aristotle show the wider outlook 
of the literary Attic which uses Ionic words very extensively. 
There is now the “Grofi-Attisch.” It already has γίνομαι, ἕνεκεν, 
πτωσαν, εἶπα and ἤνεγκα, ἐδώκαμεν and ἔδωκαν, βασίλισσα, δεικνύω, 
oo, ναός. Already Thucydides and others had borrowed oo from 
the Ionic. It is an easy transition from the vernacular Attic to 
the vernacular κοινή after Alexander’s time. (Cf. Thumb’s Hand- 
buch, pp. 373-380, “‘Entstehung der Kow7.’’) On the development 
of the κοινή see further Wackernagel, Die Kultur der Gegenwart, 
Tl. I, Abt. 8, p. 301 ff.; Moulton, Prol., ch. I, Il; Mayser, Gr. d. 
griech. Pap., Kap. 1. But it was Alexander who made the later 
Attic the common language of the world, though certainly he had 
no such purpose in view. Fortunately he had been taught by 
Aristotle, who himself studied in Athens and knew the Attic of 
the time. “He rapidly established Greek as the lingua franca of 
the empire, and this it was which gave the chief bond of union 
to the many countries of old civilizations, which had hitherto 
been isolated. This unity of culture is the remarkable thing in 
the history of the world.’’* It was really an epoch in the world’s 
history when the babel of tongues was hushed in the wonderful 
language of Greece. The vernaculars of the eastern Roman 
provinces remained, though the Greek was universal; so, when 
Paul came to Lystra, the people still spoke the Lycaonian speech 


1 Paul, Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., p. 496. See also Kaerst, Gesch. d. hel- 
lenist. Zeitalt., 1901, p. 420: ““Die Weiterentwicklung der Geschichte des 
Altertums, so weit sie fiir unsere eigene Kultur entscheidende Bedeutung er- 
langt hat, beruht auf einer fortschreitenden Occidentalisierung; auch das im 
Oriente emporgekommene Christentum entfaltet sich nach dem Westen zu 
und gelangt hier zu seiner eigentlich weltgeschichtlichen Wirksamkeit.”’ 

2 Schwyzer, Die Weltspr. etc., p. 7. 

3 See Mahaffy, Prog. of Hellen. in Alex. Emp., p. 7; ef. also Rutherford 
New Phrynichus, 1881, p. 160 f.; Schweizer, Gr. der perg. Inschr., p. 16. 
Moulton (Prol., p. 31) points out that the vase-inscriptions prove the state- 
ment of the Const. of Athens, 11.3, that the Athenians spoke a language com- 
pounded of all Greek and barbarian tongues besides. 

4 Mahaffy, Prog. of Hellen., etc., p. 40. 


56 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


of their fathers.1 The papyri and the inscriptions prove beyond 
controversy that the Greek tongue was practically the same 
whether in Egypt, Herculaneum, Pergamum or Magnesia. The 
Greeks were the school-teachers of the empire. Greek was 
taught in the grammar schools in the West, but Latin was not 
taught in the East. 

(b) VERNACULAR AND LITERARY. 

1. Vernacular. The spoken language is never identical with the 
literary style, though in the social intercourse of the best edu- 
cated people there is less difference than with the uncultured.? 
We now know that the old Attic of Athens had a vernacular and 
a literary style that differed considerably from each other.’ This 
distinction exists from the very start with the κοινή, as is apparent 
in Pergamum and elsewhere.t This vernacular κοινή grows right 
out of the vernacular Attic normally and naturally.> The colo- 
nists, merchants and soldiers who mingled all over Alexander’s 
world did not carry literary Attic, but the language of social and 
business intercourse. This vernacular κοινή at first differed little 
from the vernacular Attic of 300 B.c. and always retained the 
bulk of the oral Attic idioms. “Vulgar dialects both of the an- 
cient and modern times should be expected to contain far more 
archaisms than innovations.’ The vernacular is not a varia- 
tion from the literary style, but the literary language is a develop- 
ment from the vernacular.’ See Schmid? for the relation between 
the literary and the vernacular κοινή. Hence if the vernacular is 
the normal speech of the people, we must look to the inscriptions 
and the papyri for the living idiom of the common Greek or κοινή. 
The pure Attic as it was spoken in Athens is preserved only in 


1 Schwyzer, Weltspr., p. 29. ? Schweizer, Gr. der perg. etc., p. 22. 

3 See Kretschmer, Die griech. Vaseninschr. und ihre Spr., 1894; and Mei- 
sterhans, Gr. der att. Inschr., 1900. Cf. Lottich, De Serm. vulg. Attic., 1881. 

4 Schweizer, Gr., p. 27. 

5 Thumb, Griech. Spr. im Zeitalter ete., p. 208 f. Lottich in his De Serm. 
vulg. Attic. shows from the writings of Aristophanes how the Attic vernacular 
varied in a number of points from the literary style, as in the frequent use of 
diminutives, desiderative verbs, metaphors, etc. 

6 Schweizer, Gr., p. 23. 

7 Geldart, Mod. Gk. Lang. in its Rela. to Anc. Gk., 1870, p. 73. See also 
Thumb, Griech. Spr. etc., p. 10, who calls “die κοινή weniger ein Abschlu8 
als der Anfang einer neuen Entwicklung.’’ On the older Gk. κοινή see 
Wackernagel, Die Kult. der Gegenw., Tl. I, Abt. 8, p. 300 f. 

8 Deissmann, Hell. Griech., Hauck’s Realencye., p. 633. 

9 Atticismus, Bd. IV, pp. 577-734. A very important treatment of the 
whole question is here given. 


- THE KOINH δ 


the inscriptions.' In the Roman Empire the vernacular κοινή 
would be understood almost everywhere from Spain to Pontus. 
See IV for further remarks on the vernacular κοινή. 

2. Literary. If the vernacular κοινή was the natural develop- 
ment of the vernacular Attic, the literary κοινή was the normal 
evolution of the literary Attic. Thumb well says, “Where there 
is no development, there is no life.”’? “In style and syntax the 
literary Common Greek diverges more widely from the collo- 
quial.”’* This is natural and in harmony with the previous re- 
moval of the literary Attic from the language of the people.4 The 
growth of the literary κοινή was parallel with that of the popular 
κοινή and was, of course, influenced by it. The first prose monu- 
ment of literary Attic known to us, according to Schwyzer, is the 
Constitution of Athens® (before 413), falsely ascribed to Xeno- 
phon. The forms of the literary κοινή are much like the Attic, as 
in Polybius, for instance, but the chief difference is in the vocab- 
ulary and meaning of the same words.® Polybius followed the 
general literary spirit of his time, and hence was rich in new 
words, abstract nouns, denominative verbs, new adverbs.’ He 
and Josephus therefore used Ionic words found in Herodotus and 
Hippocrates, like ἔνδεσις, παραφυλακή, not because they consciously 
imitated these writers, but because the κοινή, as shown by papyri 
and inscriptions, employed them.’ For the same reason Luke and 
Josephus® have similar words, not because of use of one by the 
other, but because of common knowledge of literary terms, Luke 
also using many common medical terms natural to a physician 
of culture. Writers like Polybius aimed to write without pedan- 
try and without vulgarism. In a true sense then the literary κοινή 
was a “compromise between the vernacular κοινή and the literary 
Attic,” between “‘life and school.’’!° There is indeed no Chinese 


1 Hirt, Handb. der griech. Laut- und Formenl., 1902, p. 41. 

2 Griech. Spr., p. 251. 3 Moulton, Prol., p. 26. 

4 Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 5. Deissmann (New Light on the N. T., 1907, 
p. 3f.) shows that part of Norden’s criticism of Paul’s Gk. is nothing but 
the contrast between literary κοινή and vernacular κοινή; cf. Die ant. Kunstpr. 

5 Schwyzer, Die Weltspr. der Alt., p. 15. See also Christ, Gesch. der 
griech. Lit., p. 305. See Die pseudoxenophontische ᾿Αθηναίων Πολιτεία, von 
EK. Kalinka, 1913. 

6 Schweizer, Gr., p. 21. 7 Christ, op. cit., p. 588. 

8 Thumb, Griech. Spr. etc., p. 213. See also Goetzeler, De Polyb. Eloc., 
1887, p. 15. . 

9 Thumb, ib., p. 225f. See also Krenkel, Josephus und Lukas, 1894, 
pp. 283 ff. 10 Thumb, ib., p. 8. 


58 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


wall between the literary and the vernacular κοινή, but a constant 
inflow from the vernacular to the written style as between prose 
and poetry, though Zarncke! insists on a thorough-going distine- 
tion between them. The literary κοινή would not, of course, use 
such dialectical forms as τοὺς πάντες, τοῖς πραγμάτοις, etc., Com- 
mon in the vernacular κοινή. But, as Krumbacher? well shows, 
no literary speech worthy of the name can have an independent 
development apart from the vernacular. Besides Polybrus and 
Josephus, other writers in the literary κοινή were Diodorus, Philo, 
Plutarch, though Plutarch indeed is almost an “Anhanger des 
Atticismus’’4 and Josephus was rather self-conscious in his use of 
the literary style. The literary κοινή was still affected by the 
fact that many of the writers were of “un-Greek or half Greek 
descent,’’ Greek being an acquired tongue.® But the point must 
not be overdone, for the literary κοινή “was written by cosmopoli- 
tan scholars for readers of the same sort,” and it did not make 
much difference “whether a book was written at Alexandria or 
Pergamum.’”’7 Radermacher® notes that, while in the oldest 
Greek there was no artificiality even in the written prose, yet in 
the period of the κοινή all the literary prose shows “eine Kunst- 
sprache.”’ He applies this rule to Polybius, to Philo, to the N. T., 
to Epictetus. But certainly it does not hold in the same manner 
for each of these. 

(c) Tue Articistic Reaction. Athens was no longer the centre 
of Greek civilization. That glory passed to Alexandria, to Per- 
gamum, to Antioch, to Ephesus, to Tarsus. But the great crea-_ 
tive epoch of Greek culture was past. Alexandria, the chief seat 
of Greek learning, was the home, not of poets, but of critics of 
style who found fault with Xenophon and Aristotle, but could 
not produce an Anabasis or a Rhetoric. The Atticists wrote, to 
be sure, in the κοινή period, but their gaze was always backward 
to the pre-xowy period. The grammarians (Dionysius, Phryni- 


1 Zarncke in Griech. Stud., Hermann Lipsius, 1894, p. 121. He considers 
the Homeric poetry a reflection of the still older historical prose and the epic 
the oldest literary form. See his Die Entst. der griech. Literaturspr., 1896. 
Cf. Wilamowitz-Mollendorff, Die Entst. der griech. Schriftspr., Verhandl. d. 
Phil., 1878, p. 36 f. 2 Hatzidakis, Einl. in die neugr. Spr., p. 6. 

3 Das Prob. der neugr. Schriftspr., 1908, p. 6. A valuable treatment of 
this point. 

4 Weissenberger, Die Spr. Plut. von Chiironea, 1895, pp. 3, 11. 

δ ΤΟΙ sl) eae 1 

6 Susemihl, Gesch. der griech. Lit. in der Alexandrienzeit, 1. Bd., 1891, p. 2. 

Τ Croiset, An Abr. Hist. of Gk. Lit., 1904, p. 425. SNS Geen. 


THE KOINH 59 


chus, Moeris) set up Thucydides and Plato as the standards for 
pure Greek style, while Aratus and Callimachus sought to revive 
the style of Homer, and Lucian and Arrian! even imitated Herod- 
otus. When they wished to imitate the past, the problem still 
remained which master to follow. The Ionic revival had no great 
vogue, but the Attic revival had. Lucian himself took. to Attic. 
Others of the Atticists were Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Dio 
Chrysostom, Aristides, Herodes Atticus, Ailian, ete. “They as- 
sumed that the limits of the Greek language had been forever 
fixed during the Attic period.’”’? Some of the pedantic declaimers 
of the time, like Polemon, were thought to put Demosthenes to 
the blush. These purists were opposed to change in language 
and sought to check the departure from the Attic idiom. “The 
purists of to-day are like the old Atticists to a hair.”? The Atti- 
cists were then archaic and anachronistic. The movement was 
rhetorical therefore and not confined either to Alexandria or Per- 
gamum. The conflict between the κοινή (vernacular and literary) 
and this Atticistic reaction affected both to some extent. This 
struggle between “archaism and life” is old and survives to-day.® 
The Atticists were in fact out of harmony with their time,® and 
not like Dante, who chose the language of his people for his im- 
mortal poems. ‘They made the mistake of thinking that by 
imitation they could restore the old Attic style. “The effort and 
example of these purists, too, though criticized at first, gradually 
became a sort of moral dictatorship, and so has been tacitly if 
not zealously obeyed by all subsequent scribes down to the pres- 
ent time.””’ ΑΒ a result when one compares N. T. Greek,® one 


1 A sharp distinction as a rule must be made between the language of 
Arrian and Epict. The Gk. of Epict. as reported by Arrian, his pupil, is a 
good representative of the vern. κοινή of an educated man. Arrian’s intro- 
duction is quite Atticistic, but he aims to reproduce Epictetus’ own words as 
far as possible. 

2 Sophocles, Lex., p.6. Athenseus 15. 2 said: Ei μὴ ἰατροὶ ἦσαν, οὐδὲν ἂν ἢν 
τῶν γραμματέων μωρότερον. 

8 'Thumb, Griech. Spr. etc., p. 180. On Atticism in the κοινή see Wacker- 
nagel, Die Kult. der Gegenw., ΤΊ. I, Abt. 8, p. 309. 

4 Norden, Die griech. Kunstpr. bis Aug., Bd. I, 1898, p. 150. 

5 Thumb, ib., p. 8. 

ΣΟΙ: 7 Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 7. 

8 Moulton, Prol., p. 26. The diction of Aristophanes is interesting as a 
specimen of varieties of speech of the time. Cf. Hope, The Lang. of Parody; 
a Study in the Diction of Aristophanes (1906). Radermacher (N. T. Gk., 
p. 3) holds that we must even note the ‘‘barbarisches Griechisch”’ of writers 
like John Philoponos and Proclos. 


60 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


must be careful to note whether it is with the book Greek (κα- 
θαρεύουσα) or the vernacular (ὁμιλουμένη). This artificial reac- 
tionary movement, however, had little effect upon the vernacular 
κοινή as is witnessed by the spoken Greek of to-day. Consequently 
it is a negligible quantity in direct influence upon the writers of 
the N. T.1. But the Atticists did have a real influence upon the 
literary κοινή both as to word-formation? and syntax. With 
Dionysius of Halicarnassus beauty was the chief element of style, 
and he hoped that the Attic revival would drive out the Asiatic 
influence.t The whole movement was a strong reaction against 
what was termed “Asianism” in the language.’ It is not surpris- 
ing therefore that the later ecclesiastical literary Greek was largely 
under the influence of the Atticists. “Now there was but one 
grammar: Attic. It was Attic grammar that every freeman, 
whether highly or poorly educated, had learned.”® “This purist 
conspiracy” Jannaris calls it. The main thing with the Atticists 
was to have something as old as Athens. Strabo said the style 
of Diodorus was properly “antique.’’? 

IV. The Characteristics of the Vernacular Κοινή. 

(a) VERNACULAR ATTic THE BAsg. One must not feel that the 
vernacular Greek is unworthy of study. “The fact is that, during 
the best days of Greece, the great teacher of Greek was the com- 
mon people.”® There was no violent break between the vernacu- 
lar Attic and the vernacular κοινή, but the one flowed into the other 
as a living stream.® If the reign of the separated dialects was 
over, the power of the one general Greek speech had just begun 
on the heels of Alexander’s victories. The battle of Chzeronea 
broke the spirit of the old Attic culture indeed, but the Athenians 


1 Schmid, Der Atticismus etc., Bd. IV, p. 578. 2 ΤΡ., Ρ. 606 (. 

8. Troger, Der Sprachgeb. in der pseudolong. Schr., 1899, ΤΊ. ΤΟΝ 

4 Schmid, ib., Bd. I, pp. 17, 25. See Βα. IV, pp. 577-734, for very valu- 
able summary of this whole subject. 

δ Norden, Die griech. Kunstpr., 1898. 1. Bd., p. 149. So Blass calls it 
“sleichzeitige atticistische Reaction gegen die asianische Beredsamkeit.” 
Die griech. Beredsamkeit etc. von Alex. bis Aug., 1865, p. 77. 

6 Jannaris, op. cit., Ὁ. 11. See also Fritz, Die Briefe des Bischofs Syne- 
sius von Kyrene. Ein Beitr. zur Gesch. des Att. im 4. und 5. Jahrh., 1898. 

7 Strabo, 18. 4, 9. 

8 Sophocles, Lex. of Rom. and Byz. Period, p. 11. 

® Deissmann, Die sprachl. Erforsch. etc., p. 11. Rutherford (New Phryn., 
p. 2) says that “the debased forms and mixed vocabulary of the common 
dialect would have struck the contemporaries of Aristophanes and Plato as 
little better than jargon of the Scythian policemen.’’ On the form of the κοινῇ 
see Wackernagel, Kult. etc., ΤΊ. I, Abt. 8, p. 305. 


es ν ἀρ υ νιον 


THE KOINH 61 


gathered up the treasures of the past, while Alexander opened the 
flood-gates for the change in the language and for its spread over 
the world! ‘‘What, however, was loss to standard Attic was 
gain to the ecumenical tongue. The language in which Hellenism 
expressed itself was eminently practical, better fitted for life than 
for the schools. Only a cosmopolitan speech could comport with 
Hellenistic cosmopolitanism. Grammar was simplified, excep- 
tions decreased or generalized, flexions dropped or harmonized, 
construction of sentences made easier” (Angus, Prince. Rev., 
Jan., 1910, p. 53). The beginning of the development of the ver- 
nacular κοινή is not perfectly clear, for we see rather the com- 
pleted product.2 But it is in the later Attic that lies behind the 
xown. ‘The optative was never common in the vernacular Attic 
and is a vanishing quantity in the κοινή. The disappearance of 
the dual was already coming on and so was the limited use of the 
superlative, -τωσαν instead of -ντων, and --σθωσαν instead of --σθων, 
γίνομαι, oo, εἶπα, τίς instead of πότερος, ἕκαστος and not ἑκάτερος. 
But while the Attic forms the ground-form‘ of the κοινή it must 
not be forgotten that the κοινή was resultant of the various forces 
and must be judged by its own standards.» There is not complete 
unanimity of opinion concerning the character of the vernacular 
κοινή. Steinthal® indeed called it merely a levelled and debased 
Attic, while Wilamowitz’ described it as more properly an Ionic 
popular idiom. Kretschmer® now (wrongly, I think) contends that 
the Northwest Greek, Ionic and Bcoeotian had more influence on 
the κοινή than the Attic. The truth seems to be the position of 
Thumb,’ that the vernacular κοινή is the result of the mingling with 
all dialects upon the late Attic vernacular as the base. As between 
the Doric a and the Ionic ἡ the vernacular κοινή follows the Attic 


1 Christ, Gesch. der griech. Lit., 1905, p. 509f. For “the Attic ground- 
character of the κοινή᾽᾽ see Mayser, Gr. der griech. Pap. (1906, p. 1). 

2 Kaibel, Stil und Text der ᾿Αθηναίων ἸΤολιτεία, p. 37. 

3 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 8. Even in the literary κοινή the dual is nearly 
gone, as in Polybius and Diodorus Siculus; cf. Schmidt, De Duali Graec. et 
Emor. et Reviv., 1893, pp. 22, 25. 

4 Gott. Gel.-Anz., 1895, p. 30f.; Hatzidakis, Einl. in die neugr. Gr., 
p. 168 f.; Krumbacher, Byz. Lit., p: 789. 

5 “Die Erforschung der κοινή hat lange genug unter dem Gesichtswinkel des 
‘Klassicismus’ gestanden.’”?’ Thumb, Griech. Spr. etc.,. p. 10. 

6 Gesch. der Sprachw., II, p. 37 f. 

7 Verhandl. der 32. phil. Versamml., p. 40. 

8 Wochenschr. fiir klass. Philol., 1899, p. 3; Die Entst. der Κοινή, 1900. 

® Op. cit., pp. 53-101, 202 f. 


62 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


usage, and this fact alone is decisive.! Dieterich? indeed sums 
up several points as belonging to the “Attic cow” such as verbs 
in —vw instead of -ὖμι, in —woay instead of —wy in contract imper- 
fects, disuse of the temporal and the syllabic augment in com- 
position, disuse of reduplication, —nv instead of --ῆ in acc. sing. 
of adjs. in —js, του instead of —ous in gen. sing. of third declen- 
sion, —a instead of —ov in proper names, disuse of the Attic de- 
clension, —es for —as in accusative plural, τόν as relative pronoun, 
ἴδιος aS possessive pronoun. But clearly by “ Attic κοινή he means 
the resultant Attic, not the Attic as distinct from the other dialects. 

Besides the orthography is Attic (cf. ἵλεως, not ἵλαος) and the 
bulk of the inflections and conjugations likewise, as can be seen 
by comparison with the Attic inscriptions. Schlageter? sums 
the matter up: “The Attic foundation of the κοινή is to-day gen- 
erally admitted.” 

(0) THe OTHER DraALects IN THE Kowvy. But Kretschmer® is 
clearly wrong in saying that the κοινή is neither Attic nor decayed 
Attic, but a mixture of the dialects. He compares the mixture 
of dialects in the κοινή to that of the high, middle and low Ger- 
man. The Attic itself is a κοινή out of Ionic, AZolic and Doric. 
The mixed character of the vernacular κοινή is made plain by 
Schweizer® and Dieterich.” The Ionic shows its influence in the 
presence of forms like idin, σπείρης, εἰδυῖα, —vins, καθ᾽ eros (cf. 
vetus), ὀστέα, χειλέων, βλαβέων, χρυσέον, —As, -ἂδος; absence of the 
rough breathing (psilosis or de-aspiration, A¥olic also); dropping 
of μι in verbs like διδῶ; κιθών (χιτών), τέσσερα, πράσσω for πράττω 
(Attic also), ete. Ionic words like μον-όφθαλμος (Herod.) instead 
of Attic érep-6¢0adpos occur. Conybeare and Stock (Sel. from 
LXX, p. 48) suggest that Homer was used as a text-book in Alex- 
andria and so caused Ionisms like σπείρη ς in the κοινῆ. The spread _ 
of the Tonic over the East was to be expected. In Alexander’s 
army many of the Greek dialects were represented.’ In the Egyp- 
tian army of the Ptolemies nearly all the dialects were spoken.? 
The Ionians were, besides, part of the Greeks who settled in Alex- 


Moulton, Prol., p. 33 f. 

Unters. zur Gesch. d. griech. Spr., 1898, p. 258 f. 

Meisterhans, Gr. der Att. Inschr. 

Der Wortsch. der auferhalb Attikas gefundenen att. Inschr., 1912. 
Wochenschr. fiir klass. Phil., 1899, p. xvii. 

Gr. der perg. Inschr., p. 201 f. 

Unters. zur Gesch. etc., p. 259 f. 8 Arrian, II, 20. 5. 
Myer, Das Heerwesen der Ptolemier und Rémer in Agypten, 1900. 


ow on ἢ ἐ 9 πὸ 





THE KOINH 63 


andria.! Besides, even after the triumph of the Attic in Greece 
the Ionic had continued to be spoken in large parts of Asia Minor. 
The Ionic influence appears in Pergamum also. The mixing of the 
Attic with foreign, before all with Ionic, elements, has laid the 
foundation for the κοινή. The dolic makes a poor showing, 
but can be traced especially in Pergamum, where Schweizer con- 
siders it one of the elements of the language with a large injection 
of the Ionic.? Avolic has the a for ἡ in proper names and forms 
in as. Boeotian-Atolic uses the ending --οσαν, as εἴχοσαν, So common 
in the LXX. Moulton‘ points out that this ending is very rare 
in the papyri and is found chiefly in the LXX. He calls Boeotian- 
AKolic also “the monophthongizing of the diphthongs.’ In the 
Attic and the Ionic the open sound of 7 prevailed, while in the 
Boeotian the closed. In the κοινή the two pronunciations existed 
together till the closed triumphed. Psilosis is also Ionic. The 
Doric appears in forms like λαός (Aews), ναός (vews), πιάζω (πιέζω), 
ἐσπούδαξα, ἡ λιμός, TO πλοῦτος, ἀλέκτωρ, κλίβανος (kpiGavos); and in 
the pronunciation perhaps β, y, 6 had the Doric softer sound as 
in the modern Greek vernacular. But, as Moulton® argues, the 
vernacular κοινή comes to us now only in the written form, and 
that was undoubtedly chiefly Attic. The Arcadian dialect possibly 
contributes ἀφέωνται, since it has ἀφεώσθη, but this form occurs 
in Doric and Ionic also.6 Cf. also the change of gender ἡ λιμός 
(Luke) and τὸ πλοῦτος (Paul). The Northwest Greek contrib- 
uted forms like ἀρχόντοις, τοὺς λέγοντες, ἦται (ἤμην cf. Messe- 
nian and Lesbian also), ἠρώτουν (like Ionic), εἴχοσαν (cf. Boeotian), 
λέλυκαν. The accusative plural in --ες is very common in the 
papyri, and some N. T. MSS. give τέσσαρες for τέσσαρας.ἴ The 
Achzean-Dorian κοινή had resisted in Northwest Greece the 
inroads of the common Greek for a century or so. The Mace- 


1 Ἢ, Anz, Subsidia ad cognoscendum Graec. Serm. vulg. etc., 1894, p. 386. 
Mayser, Gr., pp. 9-24, finds numerous Ionic ‘peculiarities in the Ptolemaic 
pap. far more than Afolic and Doric. He cites —rwoav, μαχαίρης, tow, ἕνεκεν, 
ὀρέων, yoyybiw, παραθήκη, τέσσερες, ἔκπτωμα, etc. On the Ionic and other non- 
Attic elements in the κοινή see Wackernagel, Kult., p. 306 f. 

2 Kaibel, Stil und Text etc., p. 37. 8» (Grid; perg: Inschr.; p.: 202. 

4 Prol., p. 33. The caution of Psichari (Essais de Gr. Hist. Néo-grq., 2°™° 
éd., 1889, p. exlix) is to be noted, that the vernacular is not necessarily dia- 
lectical, but ‘‘destinée au peuple et venait du peuple.’’ Cf. on Avolic ele- 
ments, Mayser, Gr., p. 9. He cites ἡ λιμός in the pap.; Λαός is also Avolic. 

5 Prol., p. 34. 

6 Moulton, ib., p. 38, n. 3. For Doric elements in the pap. see Mayser, 
Sieg ts in 7 W. Ἢ Intr. to the Gk. N. T., App., p. 150. 


64 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


donian Greek, spoken by many of Alexander’s soldiers, naturally 
had very slight influence on the κοινή. We know nothing of the 
old Macedonian Greek. Polybius! says that the Illyrians needed 
an interpreter for Macedonian. Sturz? indeed gives a list of 
Macedonian words found in the κοινή, as ἄσπιλος, κοράσιον, παρεμ- 
βολή, ῥύμη. But he also includes ἀγγέλλω! The Macedonians 
apparently used 6 instead of ¢ as βίλιππος, 6=8@ as δάνατος, στε β 
as σέρεθρον. Plutarch*® speaks of Alexander and his soldiers 
speaking to each other Maxedowori. For full discussion of the 
Macedonian dialect see O. Hoffmann, Die Makedonen, thre 
Sprache und Volkstum, 1906, pp. 232-255. 

(c) Non-DiIALEctTiIcAL CHANGES. It is not always possible to 
separate the various peculiarities of the κοινή into dialectical in- 
fluences. “Where Macedonian, Spartan, Boeotian, Athenian and 
Thessalian were messmates a κοινή was inevitable. Pronounced 
dialecticisms which would render unintelligible or ludicrous to 
others were dropped” (see Angus, Prince. Theol. Rev., Jan., 1910, 
p. 67). The common blood itself went on changing. It was a 
living whole and not a mere artificial mingling of various ele- 
ments. There is less difference in the syntax of the κοινή and that 
of the earlier Greek than in the forms, though the gradual disap- 
pearance of the optative, use of ἵνα and finite verb in the non-final 
sense rather than the infinitive or even ὅτι, the gradual disuse of 
the future part. may be mentioned. It was in the finer shades 
of thought that a common vernacular would fail to hold its 
own. “Any language which aspires to be a Weltsprache (world- 
language), as the Germans say, must sacrifice much of its deli- 
cacy, its shades of meaning, expressed by many synonyms and 
particles and tenses, which the foreigner in his hurry and without: 
contact with natives cannot be expected to master.’’4 


1 Polybius, 28. 8, 9. 

2 De Dial. Alexan. etc., 1786, p. 56f.; see also De Dial. Macedonica et 
Alexan., 1808, pp. 37, 42; Matas Ὁ δέον Ling. Dial. Sturzii, 1807, p. 184; 
Suencelas Lex. of ara and Byz. Period, p. 3. Schweizer, Gr. der perg. 
Inschr., p. 27, sees very little in the Macedonian influence. 

8.1, 592 B, 694 Ὁ. Kennedy (Sources of N. T. Gk., p. 17) says: “In any - 
case, the Macedonian type of Greek, whether or not it is admissible to call it 
a special dialect, was so far removed from ordinary Attic as to make it cer- 
tain that the latter on Macedonian lips must soon and inevitably suffer thor- 
ough-going modification.” 

4 Mahaffy, Survey of Gk. Civilization, p. 220. Cf. Geldart, Mod. Gk. 
Lang. in its Rela. to Anc. Gk., p. 73, for discussion of ‘the levelling tendency 
common to all languages.’’ 


THE KOINH 65 


(ἃ) NEw Worps, New Forms or NEw ΜΈΑΝΙΝΑΒ ΤῸ Op 
Worps. Naturally most change is found either in new words or 
in new meanings in old words, just as our English dictionaries must 
have new and enlarged editions every ten years orso. This growth 
-in the vocabulary is inevitable unless the life of a people stops. A 
third-century inscription in Thera, for instance, shows συναγωγή 
used of a religious meeting, πάροικος (not the Attic μέτοικος) for 
stranger, ἀπόστολος and κατήχησις in their old senses like those 
Americanisms which preserve Elizabethan English (“fall for 
“autumn,” for instance).!. Here are some further examples. It is 
hard to be sure that all of these are words that arose in the κοινή, 
for we cannot mark off a definite line of cleavage. We mention 
ἀγάπη, ἁγιότης, ayvorns, ἄθεσμος, ἀθέτησις, ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος, ἀκατά- 
λυτος, ἀκροατήριον, ἀνθρωπάρεσκος, ἀντίλυτρον, ἀνακαινόω (and many 
verbs in -ὀω, - ἀζω, --ἰζω), ἀναγεννάω, βάπτισμα (many words in --μα), 
βαπτισμός, βαπτιστής, γρηγορέω (cf. also στήκω), δεισιδαιμονία, δηνάριον, 
δικαιοκρισία, ἐλεημοσύνη, ἐκκακέω, ἐκμυκτηρίζω, θειότης, θεόπνευστος, λογία, 
κατηχέω, κράβαττος, μαθητεύω, οἰκοδεσπότης, ὀρθρίζω, ὀψάριον, ὀψώνιον, 
πρόσκαιρος, ῥομφαία, συμβούλιον, τελώνιον, υἱοθεσία, ὑποπόδιον, φιλαδελ- 
dia, ὠτίον, etc. Let these serve merely as examples. For others 
see the lists in Deissmann’s Bible Studies, Light from the Ancient 
East, Moulton and Milligan’s “Lexical Notes on the Papyri”’ 
(Expositor, 1908—), Winer-Schmiedel (p. 22), Thayer’s Lexicon, 
(p. 691 f.), Rutherford’s New Phrynichus, and the indices to the 
papyri collections. One of the pressing needs is a lexicon of the 
papyri and then of the κοινή as a whole. Many of these words 
were already in the literary κοινή, though they probably came from 
the vernacular.2, Some old words received slightly new forms, 
like ἀνάθεμα ‘curse’ (ἀνάθημα ‘offering’), ἀπάντησις (ἀπάντημα), ἀπο- 
στασία (ἀπόστασις), ἀροτριάω (ἀρόω), βασίλισσα (βασίλεια), γενέσια 
(γενέθλια), δεκατόω (δεκατεύω), λυχνία (λυχνίον), μισθαποδοσία (μισθο- 
δοσία), μονόφθαλμος (ἑτερόφθαλμος), νουθεσία (νουθέτησις), οἰκοδομή (οἰ- 


1 Hicks, St. Paul and Hellen., in Stud. Bibl. et Eccl., 1896, p. 5. Mayser 
(Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 24-35) gives an interesting list of words that were 
chiefly “poetical” in the classic literature, but are common in the papyri. 
The poets often use the vernacular. Some of these words are ἀλέκτωρ, βιβρώ- 
σκω, δέσμιος, δῶμα, ἐκτινάσσω, ἐντρέπομαι, ἐπαιτέω, ἐπισείω, θάλπω, καταστέλλω, 
κοιμάομαι, κόπος, λαοί = people, μέριμνα, νήπιος, οἰκητήριον, περίκειμαι, προσφωνέω, 
σκύλλω, στέγη, συναντάω, ὑετός. New forms are given to old words as λιμπάνω 
from λείπω, etc. Ramsay (see The Independent, 1913, p. 376) finds éuBaretw 
(cf. Col. 2:18) used in the technical sense of entering in on the part of in- 
itiates in the sanctuary of Apollos at Claros in an inscription there. 

2 See W.-Sch., p. 19, n. 8. 


66 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Kodounots), ὀνειδισμός (ὄνειδος), ὀπτασία (dys), πανδοχεύς (πανδοκεὐύς), 
παραφρονία (παραφροσύνη), ῥαντίζω (ῥαίνω, οἵ. βαπτίζω, βάπτω), στήκω 
(ἔστηκα), ταμεῖον (ταμιεῖον), τεκνίον (and many diminutives in --ἰίον 
which lose their force), παιδάριον (and many diminutives in τώβιοιο, 
φυσιάομαι (φυσάομαι), ete. 

Words (old and new) receive new meanings, as ἀνακλίνω (‘re- 
cline at table’). Cf. also ἀναπίπτω, ἀνάκειμαι, ἀντιλέγω (‘speak 
against’), ἀποκριθῆναι (passive not middle, ‘to answer’), δαιμόνιον 
(‘evil spirit,’ ‘demon’), δῶμα (‘house-top’), ἐρωτάω (‘beg’), εὐχαριστέω 
(‘thank’), émoré\dAw (‘write a letter’), ὀψάριον (‘fish’), ὀψώνιον 
(‘wages’), παρακαλέω (‘entreat’), παρρησία (‘ confidence’), περισπάο- 
μαι (‘distract’), madebw (‘chastise’), πτῶμα (‘corpse’), συγκρίνω 
(‘compare’), σχολή (‘school’), φθάνω (‘come’), χορτάζω (‘nourish’), 
χρηματίζω (‘be called’).! This is all perfectly natural. Only we 
are to remember that the difference between the κοινή vocabulary 
and the Attic literature is not the true standard. The vernacular 
κοινή must be compared with the Attic vernacular as seen in the 
inscriptions and to a large extent in a writer like Aristophanes 
and the comic poets. Many words common in Aristophanes, ta- 
boo to the great Attic writers, reappear in the xow7. They were 
in the vernacular all the time.2. Moulton*® remarks that the ver- 
nacular changed very little from the first century a.p. to the 
third. “The papyri show throughout the marks of a real lan- 
guage of daily life, unspoilt by the blundering bookishness which 
makes the later documents so irritating.” It is just in the first 
century A.D. that the κοινή comes to its full glory as a world- 
language. “The fact remains that in the period which gave birth 
to Christianity there was an international language”’ (Deissmann, 


Light from the Ancient East, p. 59). It is not claimed that all the 


points as to the origin of the κοινή are now clear. See Hesseling, 
De koine en de oude dialekten van Griechenland (1906). But 
enough is known to give an intelligible idea of this language 
that has played so great a part in the history of man. 

(6) ProvinctaL InruuENcEs. For all practical purposes the 
Greek dialects were fused into one common tongue largely as a 
result of Alexander’s conquests. ‘The Germanic dialects have 
gone farther and farther apart (German, Dutch, Swedish, Nor- 
wegian, Danish, English), for no great conqueror has arisen to 


1 Schlageter (Wortsch. etc., pp. 59-62) gives a good list of words with 
another meaning in the κοινή. 

2 Cf. Kennedy, Sour. of N. T. Gk., pp. 70 f., 147. 

8 Cl. Quar., April, 1908, p. 137. 


THE KOINH 67 


bind them into one. The language follows the history of the peo- 
ple. But the unification of the Greek was finally so radical that 
“the old dialects to-day are merged into the general mass, the 
modern folk-language is only a continuation of the united, Hel- 
lenistic, common speech.”’! So completely did Alexander do his 
work that the balance of culture definitely shifted from Athens 
to the East, to Pergamum, to Tarsus, to Antioch, to Alexandria.? 
This “union of oriental and occidental was attempted in every 
city of Western Asia. That is the most remarkable and interest- 
ing feature of Hellenistic history in the Graco-Asiatic kingdoms 
and cities.”* Prof. Ramsay adds: “In Tarsus the Greek qualities 
and powers were used and guided by a society which was, on the 
whole, more Asiatic in character.’”?’ There were thus non-Greek 
influences which also entered into the common Greek life and 
language in various parts of the empire. Cf. K. Holl, ‘Das Fort- 
leben der Volkssprachen in nachchristlicher Zeit’’ (Hermes, 1908, 
43, p. 240). These non-Greek influences were especially noticeable 
in Pergamum, Tarsus and Alexandria, though perceptible at other 
points also. But in the case of Phrygia long before Alexander’s 
conquest there had been direct contact with the Arcadian and 
the AXolic dialects through immigration.4 The Greek inscriptions 
in the Hellenistic time were first in the old dialect of Phrygia, 
then gliding into the κοινή, then finally the pure κοινή. Hence the 
κοινή Won an easy victory in Pergamum, but the door for Phry- 
gian influence was also wide open. Thus, though the κοινή rests 
on the foundation of the Greek dialects, some non-Greek elements 
were intermingled. Dieterich’? indeed gives a special list of 
peculiarities that belong to the κοινή of Asia Minor, as, for in- 
stance, —av instead of —a in the accus. sing. of 3d decl., proper names 
in ds, τίς for ὅστις, ὅστις for ὅς, εἶμαι for εἰμί, use of θέλω rather than 
future tense. In the case of Tarsus “a few traces of the Doric 


1 Kretschmer, Einl. in die Gesch. etc., p. 417. 

2 Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p.6. The multitudinous mod. Gk. patois illus- 
trate the κοινή. 

3 W.M. Ramsay, Tarsus, Exp., Mar., 1906, p. 261. 

4 Schweizer, Gr. der perg. Inschr., pp. 15 ff. 5 Tb., p. 25. 

6 Bruns, Die att. Bestrebungen in der griech. Lit., 1896, p. 12, says: ‘“Statt 
ihrer (classische attische Sprache) regiert ein gemeines Kebsweib, das aus 
irgend einer phrygischen Spelunke stammt — das ist der hellenistische 5011} 
A slight exaggeration. Cf. Brugmann, Vergl. Gr., p. 9. 

7 Untersuch. zur Gesch. ete., pp. 258 ff. The speech of Asia Minor has in- 
deed close affinity with that of Paul and Luke and with all the N. T. writers. 
Cf. Thieme, Die Inschr. von Magn. am Miiander und das N. T., 1906. 


68 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


dialect may perhaps have lingered” in the κοινή, as Ramsay sug- 
gests (Expositor, 1906, p. 31), who also thinks that vaoxdpos for 
νεωκόρος in Ac. 19:35 in D may thus be explained. 

But no hard and fast distinction can be drawn, as ταν for --ν 
as accusative appears in Egypt also, e.g. in θυγατέραν. Is it proper 
to speak of an Alexandrian dialect? Blass’ says. so, agreeing 
with Winer-Schmiedel? (ἡ ᾿Αλεξανδρέων διάλεκτος). This is the old 
view, but we can hardly give the name dialect to the Egyptian 
Greek. Kennedy? says: “In all probability the language of the 
Egyptian capital had no more right to be called a dialect than 
the vernacular of any other great centre of population.” Schwei- 
zer4 likewise refuses to consider the Alexandrian κοινή as a dialect. 
Dieterich® again gives a list of Egyptian peculiarities such as of 
instead of αἱ, —a instead of --ας in nominatives of third declension, 
adjectives in —y instead of —a, ἐσοῦ for σοῦ, καθεῖς for ἕκαστος, im- 
perfect and aorist in -a, ἤμην for ἦν, disuse of augment in simple 
verbs, indicative instead of the subjunctive. Mayser (Gr. d. 
griech. Pap., pp. 35-40) gives a list of “Egyptian words” found in 
the Ptolemaic papyri. They are words of the soil, like πάπυρος 
itself. But Thumb® shows that the majority of the so-called 
Alexandrian peculiarities were general in the κοινή like ἤλθοσαν, 
εἶχαν, yeyovay, éwpaxes, etc. ‘There was indeed a certain un- 
wieldiness and capriciousness about their language, which displays 
itself especially in harsh and fantastic word-composition.” As 
examples of their words may be mentioned κατανωτιζόμενος, παρα- 
συγγράφειν, φιλανθρωπεῖν, etc. It is to be observed also that the 
κοινή was not the vernacular of all the peoples when it was spoken 
as a secondary language. In Palestine, for instance, Aramaic was 


1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., 1905, p. 3 note. 

2 Gr. des neut. Sprachid., § 3. 1, n. 4. 

3 Sour. of N. T. Gk., 1895, p. 23. Irenzeus (Minucius Pacatus) and De- 
metrius Ixion wrote treatises on “‘the dialect of Alexandria” (Swete, Intr. 
to the O. T. in Gk., p. 289). But they probably did not understand that the 
vernacular κοινή, which differed from the literary κοινή, was international 
(Thackeray, Gr. of the O. T. in Gk., vol. I, p. 19). “It is certain that many 
forms of this later language were specially characteristic of Alexandria”’ (ib.). 

4 Gr. der perg. Inschr., p. 27. 5 Unters. zur Gesch. etc., pp. 258 ff. 

8 Die griech. Spr. etce., p. 168 ff. See also Anz, Subs. ad cognos. Graec. 
Serm. vulg. etc., 1891, p. 262. ‘‘Nec quae Apostolides homo doctus Alexan- 
drinus nuperrime protulit omnes caligines propulsaverunt. Certe nemo 
jam existet qui cum Sturzio Macedonicam dialectum ibi quaerat, sed altera 
e parte neminem puto judicare illam quae vulgo appellatur dialectum Alexan- 
drinam solis vindicandam esse Alexandrinis.’’ Cf. Susemihl, Lit. der Alexan- 
drinerzeit. 





THE KOINH 69 


the usual language of the people who could also, most of them, 
speak Greek. Moulton’s parallel of the variations in modern 
English is not therefore true, unless you include also peoples like 
the Welsh, Scotch, Irish, etc. 

But as a whole the vernacular κοινή was a single language with 
only natural variations like that in the English of various parts 
of the United States or England.!| Thumb perhaps makes too 
much of a point out of the use of ἐμός rather than μου in Asia 
Minor in its bearing on the authorship of the Gospel of John 
where it occurs 41 times, once only in 3 Jo. and Rev. (34 times 
elsewhere in the N. T.), though it is interesting to note, as he 
does, that the infinitive is still used in Pontus. But there were 
non-Greek influences here and there over the empire as Thumb? 
well shows. Thumb? indeed holds that “the Alexandrian popular 
speech is only one member of a great speech-development.” 

(f) THe Personau Equation. In the vernacular κοινή, as in the 
literary language, many variations are due to differences in edu- 
cation and personal idiosyncrasies. “The colloquial language in 
its turn went off into various shades of distinction according to 
the refinement of the speaker” (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient 
East, p. 59). The inscriptions on the whole give us a more for- 
mal speech, sometimes official decrees, while the papyri furnish a 
much wider variety. ‘The papyri show us the dialect of Greek 
Egypt in many forms, — the language of the Government offi- 
cial, of the educated private person, of the dwellers in the temples, 
of the peasantry in the villages.”* We have numerous examples . 
of the papyri through both the Ptolemaic and the Roman rule in 
Egypt. All sorts of men from the farm to the palace are here 
found writing all sorts of documents, a will or a receipt, a love- 


1 Sir Jonathan Williams, an Eng. savant, is quoted in the Louisville Cou- 
rier-Journal (May 9, 1906) as saying: “1 have found in the city of Louisville 
a pronunciation and a use of terms which is nearer, to my mind, to Addison 
and the English classicists than anything which the counties of England, the 
provinces of Australia, or the marshes of Scotland can οἴου." He added that 
the purest English known to him is spoken in Edinburgh and Louisville. 
These two cities, for geographical reasons, are not provincial. 

2 Griech. Spr. etc., pp. 102-161; Theol. Literaturzeit., 1903, p. 421; ef. 
also Moulton, Prol. p. 40. Moulton sets over against ἐμός the fact that 
John’s Gospel uses ἵνα rather than the infinitive so often. Much of the 
force of such an argument vanishes also under the personal equation. 

8 Griech. Spr. οἷο, p. 171. Cf. also Zahn, Einleitung in das N. T., 
I, 38. 

4 Kenyon, ext. vol. of Hast. Ὁ. B., art. Papyri, p. 355. See also id., 
Palzog. of the Gk. Pap., 1899. 


70 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


letter or a dun, a memorandum or a census report, a private letter 
or a public epistle. “Private letters are our most valuable 
sources; and they are all the better for the immense differences 
that betray themselves in the education of the writers. The well- 
worn epistolary formule show variety mostly in their spelling; 
and their value for the student lies primarily in their remarkable 
resemblances to the conventional phraseology which even the N. T. 
letter-writers were content to use.”’! Deissmann? has insisted on 
a sharp distinction between letters and epistles, the letter being 
private and instinct with life, the epistles being written for the 
public eye, an open letter, a literary letter. This is a just dis- 
tinction. A real letter that has become literature is different 
from an epistle written as literature. In the papyri therefore we 
find all grades of culture and of illiteracy, as one would to-day if 
one rummaged in the rubbish-heaps of our great cities. One need 
not be surprised at seeing τὸν μήτρως, τὸν θέσιν, and even worse 
blunders. As a sample Jannaris*® gives ἀξειωθεὶς ὑπαιρατῶν ypa- 
ματα pel εἰδώτων, for ἀξιωθεὶς br’ αὐτῶν Ὑράμματα μὴ εἰδότων. Part 
of these are crass ‘errors, part are due to identity of sounds in 
pronunciation, as o and w, εἰ and ἡ, εἰ ands. Witkowski‘ properly 
insists that we take note of the man and the character of work 
in each case. 

It is obvious that by the papyri and the inscriptions we gain a 
truer picture of the situation. As a specimen of the vernacular 
κοινή of Egypt this letter of the school-boy Theon to his father has 
keen interest (see O. P. 119). It belongs to the second century 
A.D. and has a boy’s mistakes as well as a boy’s spirit. The writ- 
ing is uncial. 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 27 f. 

2 B.S., 1901, pp. 8-59. ‘The distinction holds good, even if we cannot go 
all the way with Deissmann in pronouncing all the Pauline writings ‘letters’ 
rather than ‘Epistles.’” G. Milligan, Gk. Pap., p. xxxi. 

3 “Mist. Gk. Gr., p. 7. Quoted from Griech. Urk., Berlin, 132, belonging 
to year 289 A.D. 

4 The papyri contain “exempla ex vita deprompta, cum sermo scripto- 
rum ut solutae ita poeticae orationis nullo modo veram nobis imaginem ser- 
monis illius aetatis praebeat. Etenim sermo, quem apud auctores hellinisticos 
deprehendimus, arti, non vitae, debetur.’’ Witkowski Prodr. gr. pap. Gracec., 
etc., 1898, p. 197. He urges that in case of variations in forms or syntax one 
must inquire “utrum ab alia qua dialecto petita sit an in Aegypto nata, utrum 
ab homine Graeco an barbaro formata.”’ Ib., p. 198. He thinks it is necessary 
that we have ‘‘librum de sermone papyrorum, librum de sermone titulorum, 
librum de sermone auctorum poeticae οὔ pedestris orationis illius aetatis, 
librum de dialecto Macedonica tractantem.” Ib. 


THE KOINH γῇ. 


Θέων Θέωνι τῷ πατρὶ χαίρειν. 
καλῶς ἐποίησες. οὐκ ἀπένηχές με μετ᾽ ἐ- 
σοῦ εἰς πόλιν. ἡ οὐ θέλις ἀπενέκκειν με- 
τ᾽ ἐσοῦ εἰς ᾿Αλεξανδρίαν οὐ μὴ γράψω σε ἐ- 
πιστολὴν οὔτε λαλῶ σε, οὔτε υἵγένω σε, 
εἶτα. ἂν δὲ ἔλθῃς εἰς ᾿Αλεξανδρίαν, οὐ 
μὴ λάβω χεῖραν παρά [σ]ου οὔτε πάλι χαίρω 
oe λυπόν. ἂμ μὴ θέλῃς ἀπενέκαι ple], 
ταῦτα γε[(]νετε. καὶ ἡ μήτηρ μου εἶπε ᾽Δρ- 
χελάῳ ὅτι ἀναστατοῖ ME* ἄρρον αὐτόν. 
καλῶς δὲ ἐποίησες. δῶρά μοι ἔπεμψεϊς 
μεγάλα ἀράκια. πεπλάνηκαν Huds ἐκεῖ], 
τῇ ἡμέρᾳ uf" ὅτι ἔπλευσες. λυπὸν πέμψον eils| 
με, παρακαλῶ σε. ἂμ μὴ πέμψῃς οὐ μὴ φά- 
yo, οὐ μὴ πείνω᾽ ταῦτα. 
ἐρῶσθε σε εὔχ(ομαμ). 
Τῦβι ιη΄. 
On the other side: 

ἀπόδος Θέωνι [ἀπὸ Θεωνᾶτος vid. 

Milligan (Greek Papyri, p. xxxii) admits that there may be now 
a temptation “to exaggerate the significance of the papyri.” But 
surely his book has a wonderful human, not to say linguistic, in- 
terest. Take this extract from a letter of Hilarion to his wife 
Alis (P. Oxy. 744 B.c. 1): ᾿Εὰν πολλαπολλῶν τέκῃς, ἐὰν ἦν ἄρσενον, 
ἄφες, ἐὰν ἦν θήλεα, ἔκβαλε. 

(g) Résumé. To all intents and purposes the vernacular κοινή 
is the later vernacular Attic with normal development under 
historical environment created by Alexander’s conquests. On 
this base then were deposited varied influences from the other 
dialects, but not enough to change the essential Attic character 
of the language. There is one κοινή everywhere (cf. Thumb, Griech. 
Spr., p. 200). The literary κοινή was homogeneous, while the 
vernacular κοινή was practically so in spite of local variations 
(cf. Angus, The Koiné: “The Language of the N. T.,” Prince. 
Theol. Rev., Jan., 1910, p. 78 f.).. In remote districts the language 
would be Doric-coloured or Ionic-coloured. 

Phonetics and Orthography. It is in pronunciation that the 
most serious differences appear in the κοινή (Moulton, Prol., p. 5). 
We do not know certainly how the ancient Attic was pronounced, 
though we can approximate it. The modern Greek vernacular 
pronunciation is known. The κοινή stands along the path of 
progress, precisely where it is hard to tell. But we know enough 


(pe A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


not to insist too strongly on “hair-splitting differences hinging 
on forms which for the scribe of our uncials had identical value 
phonetically, e.g. οἱ, n, 7, v, ιξε δ6 in feet, or ac=e’’ (Angus, op. cit., 
p. 79). Besides itacisms the .-monophthongizing is to be noticed 
and the equalizing of o and w. The Attic ττ is oo except in a few 
instances (like ἐλάττων, κρείττων). The tendency is toward de- 
aspiration except in a few cases where the reverse is true as a 
result of analogy (or a lost digamma). Cf. ἐφ᾽ ἑλπίδι. Elision is not 
so common as in the Attic, but assimilation is carried still further 
(cf. éupéow). There is less care for rhythm in general, and the 
variable final consonants v and s appear constantly before con- 
sonants. The use of —e— for --ἰει-- in forms like πεῖν and ταμεῖον 
probably comes by analogy. Οὐθείς and μηθείς are the common 
forms till 100 B.c. when οὐδείς and μηδείς begin to regain their 
ascendency. . 

Vocabulary. The words from the town-life (the stage, the mar- 
ket-place) come to the front. The vocabulary of Aristophanes is 
in point. There was an increase in the number of diminutive 
forms. The κοινή was not averse to foreign elements if they were 
useful. Xenophon is a good illustration of the preparation for 
the κοινή. Cf. Radermacher, N. T’. Gr., p. 8. | 

Word-Formation. There is the natural dropping of some old 
suffixes and the coining of new suffixes, some of which appear in 
the modern Greek vernacular. The number of compound words 
by juxtaposition is greatly increased, like πληρο-φορέω, xerpd-ypadov. 
In particular two prepositions in compounds are frequent, like 
συν-αντι-λαμβάνομαι. New meanings are given to old words. 

Accidence. In substantives the Ionic —pys, not —pas, is common, 
bringing nouns in —pa into harmony with other nouns of the first 
declension (Thackeray, Gir. of the O. T. in Gk., p. 22). The Attic 
second declension disappears. Some feminine nouns in —os be- 
come masculine. The third declension is occasionally assimilated 
to the first in forms like νύκταν, θυγατέραν. Contraction is absent 
sometimes in forms like ὀρέων. Both χάριν and χάριτα occur. 
Adjectives have forms like ἀσφαλῆν, πλήρης indeclinable, πᾶν for 
πάντα (cf. μέγαν), δυσί for δυοῖν. The dual, in fact, has disappeared 
in all inflections and conjugations. Pronouns show the disap- 
pearance of the dual forms like ἑκάτερος and πότερος. Tis is used 
sometimes like ὅστις, and ὃς ἐάν is more frequent than ὃς ἄν about 
A.D. 1. Analogy plays a big part in the language, and this is proof 
of life. In the verb there is a general tendency toward simpli- 
fication, the two conjugations blending into one (με verbs going). 





THE KOINH 73 


New presents like ἀποκτέννω, ὀπτάνω, are formed. There is con- 


- fusion in the use of --ἀω and —éw verbs. We find γίνομαι, γινώσκω. 


The increase of the use of first aorist forms like ἔσχα (cf. εἶπον and 
εἶπα in the older Greek). This first aorist termination appears 
even in the imperfect as in εἶχα. The use of -οσαν (εἴχοσαν, ἔσχο- 
σαν) for -ον in the third plural is occasionally noticeable. The 
form --αν (δέδωκαν) for —aoc may be due to analogy of this same 
first aorist. There is frequent absence of the syllabic augment 
in the past perfect, while in compound verbs it is sometimes 
doubled like ἀπεκατέστησαν. The temporal augment is often ab- 
sent, especially with diphthongs. We have -τωσαν rather than 
πντων, -σθωσαν rather than --σθων. 

Syntax. 'There is in general an absence of many Attic refine- 
ments. Simplicity is much more in evidence. This is seen in the 
shorter sentences and the paratactic constructions rather than 
the more complex hypotactic idioms. The sparing use of parti- 
cles is noticeable. There is no effort at rhetorical embellishment. 
What is called “Asianism”’ is the bombastic rhetoric of the arti- 
ficial orators. Atticism aims to reproduce the classic idiom. The 
vernacular κοινή is utterly free from this vice of Asianism and 
Atticism. Thackeray (op. cit., p. 23) notes that “in the breach 
of the rules of concord is seen the widest deviation from classical 
orthodoxy.”’ This varies a great deal in different writers as the 
papyri amply testify. The nominativus pendens is much in eyvi- 
dence. The variations in case, gender and number of substan- 
tives, adjectives and verbs are frequent κατὰ σύνεσιν. The neuter 
plural is used with either a singular or plural verb. The com- 
parative does. duty often for the superlative adjective. The 
superlative form usually has the elative sense. Πρῶτος is com- 
mon (as sometimes in older Greek) when only two are compared. 
‘Eavrév occurs for all three persons. The accusative is regaining 
its old ascendency. ‘There is an increase in the use of the accu- 
satives with verbs and much freedom in the use of transitive 
and intransitive verbs. The growth in the use of prepositions 
is very marked both with nouns and in composition, though some 
of the old prepositions are disappearing. Few prepositions occur 
with more than two cases. Phrases like βλέπω ἀπό show a de- 
parture from the old idiom. New adverbial and prepositional 
phrases are coming into use. The cases with prepositions are 
changing. The instrumental use of ἐν is common. The optative 
is disappearing. The future participle is less frequent. The in- 
finitive (outside of τοῦ, ἐν τῷ, els τό and the inf.) is receding before 


74 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ἵνα, which is extending its use very greatly. There is a wider use 
of ὅτι. Everywhere it is the language of life and not of the books. ᾿ 
The N. T. use of expressions like εἰς τὸ ὄνομα, δύο dbo, once cited 
as Hebraisms, is finding illustration in the papyri (cf. Deissmann, 
Light, etc., p. 123f.). My begins to encroach on od, especially 
with infinitives and participles. The periphrastic conjugation is 
frequently employed. The non-final use of ἵνα is quite marked. 
Direct discourse is more’ frequent than indirect. Clearness is 
more desired than elegance. It is the language of nature, not of 
the schools. 

V. The Adaptability of the Κοινή to the Roman World. It is 
worth while to make this point for the benefit of those who may 
wonder why the literary Attic could not have retained its suprem- 
acy in the Greco-Roman world. That was impossible. The 
very victory of the Greek spirit made necessary a modern com- 
mon dialect. Colonial and foreign influences were inevitable and 
the old classical culture could not be assimilated by the Jews 
and Persians, Syrians, Romans, Ethiopians. “In this way a Pan- 
hellenic Greek sprang up, which, while always preserving all its 
main features of Attic grammar and vocabulary, adopted many 
colonial and foreign elements and moreover began to proceed in a 
more analytical spirit and on a simplified grammar.”! The old 
literary Attic could not have held its own against the Latin, for 
the Romans lamented that they were Hellenized by the Greeks 
after conquering them.” Spenserian English would be an af- 
fectation to-day. The tremendous vitality of the Greek is seen 
precisely in its power to adjust itself to new conditions even to 
the present time. The failure of the Latin to do this not only 
made it give way before the Greek, but, after Latin became the 
speech of the Western world during the Byzantine period, the ver- 
nacular Latin broke up into various separate tongues, the modern 
Romance languages. The conclusion is irresistible therefore that 
the κοινή possessed wonderful adaptability to the manifold needs 
of the Roman world.’ It was the international language. Nor 
must one think that it was an ignorant age. What we call the 
“Dark Ages” came long afterwards. “Let me further insist that 
this civilization was so perfect that, as far as it reached, men were 


1 Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 6. 

2 Cf. Sharp, Epictetus and the N. T. (1914), for useful comparison of lan- 
guage and thought of Epictetus and the N. T. 

3 Lafoscade, Infl. du Lat. sur le Gree, pp. 83-158, in Biblioth. de l’Ecole des 
hautes ét., 1892. 


THE KOINH 75 


more cultivated in the strict sense than they ever have been 
since. We have discovered new forces in nature; we have made 
new inventions; but we have changed in no way the methods of 
thinking laid down by the Greeks . . . The Hellenistic world was 
more cultivated in argument than we are nowadays.’”?! Moulton? 
cannot refrain from calling attention to the remarkable fact that 
the new religion that was to master the world began its career 
at the very time when the Mediterranean world had one ruler 
and one language. On the whole it was the best language possible 
for the Graeco-Roman world of the first century A.p. 


1 Mahaffy, Prog. of Hellen. in Alex. Emp., 1905, p. 187. He adds (p. 111): 
“The work of Alexandria was a permanent education to the whole Greek- 
speaking world; and we know that in due time Pergamum began to do similar 
work.’’ 

2 Prol., p. 6. See also Breed, Prep. of the World for Chr., 1904, ch. IX, 
The Hellenizing of the Nations, and ch. XI, The Unification of the World. 
Jannaris (op. cit., p. 8) indeed puts the LX X, N. T. and many pap. into “the 
Levantine group” of the literary language, but this is a wrong assignment 
for both the LXX and the N. T. 


CHAPTER IV 
THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 


I. The New Testament Chiefly in the Vernacular Kowy. Ob- 
serve “chiefly,” for not quite all the N. T. is wholly in the ver- 
nacular κοινή as will be shown.! But the new point, now obvious 
to every one, is just this, that the N. T. is in the normal κοινή of 
the period. That is what one would have looked for, when you 
come to think of it. And yet that is a recent discovery, for the 
Purists held that the N. T. was in pure Attic, while the Hebraists 
explained every peculiarity as a Hebraism. The Purists felt that 
revelation could only come in the “best”? Greek, and hence it had 
to be in the Attic. This, as we now know, could only have been 
true if the N. T. writers had been Atticistic and artificial stylists. 
So the Hebraists got the better of the argument and then overdid 
it. The most popular language in the N. T. is found in the 
Synoptic Gospels. Even Luke preserves the words of Jesus in 
colloquial form. The Epistle of James and the Johannine writings 
reflect the vernacular style very distinctly. We see this also in 
the Epistles of Peter (Second Peter is very colloquial) and Jude. 
The colloquial tone is less manifest in Acts, some of Paul’s Epistles 
and Hebrews. Cf. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 63f. 
Wellhausen (Hinl., p. 9) stresses the fact that in the Gospels the 
Greek spoken by the people makes its entry into literature.” 

(a) Nota ΒΙΒΙΙΟΑΙ, GREEK. As late as 1893 Viteau? says: “Le 
grec du N. T. est une variété du grec hébraisant\”’ Again: “C’est 
par le grec des LX X qu’il faudrait expliquer, le plus souvent, le 
grec du N. T.”4 Viteau is aware of the inscriptions and the pa- 
pyri and even says: “The Greek of the N. T. must be compared 
continually with the post-classical Greek in its various branches: 
with the Greek of the profane writers, the Greek of the inscrip- 


1 Cf. Deissmann, Light, pp. 55, 69. 
2 Cf. Moulton, N. T. Gk. (Camb. Bibl. Ess., pp. 488 ff.) who notes a special 
deficiency in Gk. culture in Mark’s Gospel and the Apocalypse. 
8 Fitude sur le Grec du N. T., Le Verbe, p. liv. 4 Ib., p.:lv. 
76 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 77 


tions of the Alexandrian and Greco-Roman periods, the He- 
braizing Greek, finally the Christian Greek.’’! But he labours 
under Hatch’s false idea of a distinct biblical Greek of which the 
N. T. is a variety; both of these ideas are erroneous. There is no 
distinct biblical Greek, and the N. T. is not a variety of the LXX 
Greek. Jowett? over forty years ago said: “There seem to be 
reasons for doubting whether any considerable light can be 
thrown on the N. T. from inquiry into language.” That proph- 
ecy is now almost amusing in the light of modern research. 
Simcox’ admitted that “the half-Hebraized Greek of the N. T. is 
neither a very elegant nor a very expressive language,’ but he 
found consolation in the idea that “it is a many-sided language, 
an eminently translatable language.”’ Dr. Hatch‘ felt a reaction 
against the modern Atticistic attitude toward the N. T. language: ° 
“In almost every lexicon, grammar and commentary the words 
and idioms of the N. T. are explained, not indeed exclusively, but 
chiefly, by a reference to the words and idioms of Attic historians 
and philosophers.” In this protest he was partly right, but he 
went too far when he insisted that’ “biblical Greek is thus a 
language which stands by itself. What we have to find in study- 
ing it is what meaning certain Greek words conveyed to a Semitic 
mind.” 

Dr. Hatch’s error arose from his failure to apply the Greek in- 
fluence in Palestine to the language of Christianity as he had done 
to Christian study. Judea was not an oasis in the desert, but was 
merged into the Greco-Roman world. Rothe® had spoken “of a 
language of the Holy Ghost. For in the Bible it is evident that 
the Holy Spirit has been at work, moulding for itself a distinc- 
tively religious mode of expression out of the language of the 
country.”’ Cremer,’ in quoting the above, says: “We have a very 
clear and striking proof of this in N. T. Greek.”’ Winer® had in- 
deed seen that “the grammatical character of the N. T. language 
has a very slight Hebrew colouring,” but exactly how slight he 
could not tell. Winer felt that N. T. Greek was “a species of a 
species,” “a variety of later Greek,’ in a word, a sort of dialect. 
In this he was wrong, but his notion (op. cit., p. 3) that a gram- 
mar of the N. T. should thus presuppose a grammar of the later 


1 Tb., p. 11]. 4 Kss. in Bibl. Gk., 1889, p. 2. 
2 Ess. and Rev., p. 477. PO Ls Py afial Be 
3 Lang. of the N. T., 1890, p. 20. ὁ Dogmatik, 1863, p. 238. 


7 Biblico-Theol. Lex. of N. T. Gk., 1892, p. iv. 
8 W.-M., 1877, p. 38. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 28. 


18 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Greek or κοινή is quite right, only we have no such grammar even 
yet. Winer made little use of the papyri and inscriptions (p. 21 
ft. n.). We still sigh for a grammar of the κοινή, though Thumb 
has related the κοινή to the Greek language as a whole. Kennedy! 
contended that there was “some general characteristic’? about 
the LXX and N. T. books, which distinctly marked them off from 
the other Greek books; but “they are both children of the same 
‘parent, namely, the colloquial Greek of the time. This is the secret 
of their striking resemblance.’”’ Even in the Hastings’ Dictionary 
Thayer? contends for the name “ Hellenistic Greek”’ as the proper 
term for N. T. Greek. That is better than “biblical” or “Jew- 
ish” Greek, etc. But in simple truth we had better just call it 
N. T. Greek, or the Greek of the N. T., and let it go at that. It is 
the Greek of a group of books on a common theme, as we would 
speak of the Greek of the Attic orators, the Platonic Greek, ete. 
It is not a peculiar type of Greek except so far as that is due to 
the historical conditions, the message of Christianity, and the 
peculiarities of the writers. Deissmann,? however, is the man 
who has proven from the papyri and inscriptions that the N. T. 
Greek is not a separate variety of the Greek language. He denies 
that the N. T. is like the LXX Greek, which was “a written Sem- 
itic-Greek which no one ever spoke, far less used for literary pur- 
poses, either before or after.”+ Blass® at first stood out against 
this view and held that “the N. T. books form a special group — 
one to be primarily explained by study,” but in his Grammar of 
N. T. Greek he changed his mind and admitted that “a grammar 
of the popular language of that period written on the basis of all 
these various authorities and remains” was better than limiting 
oneself “to the language of the N. T.”"® So Moulton’ concludes: 
“The disappearance of that word ‘Hebraic’ from its prominent 
place in our delineation of N. T. language marks a change in our 
conceptions of the subject nothing less than revolutionary.” The 
new knowledge of the κοινή has buried forever the old controversy 
between Purists and Hebraists.2 The men who wrote the N. T. 


1 Sour. of N. T. Gk., 1895, p. 146. 

2 Art. Lang. of the N. T., Hast. D. B., 1900. 

$B. 8., 1901; Hell. Griech., Hauck’s Realencye. ete. 

ΡῈ ΘΝ, 10). ΟΥ̓Ὲ: ὁ Gr OLN. ΤΊ ΟΝ nem 

5 Theol. Literaturzeit., 1895, p. 487. 1 ingx el diy oh a he 

8 Thumb, Griech. Spr. ete., p. 120. It lasted “solange die biblische Gri- 
citait als etwas isoliertes betrachtet wurde.’’ Thumb attacks the idea of a 
N. T. dialect or a peculiar biblical variety of the κοινή, pp. 162-201. For. his- 
tory of the Purist controversy see W.-Th. § 1, W.-Sch. § 2. 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 79 


were not aloof from the life of their time. “It embodied the 
lofty conceptions of the Hebrew and Christian faith in a language 
which brought them home to men’s business and bosoms.’’! 
Wackernagel understates the matter: “As little as the LX X does 
the N. T. need to be isolated linguistically.’’? 

(Ὁ) Proor THAT N. T. GREEK IS IN THE VERNACULAR Kowv7. The 
proof is now at hand. We have it in the numerous contemporary 
Greek inscriptions already published and in the ever-increasing 
volumes of papyri, many of which are also contemporary. As 
early as 1887 a start had already been made in using the inscrip- 
tions to explain the N. T. by E. L. Hicks. He was followed by 
W. M. Ramsay,’ but it is Deissmann who has given us most of 
the proof that we now possess, and he has been ably seconded by 
J. Hope Moulton. Deissmann® indeed insists: “If we are ever in 
this matter to reach certainty at all, then it is the inscriptions 
and the papyri which will give us the nearest approximation to 
the truth.”” Hear Deissmann® more at length: “Until the papyri 
were discovered there were practically no other contemporary 
documents to illustrate that phase of the Greek language which 
comes before us in the LX X and N. T. In those writings, broadly, 
what we have, both as regards vocabulary and morphology, and 
not seldom as regards syntax as well, is the Greek of ordinary 
intercourse as spoken in the countries bordering on the Mediter- 
ranean, not the artificial Greek of the rhetoricians and litterateurs, 
strictly bound as it was by technical rules. This language of or- 
dinary life, this cosmopolitan Greek, shows unmistakable traces 
of a process of development that was still going on, and in many 
respects differs from the older dialects as from the classical 


1 Thayer, Hast. D. B., art. Lang. of the N. T., III, p. 366. 

2 Die griech. Spr. (Die Kult. der Gegenw., Tl. I, Abt. 8), p. 309. 

3 Cl. Rev., 1887. 

4 Exp. Times, vol. X, pp. 9 ff. 

5 B. §., p. 81. Deissmann calls attention also to a booklet by Walch, 
Observ. in Matthzum ex graecis inscr., 1779. So in 1850, Robinson in the 
Pref. to his N. T. Lex. says: “It was, therefore, the spoken language of 
common life, and not that of books, with which they became acquainted’’; 
cf. also the works of Schweizer, Nachmanson, Dittenberger, ete. 

6 Encye. Bibl., art. Papyri. “At the time when the ancient Greek culture 
was in conflict with Christianity, the assailants pointed sarcastically at the 
boatman’s idiom of the N. T., while the defenders, glorying in the taunt, 
made this very homeliness their boast. Latin apologists were the first to 
make the hopeless attempt to prove that the literary form of the Bible as a 
whole, and of the N. T. in particular, was artistically perfect.”’ Deissmann, 
Exp. Times, Nov., 1906, p. 59; cf. also Norden, Kunstpr., II, pp. 512 f., 526 f. 


80 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Attic.” As Moulton! puts it, “the Holy Ghost spoke absolutely 
in the language of the people.” 

The evidence that the N. T. Greek is in the vernacular κοινή is 
partly lexical and partly grammatical, though in the nature of 
the case chiefly lexical. The evidence is constantly growing. See 
Deissmann, Bible Studies, Light from the Ancient East; Moulton 
and Milligan’s “Lexical Notes on the Papyri” (The Expositor, 
1908—). We give first some examples of words, previously sup- 
posed to be purely “biblical,’’ now shown to be merely popular 
Greek because of their presence in the papyri or inscriptions: 
ἀγάπη, ἀκατάγνωστος, ἀναζάω, ἀναστατόω, ἀντιλήμπτωρ, ἀλλογενής, 
ἀφιλάργυρος, αὐθεντέω, βροχή, ἔναντι, ἐνδιδύσκω, ἐνώπιον, ἐπικατάρατος, 
ἐπισυναγωγή, εὐάρεστος, εὐπροσωπέω, ἱερατεύω, ἱματίζω, καταπέτασμα, 
καταγγελεύς, κατήγωρ, καθαρίζω, κόκκινος, κυριακός, λειτουργικός, λογεία, 
νεόφυτος, ὀφειλή, παραβολεύομαι, περισσεία, πληροφορέω, προσκαρτέρησις, 
προσκυνητής, προσευχή, πρωτότοκος, σιτομέτριον, συναντιλαμβάνομαι, 
φιλοπρωτεύω, φρεναπάτης, etc. For a lively discussion of these 
words see Deissmann (Bible Studies, pp. 198-247; Light, etec., pp. 
69-107). The recovery of the inscription on the marble slab that 
warned the gentiles from the ἱερόν is: very impressive. Μηθένα 
ἀλλογονῆ εἰσπορεύεσθαι ἐντὸς τοῦ περὶ τὸ ἱερὸν τρυφάκτου Kal περιβόλου. 
ὃς δ᾽ ἂν ληφθῇ, ἑαυτῶι αἴτιος ἔσται διὰ τὸ ἐξακολουθεῖν θάνατον. The 
words above are no longer biblical ἅπαξ λεγόμενα. But this is 
not all. Many words which were thought to have a peculiar 
meaning in the LXX or the N. T. have been found in that very 
sense in the inscriptions or papyri, such as ἀδελφός in the sense of 
‘common brotherhood,’ ἀθέτησις, ἀμετανόητος, ἀμφότεροι = πάντες, ava- 
στρέφομαι, ἀναφέρω, ἀντίλημψις, ἀπέχω, ἀπόκριμα, ἀποτάσσομαι, ἀρετή, 
ἀρκετός, ᾿Ασιάρχης, ἄσημος, ἀσπάζομαι, ἄτοπος, βαστάζω, βεβαίωσις, 
βιάζομαι, βούλομαι, γένημα, “γογγύζω, γραμματεύς, γράφω, δειπνέω, δέον 
ἐστί, διαβάλλω, διασείω, δίκαιος, διότι = ὅτι, διχοτομέω, δοκίμιος, δόκι- 
μος, δῶμα, ἐάν -Ξ ἄν, εἶ μήν, εἶδος, εἰς, ἐκτένεια, ἐκτός, ἐκτινάσσω, ἐν, 
ἐνεδρεύω, ἔνοχος, ἐντυγχάνω, ἐπιβαλών, ἐπίσκοπος, ἐρωτάω, εὐσχήμων, 
ἐπιούσιος, εὐχαριστέω, ἕως, ἡγοῦμαι, ἡλικία, ἡσυχία, θεμέλιον, θεωρέω, 
ἴδιος, ἱλαστήριον, ἵλεως, ἱστορέω, καθαρίζω, καθαρός, καινός, κακοπάθεια, 
κατά, κατάκριμα, καταντάω, κλίνη, κολάζομαι, κολλάω, κολαφίζω, κόπος, 
κοράσιον, κτάομαι, κύριος, λικμάω, λίψ, λούομαι, μενοῦνγε, μαρτυροῦμαι, 
μειζότερος, μικρός, μογιλάλος, μονή, ναῦς, νεκροί, vn, νομός, οἰκία, ὁμο- 
λογέω, ὄνομα, ὀψώνιον, παρά, παράδεισος, παραθήκη, παρακύπτω, παρει- 
σφέρω, παρεπίδημος, πάρεσις, πάροικος, παροξύνομαι, πατροπαράδοτος, 
περισπάω, περιτέμνω, πῆχυς, πλεονεκτέω, πλῆθος, πληροφορέω, πράγμα, 

ΤΥΡΊΟΙΣ: ὁ. 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 81 


πράκτωρ, πρεσβύτερος, πρόθεσις, προσέχω, προσκαρτερέω, προφήτης, 
σαπρός, σκύλλω, σκόλοψ, σμαράγδινος, σουδάριον, σπεκουλάτωρ, στάσις, 
στρατεύομαι, σφραγίζω, σφυρίς, συγγενής, συμβούλιον, συνείδησις, συν- 
ἔχω, συνευδοκέω, συνευωχέομαι, συνίστημι, σῶμα, σωτήρ, τήρησις, τόπος, 
υἱός, υἱὸς θεοῦ, υἱοθεσία, ὑποζύγιον, ὑποπόδιον, ὑπόστασις, φάσις, φέρω, 
φθάνω, φίλος, φιλοστοργία, φιλοτιμέομαι, χάραγμα, χάρις τῷ Θεῷ, χρεία, 
χρόνος, ψωμίον, ψυχὴν σῶσαι. This seems like a very long list, but 
it will do more than pages of argument to convince the reader 
that the vocabulary of the N. T. is practically the same as that of 
the vernacular κοινή in the Roman Empire in the first century 
A.D. This is not a complete list, for new words will be added 
from time to time, and all that are known are not here included. 
Besides neither Deissmann nor Moulton has put together such 
a single list of words, and Kenyon’s in Hastings’ D. B. (Papyri) 
is very incomplete. After compiling this list of words I turned to 
the list in the Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible by Thayer (art. 
“Language of the N. T.’’) where are found some thirty new words 
common to the N. T. and the vernacular κοινή, words not com- 
mon in the classic Greek. Thayer’s list is entirely different save 
a half-dozen. In his list are comprised such interesting words as 
ἀλληγορέω, ἀντοφθαλμέω, ἀποκαραδοκία, δεισιδαιμονία, ἔγχρίω, ἔγγίζω, 
ἔπιχορηγέω, εὐδοκέω, εὐκαιρξω, θριαμβεύω, etc. This list can be 
largely increased also by the comparison between words that are 
common to the N. T. and the comic poets (Aristophanes, Menan- 
der, etc.) who used the language of the people. See Kennedy’s 
lists in Sources of N. T. Greek (ch. VI). Many of these, as Ken- 
nedy shows, are theological terms, like αἰσθητήριον, appaBav, Bar- 
τίζω, εὐχαριστία, κυρία, μυστήριον, φιλαδελφία. The Christians found 
in common use in the Roman Empire terms like ἀδελφός, ἐπιφάνεια, 
ἐπιφανής, κύριος, λειτουργία, παρουσία, πρεσβύτερος, προγράφω, σωτήρ, 
σωτηρία, υἱὸς Θεοῦ. They took these words with the new popular 
connotation and gave them “the deeper and more spiritual 


1 It is not meant, of course, that the bulk of the N. T. words are new as 
compared with the old Gk. Far from it. Of the 4829 words in the N. T. 
(not including proper names) 3933 belong to older classic language (literary 
and vernac.) while 996 are late or foreign words. See Jacquier, Hist. des Livres 
du N. T., tome 1°, 1906, p. 25. Thayer’s Lex. claimed 767 N. T. words, 
but Thayer considered 89 as doubtful and 76 as late. Kennedy (Sour. of 
N. T. Gk., p. 62) found about 550 “biblical” words. But now Deissmann 
admits only about 50, or one per cent. of the 5000 words in the N. T. (Light, 
etc., p. 72f.). Findlay (Exp. Gk. T., 1 Cor., p. 748) gives 5594 Greek 
words in the N. T. (whole number), while Viteau (Syntaxe des Prop., p. xxx) 
gives 5420. 


82 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


sense with which the N. T. writings have made us familiar” 
(Milligan, Greek Papyri, p. Xxx). They could even find τοῦ 
μεγάλου Θεοῦ εὐεργέτου καὶ σωτῆρος (GH 15, ii/s.c.). Cf. Tit. 2: 18; 
2 Pet. 1:1.! The papyri often show us how we have misunder- 
stood a word. So ἀπογραφή (Lu. 2 : 2) is not “taxing,” but “en- 
rolling” for the census (very common in the papyri). But this 
is not all, for the modern Greek vernacular will also augment the 
list of N. T. words known to belong to the oral speech. When 
this much is done, we are ready to admit the vernacular character 
of all the words not known to be otherwise. The N. T. Greek is 
like the κοινή also in using many compounded (“sesquipedalian’’) 
words like ἀνεκδιήγητος, ἀνεξεραύνητος, ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος, ὑπερεντυγ- 
χάνω, etc. There is also the same frequency of diminutives, some 
of which have lost that significance, as πλοιάριον, ὠτάριον, ὠτίον, etc. 
The new meanings to old words are well illustrated in the list 
from the papyri, to which may be added ἀναλύω, ἐντροπή, ζωοποιέξω, 
σχολή, χορτάζω, ete. 

As to the forms we need say less, but the evidence is to the same 
effect. The papyri show examples of ᾿Ακύλα (and —ov) for geni- 
tive, δυῶν and δυσί, ἔγενάμην, ἔλαβα, ἔλεγας, ἔλειψα, ἦλθα, ἠνοίγην, 
ἡρπάγην, ἦξα, δέδωκες, οἶδες, ἔγραψες, τιθῶ, σπείρης; the imperative 
has only the long forms -τωσαν, --σθωσαν, ete. The various dialects 
are represented in the forms retained in the N. T., as the Attic in 
βούλει, διδόασι, ἤμελλε, etc.; the Ionic in paxaipys, γίνομαι, γινώσκω, 
etc.; the Doric in ἀφέωνται, ἤτω, etc.; the Afolic in ἀποκτέννω, 3d 
plural in --σαν, etc.; the Northwest Greek in accusative plural in 
es, perfect in --αν (3d plural), confusion of —aw and —ew verbs, ete.; 
the Arcadian-Cyprian group in accusative singular in —av, ἀφέων- 
rat (also). It is curious that Thayer in Hastings’ D. B., follows 
Winer’s error in giving ἐδίδοσαν as an example of a form like εἴχοσαν, 
for the present stem is διδο--, and σαν is merely the usual μι ending. 
See Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 4-20. 

Among the syntactical peculiarities of N. T. Greek which are 
less numerous, as in the κοινή, the following are worthy of note 
and are found in the κοινή: the non-final use of ἵνα; the frequent 
use of the personal pronoun; the decreased use of the possessive 
pronouns; disuse of the optative; increased use of ὅτι; disuse of 
the future participle; use of participle with εἰμί; article with the 
infinitive (especially with ἐν and eis); ἄφες and βλέπε with sub- 
junctive without conjunction; the absence of the dual; use of 
ὄφελον as conjunction; frequency of ἐάν; ὅταν, etec., with indicative; 

* Moulton, Prol., p. 84; Wendland, Hell.-rém. Kult., p. 100. 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 83 


interchange of ἐάν and ἄν; μή increasing upon οὐ; decreased use of 
indirect discourse; εἷς Ξε τις ; disuse of some interrogative particles; 
use of ἴδιος aS possessive pronoun; παρά and ὑπέρ with compara- 
tives; disappearance of the superlative; frequency of prepositions; 
vivid use of present tense (and perfect); laxer use of particles; 
growth of the passive over the middle, ete. 

Various phrases are common both to the N. T. and to the 
papyri, like δεξιὰν δίδωμι, ἐν τοῖς = ‘in house of,’ ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν, els τὸ 
διηνεκές, καθὼς γέγραπται, ἐκ συμφώνου, ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό, κατ᾽ ὄναρ, κατὰ τὸ 
ἔθος, οὐχ ὁ τυχών, παρέχομαι ἐμαυτόν, τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν. “There is 
placed before us in the N. T. neither a specific speech-form nor 
a barbaric Jewish-Greek, but a natural phase of the Hellenistic 
speech-development.”! Deissmann (Hxp. Times, 1906, p. 63) 
properly holds the N. T. to be the Book of Humanity because 
it “came from the unexhausted forces below, and not from the 
feeble, resigned culture of a worn-out upper class.”’ Swete (O. 7. 
in Gk., pp. 295 ff.) shows how the LXX is influenced by the 
vernacular xown. As early as 1843 B. Hase (Wellhausen, Hinl., 
p. 14) explained the LXX as “Volkssprache.”’ Thackeray (Gram- 
mar, pp. 22 ff.) gives a good summary of “the κοινή basis of LXX 
Greek.” 

II. Literary Elements in the New Testament Greek. It is true 
then, as Blass? sums it up, that “the language employed in 
the N. T. is, on the whole, such as was spoken in the lower circles 
of society, not such as was written in works of literature.’”? The 
N. T. writers were not Atticists with the artificial straining after 
the antique Attic idiom. But one must not imagine that they 
were mere purveyors of slang and vulgarisms. J reudenthal® 
speaks of the Hellenistic Jews as “one of those societies without 
a mother-tongue which have never attained to any true excel- 
lence in literature.” And even Mahaffy* speaks of the Greek 
learned by the Jews as “the new and artificial idiom of the trad- 
ing classes” which had neither “traditions nor literature nor 
those precious associations which give depth and poctry to 
words.” ‘That is a curious mistake, for it was the Atticistic re- 
vival that was artificial. The κοινή had all the memories of a 


1 Thumb, Die sprachgesch. Stell. des bibl. Griech., Theol. Runds., 1902, 
p. 93. Cf. also Arnaud, Essai sur le caractére de la langue grecque du N. T., 
1899. Viteau (Et. sur le Gree du N. T., 2 vols., 1893, 1896) insists on the dis- 
tinction between the lit. and the vernac. elements in the N. T. 

4\Grof the N. T.\Gk.; p. 1: 3 Hell. Stud., 1875. 

4 Gk. Life and Thought, 1896, p. 530. 


84 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


people’s life. Instance Robert Burns in Scotland. It is to be 
said for Mahaffy, however, that he changed his mind, for he later! 
wrote: “They write a dialect simple and rude in comparison with 
Attic Greek; they use forms which shock the purists who examine 
for Cambridge scholarships. But did any men ever tell a great 
story with more simplicity, with more directness, with more 
power? ... Believe me against all the pedants of the world, the 
dialect that tells such a story is no poor language, but the out- 
come of a great and a fruitful education.” The N. T. uses the 
language of the people, but with a dignity, restraint and pathos 
far beyond the trivial nonentities in much of the papyri remains. 
All the Ν. T. Greek is not so vernacular as parts of the LXX.? 
The papyri often show the literary κοινή and all grades of varia- 
tion, while the lengthy and official inscriptions* “often approx- 
imate in style to the literary language.’ Long before many 
words are used in literature they belong to the diction of polite 
speech. In a word, the N. T. Greek “occupies apparently an in- 
termediate position between the vulgarisms of the populace and 
the studied style of the litterateurs of the period. It affords a 
striking illustration of the divine policy of putting honour on 
what man calls ‘common.’’’> It would indeed have been strange 
if men like Paul, Luke and the author of Hebrews had shown no 
literary affinities at all. Prof. J. C. Robertson (The Classical 
Weekly, March 9, 1912, p. 139) in an article entitled “Reasons 
for Teaching the Greek N. T. in Colleges” says: “Take the par- 
able of the Prodigal Son, for instance. In literary excellence this 
piece of narrative is unsurpassed. Nothing more simple, more 
direct, more forceful can be adduced from among the famous 
passages of classical Greek literature. It is a moving tragedy of 


1 Prog. of Hellen. in Alex. Emp., 1905, p. 114f. Cf. Schiirer, Jew. Peo. 
in Time of Jes. Ch., div. I, vol. I, pp. 11 ff., Hellen. in the Non-Jew. Regions, 
Hellen. in the Jew. Regions. He shows how Gk. and Lat. words were common 
in the Aram. and how thoroughly Gk. the Jews of the Dispersion were. On 
this point see Schiirer, Diaspora, in ext. vol. of Hast. Ὁ. B. “Greek was the 
mother-tongue of the Jews” all over the gentile world. Susemihl holds that 
in Alexandria the Jews gave “quite a considerable Hebraic tinge” to the 
κοινή, Gesch. der griech. Lit., Bd. II, 1892, p. 602. An excellent discussion 
of the literary elements in the Gk. N. T. is to be found in Heinrici’s Der lit. 
Charakter der neutest. Schr. (1908). He shows also the differences between 
Palestinian and Alexandrian Judaism. 

? Cf. Geldart, Mod. Gk. in its Rela. to ἀπο. Gk., 1870, p. 180. Cf. also 
Kennedy, Sour. of N. T. Gk., p. 65; Frinkel, Altert. von Perg., 1890, p. xvii. 

8 Deissmann, B. S., p. 180. * Kennedy, Sour. of N. T. Gk., p. 77. 

6 Thayer, art. Lang. of the N. T., Hast. Ὁ. B., III, 362. 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH δῦ 


reconciliation. Yet its literary excellence is not accidental. The 
elements of that excellence can be analyzed.” In an age of un- 
usual culture one would look for some touch with that culture. 
“T contend, therefore, that the peculiar modernness, the high in- 
tellectual standard of Christianity as we find it in the N. T., is 
caused by its contact with Greek culture.’’! In his helpful article 
on N. T. Times Buhl? underrates, as Schiirer* does, the amount 
of Greek known in Palestine. It is to be remembered also that 
great diversity of culture existed among the writers of the N. T. 
Besides, the educated men used much the same vernacular all 
over the Roman world and a grade of speech that approached 
the literary standard as in English to-day. One is not to stress 
Paul’s language in 1 Cor. 2 : 1—4 into a denial that he could use 
the literary style. It is rather a rejection of the bombastic rhet- 
— orice that the Corinthians liked and the rhetorical art that was so 
common from Thucydides to Chrysostom.’ It is with this com- 
parison in mind that Origen (c. Celsus, vii, 59 f.) speaks of Paul’s 
literary inferiority. It is largely a matter of standpoint. Deiss- 
mann® has done a good service in accenting the difference between 
letters and epistles. Personal letters not for the public eye are, 
of course, in the vernacular. Cicero’s Letters are epistles written 
with an eye on posterity. “In letters one does not look for trea- 
tises, still less for treatises in rigid uniformity and proportion of 
parts.” ” ‘There may be several kinds of letters (private, family, 
pastoral or congregational, etc.). But when a letter is published 
consciously as literature, like Horace’s Ars Poetica, for instance, 
it becomes a literary letter or epistle. Epistles may be either 
genuine or unauthentic. The unauthentic may be either merely 


1 Mahaffy, Prog. of Hellen., p. 139. 2 Ext. vol. of Hast. D. B. 

3 Jew. Peo. in Time of Jes. Ch., div. II, vol. I, p. 47 f. He admits a wide 
diffusion of a little knowledge of and easy use of Gk. among the educated 
classes in Palestine. 

4 Cf. Norden, Ant. Kunstpr., Bd. II, pp. 482 ff., for discussion of literary 
elements in N. T. Gk. Deissmann makes “ἃ protest against overestimating 
the literary evidence” (Theol. Runds., 1902, pp. 66 ff.; Exp. Times, 1906, p. 9) 
and points out how Norden has missed it in contrasting Paul and that ancient 
world, merely the contrast between non-literary prose and artistic lit. prose. 

5 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 15. 

6 B.S., pp. 16 ff. However, one must not think that the N. T. Epistles al- 
ways fall wholly in one or the other category. Ramsay calls attention to the 
“new category” in the new conditions, viz., a general letter to a congregation 
(Let. to the Seven Chur., p. 24). 

7 Ib., p. 11. See also Walter Lock, The Epistles, pp. 114 ff., in The Bible 
and Chr. Life, 1905. 


86 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


pseudonymous or real forgeries. If we examine the N. T. Letters 
or Epistles in the light of this distinction, we shall see that Phile- 
mon is a personal letter. The same is true of the Pastoral Epistles; 
but Ephesians is more like an epistle from its general nature. 
The Thessalonian, Corinthian, Galatian, Colossian, Philippian 
writings are all congregational and doctrinal letters. Romans 
partakes of the nature of a letter and an epistle. Jacquier, how- 
ever (Histoire des Livres du N. T., 1906, tome 1°, p. 66), re- 
marks that “The Pauline Epistles are often more discourse than 
letter.” It will thus be seen that I do not agree with Deissmann 
(Bible Studies, p. 3 f.) in calling all the Pauline writings “letters” 
as opposed to “epistles.” Milligan (Greek Papyri, p. xxxi) like- 
wise protests against the sweeping statement of Deissmann. 
Deissmann gives a great variety of interesting letters from the 
papyri in his Light from the Ancient Hast, and argues here (pp. 
224-234) with passion that even Romans is just “a long let- 
ter.’ “TI have no hesitation in maintaining the thesis that all 
the letters of Paul are real, non-literary letters.’’ Hebrews is 
more like an epistle, as are James, | John, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Jude, 
while 2 and 3 John are again letters. The Letters to the Seven 
Churches again are epistles. This is a useful distinction and 
shows that the N. T. writers knew how to use one of the favourite 
literary methods of the Alexandrian period. Dr. Lock concludes: 
“Letters have more of historic and literary interest, epistles more 
of central teaching and practical guidance.’’! That Paul could 
use the more literary style is apparent from the address on Mars 
Hill, the speech before Agrippa,? and Ephesians and Romans. 
Paul quotes Aratus, Menander and Epimenides and may have 
been acquainted with other Greek authors. He seems also to 
have understood Stoic philosophy. We cannot tell how extensive 
his literary training was. But he had a real Hellenic feeling and 
outlook. The introduction to Luke’s Gospel and the Acts show 
real literary skill. The Epistle to the Hebrews has oratorical flow 
and power with traces of Alexandrian culture. Viteau? reminds 


1 Bible and Chr. Life, p. 117. For the history and literature of ancient 
letters and epistles see Deissmann, B. 8.; Susemihl, Gesch. der griech. Lit.; 
Overbeck, Uber die Anf. der patrist. Lit. The oldest known Gk. letter was 
written on a lead tablet and belongs to the iv/B.c. and comes from near 
Athens. It was discovered by Prof. Wiinsch of Giessen. See art. by Dr. 
Wilhelm of Athens in Jahresh. des 6sterreich. archiiol. Inst. (1904, vii, pp. 
94 ff.). 

2 ‘Blass; Gr. of IN. 1. Gk, p. Ὁ. 3 Le Verbe: Synt. des Prop., p. xxx. 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 87 


us that about 3000 of the 5420 words in the Greek N. T. are 
found in ancient Attic writers, while the syntax in general “obeys 
the ordinary laws of Greek grammar.”’! These and other N. T. 
writers, as James, occasionally use classic forms like ἴσμεν, ἴστε, 
ἴσασι, ἐξήεσαν, etc. Konig? in his discussion of the Style of Scrip- 
ture finds ample illustration in the N. T. of the various literary 
linguistic devices, though in varying degree. See “Figures of 
Speech” (ch. XXIT). But the literary element in the N. T. is sub- 
ordinate to the practical and is never artificial nor strained. We 
have the language of spirit and life. The difference between the 
old point of view and the new is weil illustrated by Hort’s remark 
(Notes on Orthography, p. 152 1.) when he speaks of “the popular 
Greek in which the N. T. 15 to a certain extent written.’ He con- 
ceives of it as literary κοινή with some popular elements. The 
new and the true view is that the N. T. is written in the popular 
κοινή with some literary elements, especially in Luke, Paul, He- 
brews and James. 

Josephus is interesting as a background to the N. T. He wrote 
his War in Aramaic and secured the help of Greek writers to 
translate it, but the Antiquities was composed in Greek, probably 
with the aid of similar collaborateurs, for parts of Books X VII- 
XIX copy the style of Thucydides and are really Atticistic.® It 
is interesting to take a portion of 1 Maccabees as we have it 
translated from the Hebrew original and compare it with the cor- 
responding portion of Josephus. The Greek of 1 Mace. is, like 
the LXX, translation Greek and intensely Hebraistic, while Jo- 
sephus smooths out all the Hebraistic wrinkles and shifts it into 
the rolling periods of Thucydides. The N. T. has slight affinities 
in vocabulary, besides Josephus, with Philo, Plutarch, Polybius, 
Strabo, Diodorus and a few other writers in the literary κοινή." 

Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, p. 64) holds that 
Paul’s “Greek never becomes literary.” “It is never disciplined, 
say, by the canon of the Atticists, never tuned to the Asian rhythm: 


1 W.-M., p. 37. Kennedy indeed (Sour. of N. T. Gk., p. 184) says that 
80 per cent. of the N. T. words date from before 322 B.c. 

2 Hast. D. B., ext. vol. 

3 See Thackeray, art. Josephus in ext. vol. of Hast. D. B.; ef. also Schmidt, 
De Flavii Jos. Eloc., 1893. Thumb (Die griech. Spr., p. 125) and Moulton 
(Prol., p. 233) accent the fact that Josephus has only one Hebraism, προστί- 
θεσθα: with infinitive = 9 VO. Cf. also Raab, De ΕἸ. Jos. Eloc. Quest., 1890. 

4 Kennedy, Sour. of N. T. Gk., pp. 50 ff. Hoole, The Class. Elem. in the 
N. T., 1888, gives an interesting list of Gk. and Rom. proper names that 
occur in the N. T. 


88 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 
it remains non-literary.””’ But has not Deissmann given a too 
special sense to “literary”? If 1 Cor.13 and 15, Ro. 8 and 
Eph. 3 do not rise to literary flavour and nobility of thought and 
expression, I confess my ignorance of what literature is. Har- 
nack (Das hohe Lied des Apostels Paulus von der Liebe und seine 
religionsgeschichtliche Bedeutung, 1911) speaks of the rhythm, the 
poetic form, the real oratory, the literary grace of 1 Cor. 13. The 
best literature is not artificial nor pedantic like the work of the 
Atticists and Asian stylists. That is a caricature of literature. 
We must not forget that Paul was a man of culture as well as a 
man of the people. Deissmann (Light, p. 64 f.) does admit the 
literary quality of Hebrews. This epistle is more ornate as Origen 
saw (Eus., Eccl. Hist., VI, xxv, 11). | 

III. The Semitic Influence. This is still the subject of keen 
controversy, though not in the same way that the Purists and the 
Hebraists debated it. Now the point is whether the N. T. Greek 
is wholly in the κοινή or whether there is an appreciable Semitic 
colouring in addition. There is something to be said on both 
sides of the question. 

(a) THE TRADITION. See, (a), for proof of the error of this posi- 
tion. It is certain that the idea of a special Hebraic Greek for the 
N. T. is gone. Schaff! said that the Greek spoken by the Grecian 
Jews “assumed a strongly Hebraizing character,” and the N. T. 
Greek shared in this “sacred and Hebraizing character.” Ac- 
cording to Hatch? “the great majority of N. T. words... ex- 
press in their biblical use the conceptions of a Semitic race.” 
Viteau? calls it “Hebraizing Greek,’’ while Simcox‘ speaks of ‘‘the 
half-Hebraized Greek of the N. T.’’? Reuss? calls it “the Jewish- 
Greek idiom.” Hadley® considered the “Hellenistic dialect, 
largely intermixed with Semitic idioms.” Westcott’? spoke of 
“the Hebraic style more or less pervading the whole N. T.” But 
Westcott’ admitted that “a philosophical view of the N. T. lan- 
guage as a whole is yet to be desired,” as Hatch® lamented that 
the N. T. Greek “has not yet attracted the attention of any con- 
siderable scholar.”” That cannot now be said after the work of 
Blass, Deissmann, Moulton, Radermacher and others, and was an 
overstatement then. And yet the old view of “biblical Greek’ 


1 Comp. to the Gk. Test., 1885, pp. 22, 25. 


2 Ess. in Bibl. Gk., p. 34. 6 Lang. of the N. T., Smith’s B. D. 
_ 8 Synt. des Prop., p. xxxvi. 7 Art. N. T., Smith’s B. D. 
4 Lang. of the N. T., p. 20. 8 Tb. 


5 Hist. of the N. T., 1885, p. 36. 9 Ess. in Bibl. Gk., p. 1. 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH S89 


for both N. T. and LXX is still championed by Conybeare and 
Stock in their grammar of the Septuagint (Selections from the 
Sept., 1905, p. 22 f.). They insist, against Deissmann, on the 
‘linguistic unity” of the LXX and of the N. T. as opposed to the 
vernacular κοινή. They admit, of course, that the LXX is far more 
Hebraic than the N. T. This sturdy contention for the old view 
is interesting, to say the least. Wellhausen (Hinl. in die drei ersten 
Evangelien) is rather disposed to accent the “Semiticisms” (Ara- 
maisms) in the Synoptic Gospels in contrast with the Attic Greek. 
Nobody now claims the N. T. Greek to be Attic in purity. “No 
one denies the existence of Semiticisms; opinions are only divided 
with reference to the relative proportion of these Semiticisms”’ 
(Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, Ὁ. 65). The old view 
is dead beyond recall. 

(Ὁ) THe View or DEISSMANN AND Mouton. Over against the 
old conception stands out in sharp outline the view of Deissmann! 
who says: “The linguistic unity of the Greek Bible appears only 
against the background of classical, not of contemporary ‘pro- 
fane’ Greek.” Note the word “only.’”’ Once more?: “The few 
Hebraizing expressions in those parts of the N. T. which were in 
Greek from the first are but an accidens which does not essentially 
alter the fundamental character of its language.” The portions 
of the Synoptic Gospels which were either in Aramaic or made 
use of Aramaic originals he considers on a par with the LXX. 
They use translation Greek. No one “ever really spoke as he 
may have translated the Logia-collection, blessed — and cramped 
—as he was by the timid consciousness of being permitted to 
convey the sacred words of the Son of God to the Greeks.’ 
Thumb‘ accepts the view of Deissmann and admits “Hebraisms 
in a few cases” only and then principally the meaning of words. 
In 1879 Guillemard® disclaimed any idea of being able to give 
“an exhaustive exhibition of all the Hebraisms,’’ but he “put for- 
ward only a few specimens”! Moulton® admits practically no 
Hebraisms nor Aramaisms outside of “translation Greek.” “Be- 
tween these two extremes the N. T. writers lie; and of them all 


1B. S., 1901, p. 66. 2: Ib. p#177. 

3 Tb., p. 76. “What would we give if we could recover but one papyrus 
book with a few leaves containing genuine Aramaic sayings of Jesus! For 
those few leaves we would, I think, part willingly with the theological out- 
put of a whole century” (Deissmann, Light, p. 57). 

4 Griech. Spr. etc., p. 121. 

5 Hebraisms in the Gk. Test., Pref. 6 Prol., p. 10. 


90 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


we may assert with some confidence that, where translation is 

not involved, we shall find hardly any Greek expression used 
which would sound strangely to speakers of the κοινή in Gentile 
lands.’? Once more!: “What we can assert with assurance is that 
the papyri have finally destroyed the figment of a N. T. Greek 
which in any material respect differed from that spoken by ordi- 
nary people in daily life.’ Moulton? realizes “the danger of go- 
ing too far’ in summing up thus the issue of the long strife 
over N. T. Hebraisms. According to Moulton (p. 18) the matter 
is complicated only in Luke, who, though a gentile, used Aramaic 
sources in the opening chapters of the Gospel and Acts. This new 
and revolutionary view as to Semitisms is still challenged by Dal- 
man* who finds many more Aramaisms in the Synoptic Gospels 
than Moulton is willing to admit. Deissmann indeed is not dis- 
posed in his later writings to be dogmatic on the subject. “The 
last word has not yet been said about the proportion of Semiti- 
cisms” (Hxpositor, Jan., 1908, p. 67). He is undoubtedly right 
in the idea that many so-called Semiticisms are really “interna- 
tional vulgarisms.”’ Schiirer, Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1908, p. 
555, criticizes Deissmann (Licht vom Osten, 1908, p. 35) for run- 
ning the parallel too close between the N. T. and the unliterary 
papyri. It is truer of the LXX than of the N. T. 

The old view cannot stand in the light of the papyri and in- 
scriptions. Both the Purists and the Hebraists were wrong. 
Many words and idioms heretofore claimed as Hebraisms are 
shown to be current in the vernacular κοινή. As specimens‘ one 
can mention ἐνώπιον (7222 according to Winer-Liinemann, p. 201, 
and “biblical”? according to Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Greek, 
p. 90) as found in the papyri; πρεσβύτερος in the official sense 
occurs In the papyri of Egypt in combinations like πρεσβύτεροι 
ἱερεῖς; ἐρωτάω = ‘to beg’ is in the papyri; εἷς in sense of πρῶτος also; 


1 Prol Ὁ. 8: 

2 Ib., p. 18. He quotes approvingly Deissmann’s remark that ‘“Semitisms 
which are in common use belong mostly to the technical language of religion”’ 
and they do not alter the scientific description of the language. Moulton 
(Interp., July, 1906, p. 380) says: ‘Suffice it to say that, except so far as the 
N. T. writers are quoting baldly literal translations from the LXX, or making 
equally literal translations from the Aramaic in which the Lord and His 
disciples usually spoke, we have no reason whatever to say that the N. T. 
was composed in a Greek distinguishable from that spoken all over the Roman 
Empire.”’ 

3 Wds. of Jes., 1902. 

* See Deissmann (B. 8. and Light) and Moulton (Prol.). 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 91 


προσευχῇ can no longer be regarded as a word of Jewish formation 
for a Jewish place of prayer, since it appears in that sense in a 
Ptolemaic inscription in Lower Egypt in the III cent. B.c.; ὄνομα 
occurs also in the sense of “person”; expressions like vids θανάτου 
are found in the papyri; βλέπειν ἀπό occurs In a papyrus letter; 
eis ὄνομα is in inscriptions, ostraca, papyri; δύο δύο is matched in 
the papyri by τρία τρία (this idiom has been traced in Greek for 
2500 years); the instrumental use of ἐν as ἐν μαχαίρῃ Is common; 
the use of ἐν τῷ and the infinitive so common in Luke appears in 
the papyri; and even εἰς ἀπάντησιν meets us in the papyri (Tebt. 
Pap. 43, II cent. B.c.). Certainly a full list of the words and 
phrases that can no longer be called Hebraisms would be very 
formidable. Besides, the list grows continually under the re- 
searches of Deissmann, Moulton, Mayser, Thumb, Kalker, Wit- 
kowski, Milligan and other scholars. The presumption is now 
clearly against a Hebraism. The balance of evidence has gone 
over to the other side. But after all one has the conviction that 
the joy of new discovery has to some extent blurred the vision of 
Deissmann and Moulton to the remaining Hebraisms which do 
not indeed make Hebraic Greek or a peculiar dialect. But enough 
remain to be noticeable and appreciable. Some of these may 
vanish, like the rest, before the new knowledge. The LXX, 
though “translation Greek,” was translated into the vernacular of 
Alexandria, and one can but wonder if the LX. X did not have some 
slight resultant influence upon the Alexandrian κοινή itself. The 
Jews were very numerous in Alexandria. “Moreover, it remains 
to be considered how far the quasi-Semitic colloquialisms of the 
papyri are themselves due to the influence of the large Greek- 
speaking Jewish population of the Delta” (Swete, The Apocalypse 
of St. John, 1906, p. χα). Thackeray (Gr. of the O. T. in Gk., 
vol. I, p. 20) uses the small number of Coptic words in the Greek 
papyri against the notion of Hebrew influence on the κοινή in 
Egypt. However, Thackeray (p. 27) notes that the papyri so far 
discovered tell us little of the private life of the Jews of Egypt and 
of the Greek used by them specifically. The marshes of the Delta 
were not favourable for the preservation of the papyri. The 
κοινή received other foreign influences we know. The Jews of the 
Dispersion spoke the vernacular κοινή everywhere, but they read 
the LXX, “a written Semitic Greek which no one ever spoke, far 
less used for literary purposes, either before « ἴδον." And yet 


1 Deissmann, B. 8., p. 67. See also Angus, N. ©. Philol., Harv. Theol. 
Rev., July, 1909, p. 453. The LXX, though trans] cion Greek (see above), 


92 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the Hellenistic Jews all over the world could not read continually 
the LXX and not to some extent feel the influence of its peculiar 
style. No one to-day speaks the English of the King James Ver- 
sion, or ever did for that matter, for, though like Shakespeare, it 
is the pure Anglo-Saxon, yet, unlike Shakespeare, it reproduces 
to a remarkable extent the spirit and language of the Bible. As 
Luther’s German Bible largely made the German language, so the 
King James Version has greatly affected modern English (both 
vernacular and literary). The situation is not the same, but *here 
is enough of truth to justify the comparison. There are fewer | 
details that preserve the Semitic character, but what does not 
disappear is the Hebrew cast of thought in a writer like John, for 
instance. No papyrus is as much a parallel to John’s Gospel as 
the Book of Job, for instance. Westcott! has true insight when 
he says of N. T. Greek: “It combines the simple directness of He- 
brew thought with the precision of Greek expression. In this way 
the subtle delicacy of Greek expression in some sense interprets 
Hebrew thought.” What is true of John’s Gospel is true also of 
James. The numerous quotations both from the LXX and the 
Hebrew in the N. T. put beyond controversy the constant use of 
the O. T. in Greek on the part of the N. T. writers. Besides, 
with the possible exception of Luke and the author of Hebrews, 
they all knew and used Aramaic as well as Greek. The point is 
that the N. T. writers were open to Semitic influence. How great 
that was must be settled by the facts in the case, not by pre- 
sumptions for or against. Dr. George Milligan (Greek Papyri, 
p. xxix f.) says: “In the matter of language, we have now abun- 
dant proof that the so-called ‘peculiarities’ of biblical Greek are 
due simply to the fact that the writers of the N. T. for the most 
part made use of the ordinary colloquial Greek, the κοινή of their 
day. This is not to say that we are to disregard altogether the 
influence of ‘translation Greek,’ and the consequent presence of 
undoubted Hebraisms, both in language and grammar. An over- 
tendency to minimize these last is probably the most pertinent 


is in the vern. κοινή, and thus the N. T. writers had a double point of contact 
with the κοινή. Cf. Wackernagel, Theol. Lit., 1908, p. 38; Milligan, Epis. to 
the Th., p. lv. 

1 Exp., 1887, p. 241. Thumb (Griech. Spr. etc., p. 132) denies any influ- 
ence on the developiment of the Gk. But Thayer (Hast. D. B., Lang. of the 
N. T., Il, 405) is πὸ surprised to find “idioms having a distinctly Hebra- 
istic flavour even in na 7e Greek circles.”’ Cf. also Reuss, Hist. of the N. T., 
1884, vol. I, p. 33. 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 93 


criticism that can be directed against Dr. J. H. Moulton’s Pro- 
legomena to his Grammar of N. T. Greek.” So Dr. Swete 
“deprecates the induction which, as it seems to him, is being 
somewhat hastily based upon them (the papyri), that the Greek 
of the N. T. has been but slightly influenced by the familiarity of 
the writers with Hebrew and Aramaic” (Apocalypse of St. John, 
ΠΡ ΟΧᾺ): 

Von Soden! sums up the whole matter as follows: “It was 
unavoidable but that the primitive Christian writers often used 
compulsion with the Greek tongue and offended against its 
genius. They wished to bring to expression things which, up 
to that time, were foreign to the Greek spirit and only found ex- 
pression in Semitic languages. And besides, it is only natural 
that the phraseology of the Greek translation of the O. T., to 
which they were habituated from their youth, should uncon- 
sciously flow from their pens, and still more, that when their sub- 
ject-matter brought them into close contact with the O. T. or 
when they translated from the Aramaic dialect of Palestine, their 
Greek should receive a foreign tinge.” This by no means makes 
a special N. T. dialect or even Jewish-Greek, but it admits a 
real, though slight, Semitic influence even where it is not “trans- 
lation Greek.”’ This position is more nearly in accord with all 
the facts as we now know them. It is pleasing to find Deissmann 
(Expositor, Oct., 1907, ‘Philology of the Greek Bible,” p. 292) 
rather reacting a bit from the first extreme position. He accents 
here strongly the influence of the LXX on the N. T. “It is one 
of the most painful deficiencies of biblical study at the present 
day that the reading of the LXX has been pushed into the back- 
ground, while its exegesis has been scarcely even begun.” (Jb., 
p. 293): “A single hour lovingly devoted to the text of the Sep- 
tuagint will further our exegetical knowledge of the Pauline 
Epistles more than a whole day spent over a commentary.” (/b., 
p. 294): “This restoration of the Greek Bible to its own epoch is 
really the distinctive feature of the work of modern scholarship.”’ 
That hits the point. We cordially agree with his remark (Hxposi- 
tor, Nov., 1907, p. 485) that the Semiticisms of the Greek Bible 
do not place the N. T. outside of the scope of Greek philology, 
but are merely its birth-marks. In the Dec. (1907) Expositor 
(p. 520) Deissmann comments feelingly on the fact that the LX-X 
“has served the Christian Church of Anatolia in unbroken con- 
tinuity down to the present day.” 

1 Karly Chr. Lit., 1906, p. 11 f. 


— 


94. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(c) Lirrte Direct HEBREW INFLUENCE. The Hebrew was not 
a living language any longer. Less than half of the O. T. quota- 
tions! in the N. T. are from the Hebrew text. It was still read 
in most of the synagogues of Palestine and it is possible that a 
modernized Hebrew was in use to some extent for literary pur- 
poses.2, Perhaps the Hebrew text was consulted by the N. T. 
writers who used it much as a modern minister refers to his Greek 
Testament. The reading of the Hebrew O. T. would give one 
dignity of style and simplicity of expression. The co-ordination 
of clauses so common in the Hebrew is not confined to the Hebrew, 
but is certainly in marked contrast with the highly developed sys- 
tem of subordinate sentences of the Greek. But this paratactic 
construction is partly Hebraic and partly colloquial. The total 
absence of extended indirect discourse is a case in point also. 
Compare the historical books of the N. T. with Xenophon and 
Thucydides. Likewise the frequent use of καί and the sparing 
use of particles may be mentioned. The pleonastic use of pro- 
nouns like ἣν οὐδεὶς δύναται κλεῖσαι αὐτήν (Rev. 3 : 8) finds an occa- 
sional parallel (Moulton) in the papyri, but none the less its 
frequency in the N. T. is due to the Hebrew. The same remark 
applies to the effort to express in Greek the Hebrew infinitive ab- 
solute by the participle, as βλέποντες βλέψετε (Mt. 18 : 14), or the 
instrumental, as χαρᾷ χαίρει (Jo. 3:29). Both of these construc- 
tions are found in the Greek, but with far less frequency. The 
use of προστίθημι with an infinitive for repetition, as προσέθετο τρίτον 
πέμψαι (Lu. 20:12) is in evident imitation of the Hebrew 40>. 
Ei=ox does not mean οὐ as in εἰ δοθήσεται σημεῖον (Mk. 8 : 12), but 
is aposiopesis, the apodosis not being expressed. This use is in 
the papyri. Οὐ-πᾶς in the sense of οὐδείς is due to the LXX trans- 
lation of 52-8}, though Moulton (p. 246) has found in the papyri 
ἄνευ and χωρίς so used with πᾶς. 

The use of ῥῆμα, in the sense of 123 ‘thing’ is a Hebraism after 
the LXX. The classic Greek already has λόγος in this sense. Πρό- 
cwrov λαμβάνειν DID ND] is a clear Hebraism. Προσωπολημπτέω 
first appears in the N. T. So also is ἀρέσκειν ἐνώπιόν τινος rather than 
ἀρέσκειν τινί a Hebraism. Cf. the circumlocutions πρὸ προσώπου τῆς 
εἰσόδου αὐτοῦ (Acts 13 : 24) rather than the simple πρὸ αὐτοῦ. The 
frequent use of the article in address, though occasional in Greek, 


1 Swete, Intr. to the O. T. in Gk., 1900, pp. 381-405. 

2 Schiirer, Jew. Peo. in Times of Ch., div. II, vol. I, p.10. “Hebrew also 
continued to be the language of the learned, in which even the legal discus- 
sions of the scribes were carried on.” 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 99 


is like the Hebrew and Aramaic vocative. The common use of 
ἣν or ἐστί and the participle suits both the Hebrew and the analy- 
tic tendency of the κοινή. Cf. the more frequent use of the instru- 
mental ἐν. So the frequent construction εἶναι εἰς is due to 7 in 
Hebrew, though in itself not out of harmony with the Greek 
genius. It occurs in the papyri. ᾿Απὸ mpoowrov="2572 and πρὸ 
mpoowrov="}2) are both Hebraisms. The use of διδόναι in the 
sense of τιθέναι is due to 2 having both senses (Thackeray, ΟὟ. 
of the O. T. in Gk., p. 39); cf. Deut. 28:1, δώσει σε ὑπεράνω. So 
ἡμέραι takes the flavour of the Hebrew 8727 and εἰρήνη is used in 
salutation like pi5w. The superfluous pronoun calls for notice 
also. The frequency of ἐν τῷ with the infinitive is due to 2. So 
also vids occurs in some Hebraistic senses like }2, but the papyri 
have some examples of υἱός for ‘quality,’ ‘characteristic.’ Thack- 
eray (p. 42) notes the Hebrew fondness for “physiognomical 
expressions” like ὀφθαλμός, πρόσωπον, στόμα, χείρ, πούς, etc. The in- 
creased use of ἀνήρ and ἄνθρωπος like wx rather than τὶς, πᾶς, ἕκαστος 
must be observed. The very extensive use of prepositions is ac- 
cented by the Hebrew. Kai ἐγένετο translates "4. The use of 
a question to express wish is like the Hebrew idiom (cf. 2 Kgs. 
18:33). But these constructions are doubtless due to the LXX 
rather than to Hebrew itself. It is not possible to give in clear 
outline the influence of the Hebrew Bible on the N. T. apart 
from the LX X and the Aramaic, though there was a little of just 
that kind. Kennedy! gives thirteen words common to the LXX 
and the N. T. (Thackeray, Gr., pp. 31 ff., gives a list of “ Hebra- 
isms in Vocabulary”’) and counts “twenty Hebrew and Aramaic 
words which do not occur in the LXX, e.g. ζιζάνιον, μαμωνᾶς, ῥακά, 
ὡσαννά."" The words in the N. T. known to be Hebrew and not 
Aramaic are as follows: ἀβαδδών Ξε i728; ἀλληλουιά ΞΞ- ἔπτη 55; ἀμήν 
τ 2; ἁρμαγεδδών -- Ὑ1122 ἽΠ; ἁρραβών -- ὙΦ; Baros=N3; βεελζεβούβ 
=2721 592; Boavypyés= ὉΔῚ 22 (cf. Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 
49); Biooos= 712 (cf. also βύσσινος); ἐβραϊστί from “AY; ἠλείΞε "δὰ 
(MSS. Mt. 27 : 46); κάμηλος Ξε 533; ἰουδαΐζω, ἰουδαϊσμός, ἰουδαϊκός, 
ἰουδαῖος --- ΤΠ; κορβᾶν Ξε ἽΞ ; κύμινον ΞΞ- 7733; λίβανος τε 32; μάννα 
=A; μωρέΞτε 8; πάσχα-- ΠῸΒ (LXX, but same for Aramaic ἈΠῸΒ) ; 
paBBi(et)="29; caBawO=NIN2Z; caBBarov=NaB; σατανᾶς Ξ-- OV; σάπ- 
φειρος =""BO; Σιλωάμ from dH; συκάμινος Ξε ΠΡ Ὁ; ὕσσωπος = 23%; 
XepouBiu=O72IND; ὡσαννάτε δ δ (Dalman, Words of Jesus, 
p. 222). Some of these were already in classical Greek (βύσσος, 


1 Sour. of the N. T. Gk., p. 1101. Cf. Gregory, Prol., etc., p. 102 f., for 
foreign words in the N. T. 


96 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


λίβανος, camperpos). Of doubtful origin are νάρδος, νίτρον (Jer. 2: 22), 
συκάμινος. This is a fairly complete list of the Hebrew words in 
the N. T. The Aramaic words will be given later. There are to 
be added, however, the very numerous Hebrew proper names, 
only a few samples of which can be given, as ΜαριάμΞτε 077; 
Μελχισεδέκτε PIZ-7D92; Σαούλ Ξε d1kW; Σαμουήλ-ε ῬΑ Ἴ2 2; κτὰ. Deiss- 
mann is correct in saying (“Papyri,” Hncyc. Bibl.) that lexical 
Hebraisms “must be subjected to careful revision,” but these 
remain. 

Certain it is that the bulk of the examples of Hebraisms given 
by Guillemard vanish in the light of the papyri and inscriptions. 
He feared indeed that his book was “a return to old exploded 
methods.” It is indeed “exploded” now, for the N. T. is not 
“unlike any other Greek, with one single exception, and abso- 
lutely unique in its peculiarities.””!_ There are three ways of giv- 
ing these Semitic words: mere transliteration and indeclinable, 
transliteration and declinable, Greek endings to Aramaic words. 

(d) A DerrrerR Impress By THE LXX. It is true that the 
N. T. at many points has affinities with the LXX, the “single 
exception” of Guillemard, but the LXX is not ‘“‘the basis of the 
Christian Greek.”? In his second volume Viteau began to see 
that he had been too extreme in his notion that the N. T. was 
Hebraized Greek: “The language of the N. T. is not derived from 
that of the LX X; it is its sister. It is the same familiar Greek 
language which one finds employed in the one or the other. But 
the Greek of the LX_X has exercised a considerable influence upon 
that of the N. T.”? But even in this volume Viteau overestimates 
the influence of the LXX on the N. Τ. Westcott4 had the old 
idea that the N. T. language, “both as to its lexicography and 
as to its grammar, is based on the language of the LXX.” It is 
undoubtedly true®> that a very large proportion of the N. T. 


1 Hebr. in the N. T., 1879, p. ixf. 2? Schaff, Comp. to the Gk. Test., p. 23. 

3 Sujet, Compl. et Attr., 1896, p. ii. 

4 Art. N. T., Smith’s B. D. Helbing in his Gr. der LXX (1907) promises 
to investigate the Hebraisms in the second volume (p. iv). But he already 
sees that προστιθέναι occurs in the papyri as well as constructions like ἐξ dy... 
ἐξ αὐτῶν. In general (p. vil) the LX X shows the same tendency as the rest of 
the κοινή towards uniformity (the disappearance of the opt., the superl., the 
2d aorist, the middle, etc.). Cf. also Sel. from the LXX by C. 8. (1905) 
with a brief Gr. of the LXX; Deissmann, Die Anf. der Sept.-Gr., Intern. 
Wochenschr., Sept. 26, 1908. 

δ Kennedy, Sour. of N. T. Gk., p. 142 f. Cf. Brockelmann, Grundr. der 
vergl. Gr. der semit. Spr. (1907). 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 97 


words are found in the LXX, but there are very few words that 
are found in the N. T. and the LXX and nowhere else.!. Both 
the LXX and the N. T. use the current vocabulary. There are 
indeed numerous theological terms that have a new meaning in 
the LXX, and so in the N. T., like ἁγιάζειν, ἄφεσις, yeevva, ἐκκλησία, 
κύριος, λόγος, λυτρόω, μονογενής, πνεῦμα, σωτηρία, χριστός, κτλ. (See 
longer list in Swete, Introduction to O. T. in Greek, p. 454.) So 
also many N. T. phrases are found in the LXX, like εἰκὼν 
θεοῦ, ὀσμὴ εὐωδίας, πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον, λαμβάνειν πρόσωπον, 
ἡ διασπορά, κτλ. (ἴ0.).. The O. T. apocryphal books also are of 
interest on this point. We have a splendid treatment of the 
LXX Greek by Thackeray. He shows “the κοινή basis of LXX 
Greek,” as to vocabulary, orthography, accidence and syntax 
(pp. 16-25). He notes oo, τεσσεράκοντα, finds ν movable before 
consonants, ναός, νύκταν, πλήρης indeclinable, ἀσεβῆν, disappearance 
of uu-verbs, ἤλθοσαν, ἦλθα, ἀνέβαιναν, ἑώρακαν, ὃς ἐάν, οὐθείς, NOMINA- 
tivus pendens, even in apposition with genitive (cf. Apocalypse), 
constructio ad sensum, λέγων and λέγοντες with construction like 
ἀπηγγέλη λέγοντες, recitative ὅτι, neuter plurals with plural verb, 
partial disappearance of the superlative and usually in elative sense, 
πρῶτος instead of πρότερος, ἑαυτούς, --ῶν, —ots for all three persons, 
disappearance οἵ the optative, great increase of τοῦ and the 
infinitive, co-ordination of sentences with καί, genitive absolute 
when noun in another case is present, blending of cases, in- 
crease of adverbial phrases and prepositions, eiul eis, interchange 
between ἐν and eis (increase of εἰς), etc. See also Psichari 
(Revue des études juives, 1908, pp. 173-208) for a discussion of 
the Semitic influence on the N. T. Greek. The use of εἰμὶ εἰς 
occurs occasionally in the papyri, the inscriptions and κοινή 
writers, but it is extremely common in the LXX because of the 
Hebrew >. In the realm of syntax the LXX is far more Hebra- 
istic than the N. T., for it is a translation by Jews who at 
many points slavishly follow the Hebrew either from ignorance 
of the Hebrew or the Greek, perhaps sometimes a little of both. 
B in Judges, Ruth, 24 Kings, has éyw εἰμι with indicative, as 
ἔγώ εἰμι καθίσομαι (Judges 6:18).2 BA in Tobit 5:15 have ἔσομαι 
διδόναι. B in Eccl. 2:17 has ἐμίσησα σὺν τὴν ζωήν = ὌΠ ΠΠ ΩΝ. 


1 The 150 words out of over (?) 4800 (not counting proper names) in the 
N. T. which Kennedy (Sour. of N. T. Gk., p. 88) gives as “‘strictly peculiar to 
the LXX and N. T.’’ cut a much smaller figure now. New pap. may remove 
many from the list that are-still left. 

2 Cf. Swete, Intr. to O. T. in Gk., p. 308. 


98 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT — 


Swete! finds this misunderstanding of ns common in A in Ec- 
clesiastes and six times in 3 Kings. It is the characteristic of 
Aquila.2_ No such barbarisms as these occur in the N. T., though 
the “wearisome iteration of the oblique cases of personal pro- 
nouns answering to the Hebrew suffixes” finds illustration to 
some extent in the N. T. books, and the pleonastic use of the pro- 
noun after the Greek relative is due to the fact that the Hebrew 
relative is indeclinable.2 The N. T. does not have such a con- 
struction as ἤρξατο τοῦ οἰκοδομεῖν (2 Chron. 3:1), though τοῦ ἐισελ- 
θεῖν with ἐγένετο (Ac. 10: 25) is as awkward an imitation of the 
Hebrew infinitive construct. The LXX translators had great 
difficulty in rendering the Hebrew tenses into Greek and were 
often whimsical about it. It was indeed a difficult matter to put 
the two simple Hebrew timeless tenses into the complicated and 
highly developed Greek system, and “ Vav conversive” added to 
the complexity of the problem. Conybeare and Stock, Selections 
from the LXX, p. 23, doubt if the LXX Greek always had a 
meaning to the translators, as in Num. 9:10; Deut. 33: 10. 
The LXX Greek is indeed “abnormal Grecek,’’* but it can be un- 
derstood. Schiirer® is wrong when he calls it “quite a new lan- 
guage, swarming with such strong Hebraisms that a Greek could 
not understand it.”’ It is indeed in places “barbarous Greek,” but 
the people who spoke the vernacular κοινή could and did make it 
out. Many of the Hellenistic Jews knew no Hebrew or Ara- 
maic but only the κοινή. The Greek proselyte, like the Ethiopian 
eunuch, could read it, if he did need a spiritual interpreter. Schii- 
rer,° who credits the Palestinian Jews with very little knowledge 
of the current Greek, considers “the ancient anonymous Greck 
translation of the Scriptures”? to be “the foundation of all Ju- 
dseo-Hellenistic culture.’ He is indeed right in contrasting the 
hardness of Palestinian Pharisaism with the pliable Hellenistic 
Judaism on the soil of Hellenism.’ But the Jews felt the Greek 
spirit (even if they could not handle easily oratio obliqua) not 
only in the Diaspora, but to a large extent in the cities of Pales- 
tine, especially along the coast, in Galilee and in the Decapolis. 


1 Intr. to O..T. in Gk.,.p. 308. 

2 Use should be made of the transl. of Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus, 
though they are of much less importance. Cf. Swete, p. 457 f. 

3 Swete, ib., p. 307. 4 Moulton, Prol., p. 18. 

5 Hist. of Jew. Peo. in Time of Ch., div. II, vol. III, p. 163. 

6 ΤΌ; vol. I, p. 47 f., and div. II, vol. III, p. 159. 

ΚΠ Dao 





THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 99 


On the spread of Greek in Palestine see Milligan, N. 7’. Documents, 
pp. 39 ff. The prohibition,! about the time of the siege of Jerusa- 
lem, against a Jew teaching his son Greek, shows that it had previ- 
ously been done. The quotations in the N. T. from the O. T. show 
the use of the LX_X more frequently than the Hebrew, sometimes 
the text quoted in the Synoptics is more like that of A than B, 
sometimes more like Theodotion than the LXX.?_ In the Synoptic 
Gospels the quotations, with the exception of five in Matthew 
which are more like the Hebrew, closely follow the LXX. In 
John the LX X is either quoted or a free rendering of the Hebrew 
is made. The Acts quotes from the LXX exclusively. The 
Catholic Epistles use the LXX. The Epistle to the Hebrews “is 
in great part a catena of quotations from the LX X.’’* In Paul’s 
Kpistles more than half of the direct quotations follow the LXX. 
Here also the text of A is followed more often than the text of B. 
Swete* even thinks that the literary form of the N. T. would 
have been very different but for the LXX. The Apocalypse in- 
deed does not formally quote the O. T., but it is a mass of allu- 
sions to the LXX text. It is not certain® that the LXX was 
used in the synagogues of Galilee and Judea, but it is clear that 
Peter, James, Matthew and Mark, Jewish writers, quote it, and 
that they represent Jesus as using it. In the Hellenistic syna- 
gogues of Jerusalem it would certainly be read. It would greatly 
facilitate a just conclusion on the general relation of the N. T. 
Greek to the LXX Greek if we had a complete grammar and a 
dictionary of the LXX, though we are grateful for the luminous 
chapter of Swete on the Greek of the Septuagint in his Introduc- 
tion to the O. T. in Greek; to Kennedy for his Sources of N. T. 
Greek; to Hatch for his Essays in Biblical Greek; to Deissmann for 
his Bible Studies and his Philology of the Greek Bible (1908); to 
Helbing for his very useful Grammatik, and especially to Thack- 


1 Megilla, I, 8. Cf. Hamburger, Realencyc., art. Griechentum; R. Meister, 
Prol. zu einer Gr. der Sept., (Wiener Stud., xxix, 27). 

2 Swete, Intr. to O. T. in Gk., p. 395. Cf. Deissmann in Exp. Times, 
Mar., 1906, p. 254, who points out that Pap. Heid. (cf. Deissmann, Die Sept. 
Pap., 1905) ‘‘assimilates such passages as are cited in the N.T., or are capa- 
ble of a Christian meaning, as far as possible, to their form in the N. T. 
text, or to the sphere of Christian thought.” Heinrici shows the same thing 
to be true of Die Leip. Pap. frag. der Psalmen, 1903. 

3 Swete, Intr., etc., p. 402. All these facts about LX X quotations come 
from Swete. 

4 Ib., p. 404. See ib., p. 404f., for bibliography on N. T. quotations. 

5 Ib., pp. 29 ff. 


100 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


eray for vol. I of his Grammar. It is now possible to make in- 
telligent and, to a degree, adequate use of the LXX in the study 
of N. T. Greek. The completion of Helbing’s Syntax and of 
Thackeray’s Syntax will further enrich N. T. students. The Ox- 
ford Concordance of Hatch and Redpath and the larger Cambridge 
Septuagint are of great value. Swete! laments that the N. T. 
grammars have only “incidental references to the linguistic char- 
acteristics of the Alexandrian version.” 

The translation was not done all at once, and not by men of 
Jerusalem, but by Jews of Alexandria who knew “the patois of 
the Alexandrian streets and markets.’’? One doubts, however, 
if these translators spoke this mixture of Egyptian κοινή and 
Hebrew. On this point Swete? differs from most scholars and in- 
sists that “the translators write Greek largely as they doubtless 
spoke it.”” They could not shake off the Hebrew spell in trans- 
lation. In free Greek like most of the N. T. the Semitic influence 
is far less. Mahaffy was quick to see the likeness between the 
papyri and the LXX.4— But one must not assume that a N. T. 
word necessarily has the same sense that it has either in the LXX 
or the xown. The N. T. has ideas of its own, a point to be con- 
sidered later. We agree with Swete® that the LXX is “indispen- 
sable to the study of the N. 1. Nestle® justly remarks that the 
Greek of the LX-X enjoys now a much more favourable judgment 
from philologists than some twenty years ago. Conybeare and 
Stock (Sel. from the LXX, p. 22) observe that, while the vocabu- 
lary of the LXX is that of the market-place of Alexandria, the 
syntax is much more under the influence of the Hebrew original. 
The LXX does, of course, contain a few books like 4 Maccabees, 
written in Greek originally and in the Greek spirit, like Philo’s 
works. Philo represents the Atticistic revival in Alexandria that 
was a real factor with a few. But the “genitivus hebraicus,’’ like 
ὁ κριτὴς THs ἀδικίας, 1s paralleled in the papyri and the inscriptions, 
though not so often as in the LXX. Cf. Radermacher, N. T. 
Greek, Ὁ. 19. So also (p. 21) rots ἐξ ἐριθείας (Ro. 2 : 8) is like ἐκ 
πλήρους in the papyri and already in the tragic poets. Thumb? 
properly takes the side of Deissmann against Viteau’s exaggerated 


1 Intr., p. 289. 8 Ib., p. 299. 

op baynat Ὁ: Ὁ: 4 Exp. Times, iii, p. 291. 

δ Intr. to O. T. in Gk., p. 450 f. Hitzig, of Heidelberg, used to open his 
lectures on Ὁ. T. by asking: “Gentlemen, have you a LXX? If not, sell 
whatever you have and buy a LXX.’’ Nestle, LXX, in Hast. Ὁ. B., p. 438. 

* Χ XS. Hast.) Bien. 191: 7 Griech. Spr. ete., pp. 128-132. 





THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 101 


idea of LX X influence (following Hatch). It is not always easy 
to decide what is due to the use of the LXX and what to the 
development of the κοινή vernacular. One must have an open 
mind to light from either direction. Deissmann! is clearly right 
in calling for a scientific investigation of the Hebraisms of the 
LXX. Even the LXX and N. T. use of ἀρετή (Is. 42:8, 12; 1 
Pet. 2:9; 2 Pet. 1:3) is paralleled by an inscription in Caria.? 
We are not then to think of the Jews or the Christians as ever 
using in speech or literature the peculiar Greek used in the trans- 
lation of the Hebrew O. T., which in itself varied much in this 
respect in different parts. The same intense Hebraistic cast 
appears in the O. T. apocryphal books which were originally in 
Hebrew and then translated, as Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, 1 Macca- 
bees, etc. Contrast with these the Greek of the Wisdom of Solo- 
mon, 2 Maccabees and the Prologue to the Greek translation of 
Keclesiasticus, and the difference is at once manifest. The Wis- 
dom of Solomon is of special interest, for the author, who wrote 
in Greek and revealed knowledge of Greek culture, art, science 
and philosophy, was yet familiar with the LXX and imitated 
some of its Hebraisms, being a Jew himself. Cf. Siegfried, ‘“‘Book 
of Wisdom,” Hastings’ D. B. It must never be forgotten that 
“by far the greatest contribution of Alexandrian prose to the 
great literature of the world is this very translation of the O. T.’’4 
The name Christ (Χριστός) is found in the LXX “and so the very 
terms Christian and Christianity arose out of the language em- 
ployed by the Alexandrian interpreters.”’® The only Bible known 
to most of the Jews in the world in the first Christian century was 
the LXX. The first complete Bible was the Greek Bible. The 
LXX was the “first Apostle to the Gentiles” and was freely used 
for many centuries by the Christians. Conybeare and Stock (Sel. 
from the LXX, p. 24) go so far as to say that the N. T. itself 
would not have been but for the LXX. Certainly it would not 


1 Hell.-Griech., Hauck’s Realencyc., p. 638. 

2 Deissmann, B. S., pp. 95 f., 360 ff. Cf. Gautzschius, Spec. Exercit. Gr., 
1778, p. 23. H. Anz, Subs. ad cognos. Graec. Serm. etc., 1894, p. 385, points 
out that poetic words are in the LXX also through the common speech. Cf. 
Lipsius, Gr. Unters. iiber die bibl. Griic., 1863, p. vil. 

3 Deissmann, B.S., p. 76f. He rightly calls attention to the fact that 
many of the Ptolemaic pap. are contemporary with the LXX and bristle 
with proof that the LXX on the whole is in the vernac. κοινή of Egypt. 
The Hebraisms came from the Hebrew itself in the act of translating. 

4 Mahaffy, Prog. of Hellen. in Alex. Emp., p. 80. 

5 Churton, Infl. of the LXX Vers., 1861, p. 1. 


102 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


have been what it is. “The Bible whose God is Yahweh is the 
Bible of one people, the Bible whose God is Κύριος is the Bible of 
the world” (Deissmann, Die Hellen. des Semit. Mon., p. 174). 

Thackeray (Grammar of the O. T. in Greek, pp. 25-55) gives a 
careful survey of the “Semitic Element in the LXX Greek.” He 
admits that the papyri have greatly reduced the number of the 
Hebraisms heretofore noted in the LXX. He denies, however 
(p. 27), that the Greek of the LXX gives “a true picture of the 
language of ordinary intercourse between Jewish residents in 
the country.”’ He denies also any influence of the Hebrew on the 
vernacular Greek of the Jews in Alexandria outside of the vocabu- 
lary of special Jewish words like ἀκροβυστία. He thinks (p. 28) 
the Book of Tobit the best representative of the vernacular Greek 
of the Jews. There are more transliterations like γειώρας for Ara- 
maic 81173 (Heb. 3) in the later books where the early books had 
πάροικος OY προσήλυτος. The fact of a translation argues for a 
fading of the Hebrew from the thought of the people. In the 
early books the translation is better done and “the Hebraic 
character of these books consists in the accumulation of a number 
of just tolerable Greek phrases, which nearly correspond to what 
is normal and idiomatic in Hebrew” (p. 29). But in the later 
books the Hebraisms are more numerous and more marked, due 
to “a growing reverence for the letter of the Hebrew” (p. 30). 
We cannot follow in detail Thackeray’s helpful sketch of the 
transliterations from the Hebrew, the Hellenized Semitic words, 
the use of words of like sound, Hebrew senses in Greek words 
like δίδωμιΞε τίθημι after \O3, υἱὸς ἀδικίας, ὀφθαλμός, πρόσωπον, στόμα, 
χείρ, the pleonastic pronoun, extensive use of prepositions, καὶ 
ἐγένετο, ἐν for accompaniment or instrument, etc. 

(ec) ARAMAISMS. N. T. grammars have usually blended the 
Aramaic with the Hebrew influence. Schmiedel! complains that 
the Aramaisms have received too little attention. But Dalman? 
retorts that Schmiedel himself did not do the matter justice, and 
still less did Blass. Moulton’ recognizes the distinction as just 
and shows that Aramaisms are found chiefly in Mark and Mat- 
thew, but does not point out the exact character of the Aramaisms 
in question. We take it as proved that Jesus and the Apostles, 
like most of their Jewish contemporaries in Palestine who moved 
in public life, spoke both Aramaic and Greek and read Hebrew 

1 W.-Sch., Gr., ὃ 2, 1c. And Dalman (Words of Jesus, p. 18 f.) criticizes 


Schmiedel for not distinguishing Aramaisms from Hebraisms. 
2 Words of Jesus, p. 18. 2 Prolsnis. 








} 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 103 


(cf. Lu. 4:17). Even Schiirer! admits that the educated classes 
used Greek without difficulty. There is no doubt about the Ara- 
maic. Jerome says that all the Jews of his time knew the He- 
brew O. T. The LXX disproves that, but Hebrew was used in 
the schools and synagogues of Palestine and was clearly read by 
many. The discourses of Jesus do not give the impression that 
he grew up in absolute seclusion, though he undoubtedly used the 
Aramaic in conversation and public address on many occasions 
if not as arule.2, The Aramaic tongue is very old and its use as a 
diplomatic tongue (Is. 36:11) implies perhaps a previous Ara- 
maic leadership. There was a literary as well as a vernacular 
Aramaic. The Aramaic portions of Daniel, Ezra, the Targum of 
Onkelos are in the literary Aramaic.4 Dalman® suggests that 
Matthew wrote his Gospel originally in the Judean literary Ara- 
maic rather than the Galilean vernacular, but the reason is not 
very apparent. Zahn® doubts the validity of Dalman’s distinction 
between a Judean and a Galilean Aramaic, but Peter was recog- 
nized in Jerusalem by the Galilean pronunciation (Mt. 26: 73). 
The Galileans’ had difficulty with the gutturals and ὦ. This 
Aramaic is not to be confounded with the later Christian Ara- 
maic or Syriac into which the N. T. was translated. The Ara- 
maic spoken in Palestine was the West Aramaic,® not the East 
Aramaic (Babylonia). So keenly does Dalman® feel the differ- 
ence between Hebraisms and Aramaisms that he avers that “the 
Jewish Aramaic current among the people was considerably freer 
from Hebrew influence than the Greek which the Synoptists 
write.” Not many can go with him in that statement. But he 
is right in insisting on a real difference, though, as a matter of 
fact, no great point was made about it at the time. With Jo- 
sephus ἡ πάτριος γλῶσσα was the Aramaic (B. J. pr. ὃ 1; v. 6, ὃ 3; 


1 Hist. of the Jew. Peo. in Time of Ch., div. II, vol. I., p. 48. On the 


Gk. of the Mishna see Fiebig, Zeitschr. fiir neutest. Wiss., 1908, 4. Heft. 
2 Dalman, Words of Jesus, pp. 9, 11; Ch. I, δ IV, () 4, for full discussion. 
3. Ὁ, 8S. Margoliouth, Lang. of the O. T., Hast. D. B. 
4 Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 80. So1b., p. Sk: 
6 Hinl. in das N. T., I, 1897, p. 19. 
7 See Neubauer, Stud. Bibl., 1885, p. 51. 
8 Meyer, Jesu Mutterspr., 1896, p. 58 f. Some of the Lat. monks actually. 


thought that Jesus spoke Lat. and that the N. T. was written in that tongue! 
But Meyer (ib., p. 63 f.) will not allow that Jesus knew Gk. Chase, on the 
other hand, shows that Peter necessarily spoke Gk. on the Day of Pentecost 
(Credibility of the Acts, 1902, p. 114). 

9 Words of Jesus, p. 42. 


104. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


v. 9, ὃ 2). He wrote his War originally in the native tongue for 
τοῖς ἄνω βαρβάροις. John (5 : 2; 19 : 13, 17, 20; Rev. 9 : 11; 16 : 16) 
uses Ἐβραϊστί in the sense of the Aramaic. So Luke has ἡ 
"EBpats διάλεκτος (Ac. 21:40; 22:2; 26:14). The people under- 
stood Paul’s Greek, but they gave the more heed when he dropped 
into Aramaic. 4 Macc. (12:7; 16:15) likewise employs ’EGpais 
φωνή. The two kinds of Jewish Christians are even called (Ac. 
6:1) Ἑλληνισταί and ’EBpato, though ᾿Ἑλληνισταί and Συρισταί 
would have been a more exact distinction. It is beyond contro- 
versy that the gospel message was told largely in Aramaic, which 
to some extent withstood the influx of Greek as the vernacular 
did in Lycaonia? (Ac. 14:11). One cannot at this point discuss 
the Synoptic problem. It is not certain that Luke, probably a 
gentile, knew either Aramaic or Hebrew, though there is a real 
Semitic influence on part of the Gospel and Acts, due, Dalman? 
holds, to the LX X example and a possible Aramaic or Hebrew 
original for the opening chapters of the Gospel, already put in- 
to Greek. Mark was probably written in Rome, not Palestine. 
Hence the Aramaic original of Mark, Bousset argues, cannot be 
considered as proved.’ He rightly insists, as against Wellhausen,°® 
that the question is not between the classic Greek and Aramaic, 
but between the vernacular κοινή and Aramaic. But whatever is 
or is not true as to the original language of Mark and of Mat- 
thew, the gospel story was first told largely in Aramaic. ‘The 
translation of the Aramaic expressions in Mark proves this be- 
yond all doubt, as ταλειθά, κοὺύμ by τὸ κοράσιον, ἔγειρε (Mk. 5: 41). 
Dalman® indeed claims that every Semitism in the N. T. should 
first be looked upon as an Aramaism unless it is clear that the 
Aramaic cannot explain it. The Mishna (Neo-Hebraic) was not 
itself unaffected by the Greek, for the Mishna has numerous 


1 Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 7. 2 Schwyzer, Weltspr. etc., p. 27. 

8 Words of Jesus, p. 38. Dalman doubts the Heb. document, but admits 
a “wealth of Hebraisms” in Lu. Vogel (Zur Charac. des Lu., p. 32 f.) argues 
for a “special source” for these opening chapters. Blass, Philol. of the Gosp., 
p. 195, denies that Luke knew Hebrew. 

4 Theol. Runds., Jan., 1906, pp. 2-4, 35 f. 

5 Hinl. in die drei Evang., δὲ 2-4. 

6 Words of Jesus, p. 19; cf. also Schaff, Comp. to the Gk. N. T., p. 28. In 
1877 Dr. John A. Broadus said in lecture (Sum. of the Leading Peculiarities 
of N. T. Gk. Gr., Lmmer’s Hermen., p. 378) that the N. T. Gk. had a “‘ Hebrew 
and Aramaic tinge which arises partly from reading Hebrew and chiefly (so 
his own correction) from speaking Aramaic.’’ If instead of Hebrew he had 
said LXX, or had added LXX to Hebrew, he would not have missed it far. 





THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 105 


Greek words and phrases that were current in the Aramaic.! 
The Aramaisms of vocabulary that one can certainly admit in the 
N. T. are the following words: ἀββάΞε ἈΞᾺ; ᾿Ακελδαμάχ -Ξ Ἀ)2 DPN; 
all words beginning with Bap="2 like BapvaBas; BeedfeBoiA=D>P2, 
D121; Βηθεσδάε ἈΠῸΠ 172; Βηθζαθά, Βηζαθάτε πὶ N72; Γαββαθάτε 
RMD); γέεννα = 027 NI; Γολγοθά = 82323} ἐλωΐ, ἐλωΐ, Aaa σαβαχ- 
θανεί (or probably Heb. “ϑὲὰ-τε ἠλεί, and the rest Aramaic, Dal- 
man, Words of Jesus, p. 53 f.)="29p2w N22 WAS WIN; ἐφφαθάΞΞ: 
MOD; KopBavads=NI27P; paywvas=N2I2N'2; μαρανά, θάτε Δ NIIW?; 
Mecolas=NW2; πάσχατε ἈΠΠΌΞ ; hapicator=N WD; faBBo(ov) ri(et) = 
“aN; pakd=NP1; σάββατα Ξ-Ξ- ἈΞ; σατανᾶς -- Ἀ)ΩΌ; cdrov=NON; 
σίκερα Ξε ΞΘ; ταλειθά, Kolu=777) N20; names of persons like 
Κηφᾶς ΞΞ 5.5; TaSeda=xnr20, etc. 

Aramaisms of syntax are seen in the following. The expression 
γεύεσθαι θανάτου seems to be in imitation of the Aramaic. Well- 
hausen (Hinl. in die drei Evang., pp. 31 ff.) suggests that εἷς καθ᾽ εἷς 
(Mk. 14:19) is a hybrid between the Aramaic εἷς εἷς (but this is 
an old Greek idiom) and the vernacular (κοινή) καθ᾽ eis. He suggests 
also that Aramaic meanings are found in such words as σώζειν, 
ποιεῖν καρπόν, συμβούλιον ποιεῖν (διδόναι), εἰρήνη, εἰρήνην διδόναι, ὁδὸς 
θεοῦ, πλήρωμα, etc. As already explained, apart from the question 
of a possible original Aramaic Mark and an original Aramaic 
Matthew and Aramaic sources for the early chapters of Luke and 
the first twelve chapters of Acts,? many of the discourses of Christ 
were undoubtedly in Aramaic. There was translation then from 
this Aramaic spoken (or written) gospel story into the vernacular 
κοινή as we now have it in large portions of the Synoptic Gospels 
and possibly part of Acts. The conjectural efforts to restore this 
Aramaic original of the words of Jesus are suggestive, but not 
always convincing. On the whole subject of Semitic words in 
the Ptolemaic papyri see Mayser, Grammatik, pp. 40-42. The 
list includes ἀρ(ρ)αβών, βύσσος, κύμινον, λίβανος, συκάμινος, χιτών. It 
is not a very long list indeed, but shows that the Orient did have 
some little influence on the Greek vocabulary. These words oc- 
cur in older Greek writers. 


1 Schiirer, Hist. of the Jew. Peo., etc., div. II, vol. I, pp. 29-50. Cf. mod. 
Yiddish. 

2 Cf. Bickel, Zeitschr. fiir Cath. Theol., viii, 43. This would then mean, 
“Lord, come.” Cf. Rev. 22:20. W.H. give it μαρὰν ἀθά. 

8. See Blass, Philol. of the Gosp., ch. XI; Dalman, Words of Jesus, pp. 17-- 
78; Wellhausen, Einl. in die drei Evang. (Die aram. Grundl. der Evang., pp. 
14-48). 


106 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(f) Varying Resutts. It is natural that different writers 
in the N. T. should diverge in the amount of Semitic influ- 
ence manifest in their writings. They all used the vernacular 
κοινή which in itself may have had a very faint trace of Semitic 
influence. But of the nine authors of the N. T. six were prob- 
ably Palestinian Jews... Now these six writers (Mark, Mat- 
thew, James, Peter, Jude, John) are just the very ones who 
reveal the Semitic mould of thought. It is often merely the 
Hebrew and Aramaic spirit and background. In Mark the 
Aramaic influence appears; in Matthew? the LXX is quoted 
along with the Hebrew, and Aramaisms occur also; in James 
there is the stately dignity of an O. T. prophet with Aramaic 
touches (cf. his address and letter in Ac. 15) but with many 
neat turns of Greek phrase and idiom; Peter’s two letters pre- 
sent quite a problem and suggest at least an amanuensis in cne 
ease or a different one for each letter (cf. Biggs, Int. and Crit. 
Comm.); Jude is very brief, but is not distinctly Hebraic or 
Grecian; John in his Gospel is free from minor Semitisms be- 
yond the frequent use of καί like 1, but the tone of the book is 
distinctly that of a noble Jew and the sum total of the impres- 
sion from the book is Semitic, while the Apocalypse has minor 
Hebraisms and many grammatical idiosyncrasies to be discussed 
later, many of which remind one of the LXX. If the absence 
of the optative be taken as a test, even when compared with 
the vernacular κοινή, Matthew, James and John do not use it 
at all, while Mark has it only once and Jude twice. Peter in- 
deed has it four times and Hebrews only once, but Luke uses the 
optative 28 times and Paul 31. The remaining three writers 
(Paul, Luke, author of Hebrews) were not Palestinian Jews. 
Paul was a Hellenistic Jew who knew his vernacular κοινή well 
and spoke Aramaic and read Hebrew. His Epistles are addressed 
chiefly to gentile Christians and naturally show little Semitic 
flavour, for he did not have to translate his ideas from Aramaic 
into Greek. In some of his speeches, especially the one delivered 
in Aramaic, as reported by Luke in Ac. 22, a trace of the Semitic 
point of view is retained. In contrast with Ac. 22 note Paul’s 
address on the Areopagus in 17. The author of Hebrews makes 
abundant use of the LXX but exhibits possible Alexandrian 
origin or training, and it is not clear that he knew either 

1 Swete, Intr. to the O. T. in Gk., p. 381. 


2 Dalman (Wds. of Jes., p. 42) thinks that the Heb. of Mt. are due to 
the LXX. 





THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 107 


Hebrew or Aramaic.!. Luke presents something of a problem, for 
he seems to have had Aramaic sources in Lu. 1 and 2 (possibly 
also Ac. 1-12), while it is uncertain whether he was familiar 
with the Aramaic. There seems little evidence that he knew 
Hebrew. Blass? thinks that he may have read his Aramaic 
sources or had them translated for him. Curiously enough, 
though a gentile and capable of writing almost classic Attic 
(Lu. 1 : 1-4), yet Luke uses Semitisms not common elsewhere 
in the N. Τ. Dalman* shows that the genuine Hebraisms in 
Luke like λόγους in sense of things (9:28 but classical authority 
for this exists), διὰ στόματος (1:70) are due to the LXX, not the 
Hebrew. The use of ἐν τῷ with the infinitive and followed by the 
subject of the clause occurs 25 times in Luke, once in Mark, thrice 
in Matthew and in John not at all.4 See ἐν τῷ ὑποστρέφειν τὸν 
Ἰησοῦν (Lu. ὃ : 40). Blass calls this an Aramaism.? But it is not 
a peculiarity of the discourses of Jesus, as it is found there only in 
ἐν τῷ σπείρειν (common to all the Synopties, Mk. 4:4; Mt. 13:4; Lu. 
8:5), and in Lu. 10:35; 19:15. Hence the idiom is common® 
in Luke from some other cause. The construction occurs in “ clas- 
sical historians, in Polybius and in papyri,’’? but is most common 
in the LXX, and the parallel is wanting in the spoken Aramaic. 
Luke also freely uses καὶ ἐγένετο (almost peculiar to him in the 
N.T.), which at once suggests "771. He doubtless got this from 
the LXX.° He has three constructions, viz. καὶ éyévero καὶ ἦλθε, 
καὶ ἐγένετο ἦλθε and καὶ ἐγένετο ἐλθεῖν. The first two? are common 
in the LXX, while ἐγένετο ἐλθεῖν is due to the Greek vernacular! 
as the papyri testify. The superfluous ἀφείς, ἤρξατο, etc., are Ara- 
maisms, while εἰμί and the participle is Aramaic, like the Hebrew, 
and also in harmony with the analytic vernacular κοινή. Nestle! 


1 Biesenthal (Das Trostschreiben des Ap. Paulus an d. Heb., 1878) even 
thinks that the Ep. was written in Aram. or Heb. 

2 Philol. of the Gosp., p. 205. 

3 Was. of Jes., p. 388f. Cf. also Blass, Philol. of the Gosp., pp. 113 f., 118; 
Vogel, Zur Charac. des Lukas, p. 27. 4 Dalman, Wds. of Jes., p. 33. 

5 Evang. sec. Lucam, p. xxii. But ἐν τῷ with the inf. occurs with great fre- 
quency in the LXX, 555 times in the O. T., Apoc. and N. T. (Votaw, Inf. 
in Bib. Gk., p. 20), chiefly in the LX X (455 times, only 72 in the N. T.). It 
occurs nearly as often in the LXX as all other prepositions with the infinitive 
together. 6 Dalman, Wds. of Jes., p. 34. 

7 Moulton, Prol., p. 14 (1st ed.). 8 W.-M., p. 760 note. 

9 Cf. Thackeray, Gr.,’pp. 50 ff. We have the type ἐγένετο ἦλθε 145 times, 
and ἐγένετο καὶ ἦλθε 269 times in the LXX, but ἐγένετο ἔλθεῖν only once (1 Kgs. 
11: 43 B). 10 Moulton, Prol., p. 17. 

1 Zeitschr. fiir neutest. Wiss., 1906, p. 279 f. 


108 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


agrees with Blass (p. 131) in taking ὁμολογεῖν ἐν in Mt. 10 : 32 and 
Lu. 12:8 as a Syrism. 3 with 45575 is not in the Hebrew, nor 
ὁμολ. ἐν in the LXX, but “758 is used with 3 in the Jewish-Ara- 
maic and Christian-Syriac. Nestle refers to ὁμολογούντων τῷ ὀνό- 
ματι (Heb. 18 : 15) as a Hebraism, for in such a case the Hebrew 
used >. The LXX and the Aramaic explain all the Semitisms in 
Luke. Dalman! ventures to call the LX X Hebraisms in Luke 
“Septuagint-Grecisms”’ and thinks that the same thing is true 
of the other Synoptists. Certainly it is proper to investigate? the 
words of Jesus from the point of view of the peculiarities of style 
in each reporter of them. But, after all is said, the Semitisms in 
the N. T. Greek, while real and fairly numerous in bulk, cut a 
very small figure in comparison with the entire text. One can 
read whole pages in places with little suggestion of Semitic in- 
fluence beyond the general impress of the Jewish genius and point 
of view. 

IV. Latinisms and Other Foreign Words. Moulton® considers 
it “hardly worth while” to discuss Latin influence on the κοινή of 
the N. T. Blass‘ describes the Latin element as “clearly trace- 
8.016. Swete® indeed alleges that the vulgar Greek of the Em- 
pire “freely adopted Latin words and some Latin phraseology.” 
Thumb® thinks that they are ‘‘not noteworthy.” In spite of 
the conservative character of the Greek language, it yet incor- 
porated Latin civil and military terms with freedom. Inas- 
much as Judea was a Roman province, some allusion to Roman 
customs and some use of Latin military and official terms was to 
be expected,’ though certainly not to the extent of Romanizing 
or Latinizing the language. Cicero® himself described Latin as 
provincial in comparison with the Greek. Latin words are fairly 
common in the Mishna.? Latin names were early naturalized 
into the Greek vernacular and in the N. T. we find such Roman 
names as Aquila, Cornelius, Claudia, Clemens, Crescens, Crispus, 
Fortunatus, Julia, Junia, Justus, Linus,- Lucius, Luke, Mark, 


1 Wds.: of Jes., p. 41. 4\Gr. of N. T. Gk:, p. 4. 
ΠΟ 72: 5 Comm. on Mk., 1898, p. xliv. 
+’ Proll} p20: 6 Griech. Spr. ete., p. 152. 


7 Hoole, Class. Element in the N. T., p. 4. 

8 Pro Archia 10. Cato lamented: ἀπολοῦσι Ῥωμαῖοι τὰ πράγματα γραμμάτων 
Ἑλληνικῶν ἀναπλησθέντες (Plut., Cato Maj. 23. 3). Cf. Colin, Rome et la Gréce 
de 200 ἃ 146 avant Jésus-Christ (1905). 

® Schiirer, Jew. Peo. in Time of Ch., div. 11, vol. I, pp. 43 ff. Krauss 
(Griech. und lat. Lehnw. im Tal., Tl. I, p. xxi) says: ‘‘One speaks of the lan- 
guage of the Romans with the greatest respect as the speech of the soldiers.” 





THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 109 


Niger, Paul, Priscilla, Publius, Pudens, Rufus, Sergius, Silvanus 
(Silas), Tertius, Titus among the Christians themselves (Jewish 
and gentile), while Agrippa, Augustus (translated Σεβαστός), 
Cesar, Claudius, Gallio, Felix, Festus, Julius, Nero (Text. Rec.), 
Pilate, Tertullus are typical Roman names. Note the Roman 
cities mentioned in Ac. 28, Caesarea and Tiberias in Palestine. 
More than forty Latin names of persons and places occur in 
the N. T. The other Latin words, thirty (or thirty-one), are mili- 
tary, judicial, monetary or domestic terms. They come into the 
N. T. through the vernacular κοινή, none of them appearing in 
the LX X and but two in Polybius. “Plutarch uses Latin words 
more frequently than Polybius, but for the most part not those 
employed in the N. T.”! Jannaris? observes that “the Roman 
administration, notwithstanding its surrendering to Greek culture 
and education, did not fail to influence the Greek language.” 
But in the N. T. only these Latin words are found: ἀσσάριον (as), 
δηνάριον (denarius), €xw=aestimo (ἔχε με παρῃτημένον, Lu. 14 : 18), 
εὐρακύλων, θριαμβεύειν, κεντυρίων (centurio), κῆνσος (census), Kodpar- 
τῆς (quadrans), κολωνία (colonia), κουστωδία (custodia), λεγιών 
(legio), λέντιον (linteum), λιβερτῖνος (libertinus), λίτρα (libra), μά- 
κέλλον (macellum), μεμβράνα (membrana), μίλιον (mille), μόδιος 
(modius), ξέστης (sextarius), πραιτώριον (praetorium), σικάριος (si- 
carius), σιμικίνθιον (semicinctium), σουδάριον (sudarium), σπεκου- 
λάτωρ (speculator), af ταβέρναι (taberna), rirdos (titlus), φελόνης 
(paenula), φόρον (forum), φραγέλλιον (flagellum), φραγελλόω (flagello), 
χάρτης (? charta), χῶρος (corus). This is at most (31) not a for- 
midable list. A few Latin phrases occur like ἐργασίαν δοῦναι (ope- 
- ram dare), τὸ ἱκανὸν λαμβάνειν (satis accipere), τὸ ἱκανὸν ποιεῖν (satis 
facere), συμβούλιον λαμβάνειν (consilium capere). But Deissmann 
(Light from the Ancient East, p. 117 f.) notes the use of ἐργασίαν 
δίδωμι in an Oxyrhynchus papyrus letter of the vulgar type in 
2d cent. B.c. and also in an inscription in Caria with a decree of 
the Senate. A lead tablet at Amorgus shows κρίνω τὸ δίκαιον (cf. 
Lu. 12 : 57). So συναίρω λόγον (Mt. 18: 23 f.) occurs in two pa- 
pyri letters of 2d cent. a.p. (Moulton, The Expositor, April, 1901, 
p. 274f.). Thayer? calls attention also to σὺ ὄψῃ (Mt. 27: 4) as 


1 Burton, Notes on N. T. Gr., 1904, p. 15. 

2° Hist. Gk: Gr., p. 7. 

3 Lang. of the N. T., Hast. D. B. Cf. also C. Wessely, Die lat. Elem. in 
der Gric. der igyp. Papyrusurk., Wien. Stud., 24 (1902). On the whole sub- 
ject see L. Lafoscade, Infl. du Lat. sur le Grec, pp. 83-158. To ἱκανὸν ποιεῖν is 
as old as Polybius (Moulton, Exp., Feb., 1903, p. 115). 


110 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


being like videris. So also ὄψεσθε αὐτοί (Ac. 18:15). Grimm! 
considers λαμβάνειν in Jo. 5: 34, 41 equal to capto (‘to catch at’). 
The majority of these instances occur in Mark and Matthew, 
Mark using more Latinisms than any other N. T. writer. Too 
much, however, cannot be argued from this point.2. There are 
besides such adjectives as Ἡ ρῳδιανοί, Χριστιανοί, Φιλιππήσιοι, which 
are made after the Latin model. 

Blass’ thinks that the syntax shows a greater Latin influence, 
but admits that it is difficult to tell the difference between native 
development in the Greek and a possible Latin bent. It is in- 
deed difficult to speak with decision on this point. Ultimately — 
Greek and Latin had great influence on each other, but at this 
stage the matter is at least too doubtful to appeal to with con- 
fidence.t Paul indeed may have spoken in Latin at Lystra, ac- 
cording to Prof. Ramsay.® Thayer® indeed gives a longer list of 
Latin syntactical influences on N. T. Greek, but not all of them 
are certain. The anticipatory position of ἀπό and πρό in expres- 
sions of time and place, as πρὸ ἐξ ἡμερῶν (Jo. 12:1), is a possible 
Latinism, though only of the secondary sort, since the Doric and 
the Ionic use this construction occasionally and the κοινή frequently 
(cf. Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 101). Cf. also μετὰ πολλὰς ταύτας 
ἡμέρας (Ac. 1: δ). The increased use of the subjunctive rather 
than the optative after a past tense of the indicative is a necessary 
result of the disappearance of the optative rather than a Latin- 
ism. The alleged blending of present perfect and aorist might 


1 Gk.-Eng. Lex. of the N. T. 

2 Swete, Comm. on Mk., p. xliu. Cf. Blass, Philol. of the Gosp., p. 211 f. 

81 GrisofeN, s Laake Ἢ 

4 Viereck, Sermo Graecus, 1888, pp. 60, 66. Thumb (Griech. Spr., p. 152) 
considers the matter inconclusive, as does Moulton (Prol., p. 21). For the 
later Latinisms see Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 13 f. See also W. Schulze, Graeca 
Lat., 1891; Schwyzer, Weltspr. des Altert., p. 20. Cf. Sophocles, Lex., pp. 
25-30 for Latinisms in Gk. 

5 Eixp., Sept., 1905, and March, 1906. ‘As his father, and possibly also 
his grandfather, had possessed the Roman citizenship, the use of Latin speech 
and names was an inheritance in the family” (Ramsay, Exp., Aug., 1906, 
p. 160). Cf. also Ramsay, Pauline and Other Studies (1906, p. 65), where 
he says it is “certain” that he spoke the Latin language. So holds Alex. 
Souter (Did Paul Speak Latin?, Exp., April, 1911). At Iconium ‘a certain 
affectation of speaking Latin was fashionable.’ Moulton also thinks that 
Paul preached in Lat. at Lystra, since the earliest inscriptions there are Lat. 
(Prol., p. 233). 

6 Lang. of the N. T., Hast. D. B. 

7 On this matter of time see Schulze, Graeca Lat., pp. 13 ff. 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH [{Π]|] 


be a Latinism, but it is at least doubtful if that is found in the 
N. T. The use of ὅτι and ἵνα rather than the infinitive follows 
naturally as the infinitive vanishes, but it is parallel to the grow- 
ing use of ut with rogo, etc. ᾿Από and the ablative after φυλάσσειν 
may be due to cavere ab or to the general analytic tendency to 
express the preposition with the case (cf. the Hebrew also). 
Other smaller details are the absence of ὦ with the vocative, σύν 
as equal to καί, ὅς Ξε καὶ οὗτος (qui=et hic), Ὑαμέω with dative=nu- 
bere alicut, infinitive alone with κελεύω. There is no evidence that 
the absence of the article in Latin had any influence on the ver- 
nacular κοινή, though Schmid! thinks he sees it in the irregular 
use of the article in A‘lian. It is interesting in this connection 
to note the development in the vernacular Latin as represented 
in the Old Latin and the Vulgate versions. Unusual cases are 
used with many verbs; prepositions are much more frequent; the 
indicative with final wt and in indirect questions; common use of 
quia and quoniam like quod with verb rather than the accusative 
and infinitive; alle, 7056, hic, is, more like the article, as the later 
Italian 71, Spanish el, French le. 

Other foreign words had, of course, entered the κοινή or the 
earlier Greek, like βουνός (Cyrenaic and Sicilian); ῥέδη (Gallic or 
Celtic); ἀγγαρεύω (even Atschylus), γάζα, παράδεισος, σανδάλιον (Per- 
sian); χιτών (Oriental); κράβαττος (cf. Latin grabatus), παρεμβολή, 
ῥύμη (Macedonian); ἀρραβών, κιννάμωμον, κύμινον, μνᾶ (Phoenician) ; 
βαΐον, βίβλος, βύσσος, σίναπι, σινδών (Egyptian or Semitic?); ζιζά- 
νιον (Arabic?). On the Egyptian words in the Ptolemaic papyri 
see Mayser, Grammatik, pp. 35-40; on the Persian words, 1b., 
p. 42 f., including γάζα and παράδεισος. Σίναπι is of uncertain origin. 
But Greek was known in all parts of the Roman Empire except 
parts of North Africa and the extreme west of Europe. There were 
great libraries in Alexandria, Pergamum and elsewhere. Schools 
were numerous and excellent. But none the less the mass of the 
people were βάρβαροι to the real Greeks and inevitably brought 
laxities into the vernacular. Cf. Radermacher, N. 7. Gr., pp. 
9 ff., who gives a-good discussion of the Latinisms in κοινή writers. 

1 Atticismus etc., p. 64. Cf. Georgi, De Latinismis N. T., iii, Vita, 1733. 

2 On this whole subject see Rénsch, Itala und Vulgata. Das Sprachid. der 
urchristl. Itala und der Kath. Vulg. unter Beriicks. der rém. Volksspr., 1875, 
p. 480f. Cf. also The Holy Lat. Tongue, W. Barry, in Dublin Rev., April, 
1906, and Our Lat. Bible, ib., July, 1906. ‘‘The common dialect, spoken 
with local differences in every part of Italy, in Gaul, Spain and Africa, saw 


its happy moment arrive when Christianity spread over those shores”? (Dub- 
lin Rev., April, 1906, p. 293). 


1} E24 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


V. The Christian Addition. But was there a Christian ad- 
dition if there was no separate biblical Greek, not to say a special 
Christian Greek? Winer! admitted “religious technical terms” 
in the Christian sense, but thought that “the subject scarcely 
lies within the limits of philological inquiry.” Blass has nothing 
to say on the subject. But even Deissmann? insisted that “the 
language of the early Christians contained a series of religious 
terms peculiar to itself, some of which it formed for the first 
time,” but he added that this enrichment did not extend to the 
“syntax.’”? Once more hear Deissmann?: “Christianity, like any 
other new movement affecting civilization, must have produced 
an effect upon language by the formation of new ideas and the 
modification, of old ones.’”’ Moulton‘ sounds a note of warning 
when he says that “it does not follow that we must promptly 
obliterate every grammatical distinction that proves to have 
been unfamiliar to the daily conversation of the first century 
Egyptian farmer ... The N. T. must still be studied largely by 
light drawn from itself.’ Westcott’ indeed thinks the subject 
calls for “the most careful handling” in order to avoid Jewish 
usage on the one hand and the later ecclesiastical ideas on 
the other. This is obviously true. Connect the discussion of the 
Semitic influence on the N. T. with this point and recall the 
revolutionary effect that Christianity had upon the Greek lan- 
guage in the ecclesiastical Greek of the Byzantine period, and 
the difficulty will be appreciated. Mahaffy® does not hesitate to 
say that the main cause of the persistence of Greek studies to-day 
is due to the fact that the Gospels are written in Greek. “Greek 
conquered Jew and Jew conquered Greek and the world inherited 
the legacy of their struggle through Roman hands.’ Under the 
influence of Christianity some of the old heathen vocabulary 
vanished and the remaining stock “was now considerably re- 
duced and modified in a Christian and modern spirit.”’? The 


1 W.-M., p. 36. 

2 B.5S., p. 65 (note). 

8 Encye. Bib., art. Papyri, p. 3562. 

4 Prol., p. 20. Cf. Thumb, Griech. Spr., p. 182 f. 

δ Sinith’s Dab. ΡΝ 

6 The Gk. World under Rom. Sway, 1890, p. 389f. Butcher, Harv. Lect. 
on Gk. Subj., 1894, p. 2 f., calls the power of Jew and Gk. on modern life 
one of “the mysterious forces of the spirit.”’ ‘“‘Each entered on a career of 
world-wide empire, till at length the principles of Hellenism became those 
of civilization itself, and the religion of Judea that of civilized humanity.” 

7 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 10f. 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 113 


N. T. Greek became the standard for ecclesiastical Greek as the 
Attic had been for the ancient world. 

Winer! indeed curtly says: “To attempt to explain such ex- 
pressions of the apostolical terminology by quotations from Greek 
authors is highly absurd.” Rutherford? almost despairs of un- 
derstanding N. T. Greek as well as “classical Greek,” since it con- 
tains so many alien elements, “but it has at least begun to be 
studied from the proper point of view,” though he overestimates 
the difficulty and the difference when he speaks of “the singular 
speech in which the oracles of God are enshrined.”’” On the other 
hand* we must not let the papyri make us swing so far away 
from the old “biblical” Greek idea as to imagine that we can 
find in the vernacular κοινή all that Christianity has to offer. The 
Christian spirit put a new flavour into this vernacular κοινή and 
lifted it to a new elevation of thought and dignity of style that 
unify and glorify the language. This new and victorious spirit, 
which seized the best in Jew and Greek, knew how to use the 
Greek language with freedom and power. If the beauty of the 
N. T. writings is different from the ancient standard, there is 
none the less undoubted charm. Matthew Arnold put the Gospels 
at the acme of simplicity and winsomeness, and Renan spoke of 
Luke’s Gospel as the most beautiful book in the world. Norden® 
admits that the N. T. style is less exclusive and more universal. 
There was indeed a compromise between the old and the new. 
The victory of the new brought rhythm (not the technical sort) 
and unity as the chief characteristics.6 In Christianity Hellenism 
becomes really cosmopolitan.’ If Christianity had merely used 
the Greek language and had been entirely alien to Hellenism, the 


1 W.-M., p. 36, ἢ. 3. 2 Epis. to the Rom., p. x f. 

8 Cf. Zezschwitz, Profangriic. und bibl. Sprachg., 1859, p. 4, where he 
speaks of “‘dieses neue geistige Princip an der Sprache.”’ Deissmann (Die 
sprachl. Erforsch. der griech. Bibel, p. 8) accents the difference between the 
Christian ideas and the Greco-Rom. heathen words that express them. 

4 Ib., p. 12. Norden (Die griech. Kunstpr., Bd. II, pp. 453 ff.) indeed 
thinks that the N. T. wants the “freedom” (Fretheit) and ‘‘serenity’”’ (Hei- 
terkeit) of the ancient literature. This is true in part of Paul’s writing, 
where passion rages fiercely, and in Rev. and other apocalyptic passages. 
But what can excel Lu. and Jo. in lucidity and beauty? “ Heiterkeit — 
blitheness or repose, and Allgemeinheit — generality or breadth, are the 
supreme characteristics of the Hellenic ideal.” Walter Pater, The Renais- 
sance, 1904, p. 225. 

5 Die griech. Kunstpr., Bd. 11, p. 456. 

6 Ib., Bd. I, p. 290. 7 Tb., Bd. II, p. 463. 


114 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


N. T. would not have belonged to Greek literature, but this 
sympathy with the best in the world must not be overworked.! 
The N. T. language is real Greek, though with the Christian 
spirit supreme in it because Christianity seized the Hellenic 
spirit and transformed it. W. Christ? rightly calls attention to 
the fact that Christianity brought “a renewal of the human 
race,’ “the moral worth of man and a purer view of God.” So 
“this ethical new birth of mankind” found expression in the 
N. T. The touch of life is what distinguishes the N. T. writings 
from the philosophical, historical, religious and ethical writings of 
the time.? In the Synoptic Gospels this quality reaches its height. 
“Far above these details is the spirit, the literary conception of 
a life to be written without ornament, without reflection, without 
the writer’s personality.”’4 This fact constitutes a literary phe- 
nomenon amounting almost to a miracle. This vital spirit dis- 
closes itself on every page and baffles analysis. It is the essence 
of the N. T. language, but “is as pervasive as the atmosphere,” 
“as intangible as a perfume.’’® If some concentration and 
strength are lost, there is great adaptability.° Thayer’ does not 
hesitate to speak of the fitness of N. T. Greek for its providential 
office. It is the language of men’s business and bosoms. It is 
the language of life, not of the study nor the cloister. It is not the 
language of a bygone age, but the speech of the men of the time. 
“The Book of the people has become, in the course of centuries, 
the Book of all mankind” (Deissmann, Laght, p. 142). Chris- 
tianity “began without any written book at all’ except the Old 
Testament. ‘‘There was only the living word — the gospel, but 
no Gospels. Instead of the letter was the spirit. The beginning, 
in fact, was Jesus Himself” (cb., p. 245). The N. T. is in close 
sympathy with both Jew and Greek, in a sense has both languages 
to draw on, can reach both the Semitic and the gentile mind, 
becomes a bond of union, in a word (as Broadus used to say) it 
is better suited to be the vehicle of truth conveyed by Jewish 
minds than classical Greek would have been. And a grammarian 
must admit that, however necessary and fundamental grammat- 


1 Cf. Hatch, Infl. of Hellen. on Christ. 

2 Gesch. der griech. Lit., 1905, p. 912. 

3 Hicks, Gk. Phil. and Rom. Law in the N. T., 1896, p. 12. 

4 Mahaffy, Surv. of Gk. Civiliz., 1897, p. 309. 

6 Thayer, Hast. D. B., art. Lang. of the N. T., p. 40°. 

6 Rodwell, N. T. Gk., 1899, p. 2. 

7 Hast. D. B., ib. Cf. Schaff, Comp. to the Gk. N. T., p. 26. 





THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 115 


ical exegesis is, it forms only the basis for the spiritual exposition 
which should follow. 

When one comes to details, he notes that the influence of 
Christianity is chiefly lexical, not grammatical.! But a few points 
in syntax are to be observed, as in expressions like ἐν Χριστῷ"; ἐν 
Κυρίῳ; πιστεύω ἐν with locative, eis with accusative, ἐπί with the 
locative or the accusative, πιστεύω with the dative, with the accu- 
sative or absolutely. As to the lexical element the lists of ἅπαξ 
εὑρημένα require severe sifting.’ It is too soon to pass a final verdict, 
but in the nature of the case the number would be small. Such 
words as ἀντίχριστος, ἑτεροδιδασκαλέω, εὐαγγελιστής, συνσταυρόω, Wev- 
δάδελφος, ψευδαπόστολος, etc., naturally spring out of the Christian 
enterprise. The vocabulary of the N. T. Greek is not very ex- 
tensive, somewhere near 5600 words, including proper names.’ 
But the main point to note is the distinctive ideas given to words 
already in use, like ἀγάπη, ἁγιάζω, ἅγιος, ἀδελφός, ἀντίτυπος, ἀντιμι- 
σθία, ἀπολύτρωσις, ἀπώλεια, ἀπόστολος, ἀποστολή, ἄρτος, βασιλεία, βατπ- 
τίζω, βάπτισμα (--μός), γλῶσσα, διάκονος, δικαιόω, εἰρήνη, ἐκκλησία, 
ἐκλεκτός, ἐλπίζω, ἐλπίς, ἐπίσκοπος, ἐπιστρέφομαι, ἔργα, εὐαγγέλιον, εὐαγ- 
γελίζω, ἐξουσία, ζωή, θάνατος, ἱερεύς, καλέω, καταλλαγή, καταλλάσσω, 
κηρύσσω, κλητός, κόσμος, κοινωνία, λύτρον, λυτρόω, μετάνοια, ὁδός, πα- 
ράκλητος, πίστις, πιστός, πιστεύω, πνεῦμα, πνευματικός, πρεσβύτερος, 
πρόσκομμα, σἀρξ, σταυρός, συνείδησις, σώζω, σωτήρ, σωτηρία, ταπεινός, 
ταπεινοφροσύνη, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, υἱοθεσία, χάρις, Χρι- 
στός, ψυχή, ψυχικός. When one considers the new connotations 
that these words bear in the N. T., it is not too much “to say that 
in the history of these and such like words lies the history of 
Christianity.”® The fact that these and other terms were used 


1 Cf. Thumb, griech. Spr., pp. 162-201. 

2 Cf. Deiss., Die neutest. Formel ‘in Christo Jesu’”’ untersucht, 1892. 

8 Cf. Abb., Joh. Vocab., 1905, pp. 19-80. On the whole question see 
Buttmann, Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 173 ff.; Moulton, Prol., p. 67 f. 

4 Cf. Deiss., Hell.-Griech., Hauck’s Realencyc., p. 636. Not 550 (as Ken- 
nedy, Sour. of N. T. Gk., p. 93) bibl. words, but only 50 N. T. formations 
(Deissmann, Exp., Jan., 1908; Light, p. 73). 

5 Kennedy, Sour. of N. T. Gk., p. 88. The Eng. of the King James Vers. 
(O. T. and N. T.) contains only about 6000 words (Adey, The Eng. of the 
King James Vers.). Max Miiller (Sci. of Lang., p. 16) says that we use only 
about 4000 words in ordinary Eng. 

6 Westcott, Smith’s B. D., N. T. Cf. also Hatch, Ess. in Bibl. Gk., p. 11. 
“Though Greek words were used they were the symbols of quite other than 
Greek ideas.” That is, when the distinctively Christian ideas are given. 
On the influence of Gk. on other languages see Wack., Die Kult. der Gegenw., 
Tl. I, Abt. 8, pp. 311 ff. 


ἃ 


116 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


in the popular language of the day gives a sharper point to the 
new turn in the gospel message. The deification of the emperor 
made Christians sensitive about the words θεός, vids θεοῦ, θεῖος, 
κύριος, κυριακός, σωτήρ, χάραγμα, βασιλεύς, βασιλεία. See the lumi- 
nous discussion of Deissmann (Light, pp. 343-384). The papyri 
and the inscriptions throw almost a lurid light on these words. 
Cf. Κύριος Καῖσαρ and Κύριος Ἰησοῦς (Martyrium Polycarpi, viii, 2) 
with 1 Cor. 12: 1-8. The Christians did not shrink from using 
these words in spite of the debased ideas due to the emperor- 
cult, Mithraism, or other popular superstitions. Indeed, Paul (cf. 
Col. 2: 1f.) often took the very words of Gnostic or Mithra cult 
and filled them with the riches of Christ. Cf. The Expositor for 
April, 1912, ‘‘Paul and the Mystery Religions,” by H. A. A. 
Kennedy. For the stimuli that Christianity derived from popu- 
lar notions of law, religion and morality see Deissmann, Light, 
pp. 283-290. The mass of the N. T. vocabulary has been trans- 
figured. The worshippers of a Cesar would indeed call him 
σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου OF vids θεοῦ, but the words were empty flattery. 
Deissmann! well shows that a LXX word, for instance, in the 
mouth of a citizen of Ephesus, did not mean what it did in the 
LXX, as ἀρχιερεύς, διαθήκη, θεός, προφήτης, cwrnpia. Much more is 
this true of the N. T. The new message glorified the current κοινή, 
took the words from the street and made them bear a new con- 
tent, linked: heaven with earth in a new sense. In particular the 
N. T. writers took and greatly enriched the religious vocabulary 
of the LXX. 

VI. Individual Peculiarities. The language of Christianity 
was not stereotyped at first and there was more play for indi- 
vidualism. If the style is not all of the man, certainly each 
writer has his own style. But style varies with the same man also 
at different stages of his own development, with varying moods 
and when discussing different themes. Style is thus a function 
of the subject. All these points of view must be kept in mind 
with several of the N. T. writers, as Paul, Luke, Peter and John, 
whose writings show marked variations. Simcox? notes that in 
the Thessalonian and Corinthian letters Paul uses ἐν παντί twelve 


1B. S., p. 83. Cf. Schleierm., Hermen., pp. 66 ff., 138 ff., who early called 
attention to the Christian element in the N. T. Cf. also Viteau, Le Verbe; 
Synt. des Prop., p. xl f. 

2 Writers of the N. T., p. 87. A. Souter (The Exp., 1904, Some Thoughts 
on the Study of the Gk. N. T., p. 145) says: ‘‘We must take each writer’s 
grammar by itself.’’ 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 117 


times, in the Pastoral Epistles ἐν πᾶσι five (or six) times, while in 
Ph. 4:12 he has both. In thus accenting the individuality of the 
N. T. writers one must not forget that each writer had access to 
the common religious terminology of early Christianity. There was 
a common substratum of ideas and expressions that reappear in 
them all, though in certain cases there may have been actual use 
of documents. But one can never be sure whether Peter had 
James, or the author of Hebrews Luke’s writings. Peter probably 
had some of Paul’s letters when he wrote 1 Peter, and 2 Peter 
3:15f. expressly refers to them. The grammarian cannot be 
expected to settle questions of authorship and genuineness, but he 
has a right to call attention to the common facts of linguistic 
usage. Immer! indeed complains that the linguistic peculiarities 
of the N. T. writers have been worked more in the interest of 
criticism than of exegesis. The modern method of biblical 
theology is designed to correct this fault, but there is a work 
here for the grammarian also. Winer? declines to discuss this 
question and is horrified at the idea of grammars of each writer 
of the N. T.2 Language is rightly viewed from the point of view 
of the speaker or writer. The rapid and continued changes in 
the individual mind during the mental process of expressing 
thought find a parallel in the syntactical relations in the sentence.‘ 
One cannot protest too strongly against the levelling process of 
an unsympathetic and unimaginative linguistic method that puts 
all the books of the N. T. through the same syntactical mill and 
tags this tense as “regular” and that one as “irregular.” It is 
not too much to say that the characteristic of the Greek litera- 
ture of this time was precisely that of individuality (cf. Plutarch’s 
Iives).» Viteau® has a brief discussion of “The Psychological 
Character of the Syntax of the N. T.,” for, added to all other 
things, there is “the influence of the moment.’ Differences in 


1 Hermen. of the N. T., 1877, p. 182. Thayer (Lex. of N. T. Gk., p. 689) 
speaks of “the monumental misjudgments committed by some who have 
made questions of authorship turn on vocabulary alone.” 

2 W.-M., p. 1f., remands this whole matter to the realm of N. T. rhetoric 
(cf. Wilke, 1848, N. T. Rhet.; Schleierm., Hermen.; Gersdorf, Beitr. zur 
Sprachchar. d. N. T.), but some Προ τδῇ is Henianded here. Schmiedel 
abbreviates Winer’s comments. 

3% W.-M., p. 4. He did not live to see Dr. Abbott’s two stout volumes, 
Joh. Vocab. (1905) and Joh. Gr. (1906). 

4 Cf. Steinthal, Intr. to the Psych. and Sci. of Lang. 

5 Cf. Norden, Die griech. Kunstpr., Bd. I, p. 248. Cf. also Blass, Hermen. 
und Krit., p. 206. 6 Le Verbe; Synt. des Prop., pp. xli ff. 


118 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


culture, in environment, in gifts, in temperament inevitably af- 
fect style, but this fact is not to be stressed so as to make a new 
dialect for each writer.!. In the following discussions some lexical 
comments are given besides the grammatical to give a better idea 
of the writer’s style as a whole. 

(a) Marx. Certainly Blass’ theory? of an original Aramaic 
Mark is not proven, but Peter often spoke in Aramaic, and Mark 
was bilingual like Peter. For the Aramaisms and Hebraisms of 
Mark see previous discussion (Semitic Influence). The idea that 
Mark first wrote in Latin need not be seriously discussed. Mat- 
thew and Luke have also nearly as many Latinisms as Mark. 
It is not in his vocabulary that Mark is most distinctive, for of 
the 1270 words in Mark (besides 60 proper names) only 80 are 
peculiar to him among the N. T. writers. He has 150 in common 
with Matthew and Luke alone, while only 15 belong to Mark and 
John and nowhere else in the N. T.4. About 40 words belong 
only to Mark and the LXX in the Greek Bible, while Mark has 
38 (besides proper names) occurring nowhere else in the N. T. or 
the LX X; but these are not all real ἅπαξ λεγόμενα, for there are 
the papyri! Mark seems fond of diminutives like the vernacular 
κοινή in general (θυγάτριον, κοράσιον, κυνάριον, ete.); εἰμί and ἔρχομαι 
with the participle are common, as in Luke (cf. 1:6, ἣν... ἐκ- 
δεδυμένος; 1:39, ἦλθεν κηρύσσων); in fact he multiplies pictorial 
participles (cf. 14 : 67, ἰδοῦσα . . . ἐμβλέψασα λέγει) ; ἄν Occurs with 
past tenses of the indicative (3 : 11, ὅταν αὐτὸν ἐθεώρουν) : he loves 
the double negative (1 : 44, μηδενὶ μηδὲν εἴπῃς); the article is com- 
mon (as in N. T. generally) with the infinitive and sentences 
(9 : 23, τὸ εἰ δύνῃ); broken and parenthetic clauses are frequent 
(cf. 7:19, καθαρίζων); at times he is pleonastic (2 : 20, τότε ἐν 
ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ); he uses εὐθύς or εὐθέως about 40 times; he is emo- 
tional and vivid, as shown by descriptive adjectives, questions 
and exclamations (cf. 1:24; 2:7); the intermingling of tenses 
(9 :33 ff., ἐπηρώτα... λέγει. . . εἶπεν) is not due to ignorance of 
Greek or to artificiality, as Swete well says, but to “a keen sense 

1 As Simcox does in Writers of the N. T., p. 1. 

2 Philol. of the Gosp., pp. 196 ff. Cf. Marshall, Exp., ser. 4, vi, pp. 81 ff.; 
Allen, ib., ser. 6, vi, pp. 4386-443. 

3 Swete, Comm. on Mk., 1898, p. xl. Thayer (Lex. of N. T. Gk., App., 
p. 699) gives 102, but the text of some 32 is in dispute. Hawkins, Hor. Syn. ?, 
p. 200, gives 71. Swete gives interesting lists of Mark’s vocabulary from ~ 
various points of view. Cf. also Salmond, Mark (Gosp. of), in Hast. D. B. 


4 Swete, Comm. on Mk., p. xliii. Thieme (Die Inschr. von Magn. am 
Miander und das N. T., 1906, p. 4) says: “Die Gruppe der sogenannten Ha- 





THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 119 


of the reality and living interest of the facts; there are 151 his- 
toric presents in the W. H. text against 78 in Matthew and 4 
in Luke; there is frequent and discriminating use of prepositions 
(2:1, 2, 10, 13); the connective is usually καί rather than δέ, sel- 
dom οὖν; there is little artistic effect, but much simplicity and great 
vividness of detail; the vernacular κοινή is dominant with little 
literary influence, though εἶτεν, παιδιόθεν and ὀψία are held so by 
Norden.! Πεπλήρωται (Mk. 1 : 15) is paralleled by ἐπληρώθη in a 
Fayim papyrus and συμπόσια συμπόσια, πρασιαὶ πρασιαί by τάγματα 
τάγματα in the “Shepherd of Hermas” (Goodspeed, Bibl. World, 
1906, p. 311 f.).. In general Mark is not to be considered illiterate, 
though more Semitic in his culture than Greek. Wellhausen has 
noted that D has more Aramaisms in Mark’s text than B. But 
Mark’s Semitisms are not really barbarous Greek, “though 
Mark’s extremely vernacular language often makes us think so, 
until we read the less educated papyri” (Moulton, Camb. Bibl. 
Essays, p. 492). Even his fondness for compound (even double 
compound) verbs is like the vernacular κοινή. If the influence of 
Peter is seen in the Gospel of Mark, it was thoroughly congenial 
as to language and temperament.” He gives an objective picture 
of Jesus and a realistic one. 

(Ὁ) MarrHew. The writer quotes both the Hebrew and the 
LXX and represents Jesus as doing the same. He has 65 allusions 
to the O. T., 48 of them being verbal quotations. And yet the 
book is not intensely Hebraistic. He has the instinct for Hebrew 
parallelism and the Hebrew elaboration, and his thought and gen- 
eral outlook are Hebraistic, though his language is “colourless Hel- 
lenistic of the average type” (Moulton, Camb. Bibl. Essays, Ὁ. 484). 
We need not enter into the linguistic peculiarities of Q as distinct 
from our Greek Matthew if that hypothesis be correct. In Mt. 9 :6 
we see κλίνη rather than the vulgar κράβαττος of Mark. In 12 : 14 
Matthew has συμβούλιον ἔλαβον for σ. ἐδίδουν of Mark (Moulton, 
op. cit., p. 485). He can use paronomasia as In κακοὺς κακῶς ἀπο- 
λέσει αὐτούς (21:41). He uses τότε 91 times against 6 in Mark 
and 14 in Luke; he has ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν 32 times, while he 


paxlegomena ist bedenklich zusammengeschrumpft; es handelt sich im Neuen 
Testament meistens um ἅπαξ εὑρημένα, nicht ἅπαξ ecipnuéva.”’ 

1 Die Ant. Kunstpr., Bd. II, p. 488. 

2 Schaff, Comp. to Gk. N. T., p. 51. Cf. on Mark, Schulze, Der schrift- 
steller. Charakter und Wert des Marcus (Keil and Tzschirner’s Analecta, 11, 
2,3). See Hawkins, Hor. Syn.?, pp. 114-153. Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 
203, 261, 276, 278, 302) has comments on the narrative style of Mark. 


120 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


has ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ 4 times (Mk. 14; Lu. 32); he uses ὁ πατὴρ ὁ 
οὐράνιος 7 times and ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐν Tots οὐρανοῖς 13 times; he 12 times 
quotes the O. T. with the formula ἵνα (ὅπως) πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθέν or | 
τότε ἐπληρώθη τὸ ῥηθέν, Whereas Luke does not have it at all, Mark 
only once and John 7 times; κατ᾽ ὄναρ occurs 6 times and no- 
where else in N. T.; like Luke he uses καὶ ἰδού often (27 times) 
and ἰδού after the genitive absolute 11 times; he alone speaks of 
ἡ ἁγία πόλις and πόλις τοῦ μεγάλου βασιλέως; like Mark he uses 
Ἰεροσόλυμα always save once (28 : 37), whereas Luke usually has 
Ἰερουσαλήμ; ὀμνύω ἐν or eis, common in Matthew, does not occur 
in the other Gospels; τάφος, not in the other Gospels, is found 
6 times; συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος occurs 5 times, and only once more 
in the N. T. (Heb.); note the pleonastic use of ἄνθρωπος as ἄνθρω- 
mos βασιλεύς; he twice uses εἰς τὸ ὄνομα, but the other Gospels ἐν τῷ 
ὀνόματι or ἐπί; the oriental particularity is seen in using προσέρχομαι 
51 times while Mark has it only 5 and Luke 10 times; συνάγειν 
is used by Matthew 24 times; the vernacular κοινή is manifest in 
many ways as in the use of μονόφθαλμος (like Mark), κολλυβισταί. 
Thayer in his list (Lexicon, p. 698 f.) gives 137 words occurring 
in Matthew alone in the N. T., but 21 are doubtful readings. 
Matthew has fewer compound verbs than Mark. Matthew does 
not use adverbial πολλά, while Mark has it 9 times. He has δέ 
where Mark has καί about 60 times. Matthew has ὅτι after 
verbs of saying 38 times, while Mark has it 50 times. Of 
the 151 historic presents in Mark only 21 appear in Matthew, 
though Matthew has 93 historic presents in all. See Hawkins, 
Horae Synopt., p. 144 f. Matthew frequently has aorist when 
Mark has imperfect (see Allen, Matthew, Ὁ. xxf.).. The periphras- 
tic tenses are less common in Matthew than in Mark and Luke 
(op. cit., p. xxii). Matthew is less fond than Mark of redundant 
phrases (op. cit., p. xxvi). The Gospel is largely in the form of 
discourses with less narrative element than Mark. The style is 
more uniform and less graphic than either Mark or Luke and so 
less individual.! 

(ὃ Luxe. Whether Luke knew Hebrew or Aramaic or both, 
cannot be stated with certainty. He did make use of Aramaic 
documents or sayings in Lu. 1 and 2, and in the early part of 
the Acts. He was also quite familiar with the LXX, as his quo- 


1 Cf. Dalman, Wds. of Jes.,. 1902; Gla, Die Originalspr. des Mt., 1887; See 
Hawkins, Hor. Syn.?, pp. 154-173; Allen, Mt., pp. xix—xxxi; Plummer, Mt., 
p. xiif.; Zahn, Einl. in d. N. T., Bd. I, 1898. On Matthew’s style see 
Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 203, 276, 278, 300, 302, 305. 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 121 
tations from it show. The Semitic influence in his writings has 
already been discussed. “He consciously imitates the Greek 
Bible, and in the parts of his narrative which have their scene 
in Palestine he feels it congruous to retain the rough diction of 
his sources” (Moulton, Camb. Bibl. Essays, p. 479). One thing 
is certain about him. He had a good command of the vernacular 
κοινῇ and even attains the literary κοινή in Lu. 1:1-4 and Ae. 
1:1-5; 17 :16-34. The preface to his Gospel has often been 
compared to those of Thucydides and Herodotus, and it does not 
suffer by the comparison, for his modesty is an offset to their vain- 
σον. Selwyn? thinks that Luke was a Roman citizen, and he 
was a fit companion for Paul. He exhibits the spirit of Paul in 
his comprehensive sympathy and in his general doctrinal position.’ 
Renan?! calls Luke’s Gospel the most literary of the Gospels. He 
writes more like an historian and makes skilful use of his mate- 
rials® and with minute accuracy.® His pictures in the Gospel have 
given him the title of ‘the painter.”’ Norden indeed thinks that 
Luke alone among the N. T. writers received Atticistic influence 
(Kunstprosa, II, pp. 485 ff. Cf. Blass, Die Rhythmen der asianischen 
und rémischen Kunstprosa, p. 42). But we need not go so far. 
His versatility is apparent in many ways, but withal he makes 
a faithful use of his materials.? His vocabulary illustrates his 
breadth of culture, for he uses 750 (851 counting doubtful readings) 
words not occurring elsewhere in the N. T.8 Some of them are 
still ἅπαξ λεγόμενα. One special item in his vocabulary is the large 
number of medical terms in his writings, as is natural, since he 
was a physician. His command of nautical phraseology is abun- 


1 Schaff, Comp. to Gk. N. T., p. 55. He calls attention to the fact that 
the intrs. of Herodotus and Luke are about equal in length. Cf. Blass, Philol. 
of the Gosp., pp. 7 ff. 

2 St. Luke the Prophet, 1901, p. 81. 

3 Davidson, Intr. to N. T., i, p. 17.. 

4 Les Evang., pp. 232, 283. 

5 Plummer, Comm. on Luke, 1896, p. xlvii. 

6 Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, 1895; Was Coa Born at Bethlehem?; 
Chase, Credibility of Acts, 1902. 

7 Vogel (Zur Charak. des Lukas, 1899, p. 19) calls attention to differences 
in the speeches of Stephen, Peter and Paul in the Acts. 

8 See the lists of Thayer (Lex., pp. 699 ff.), Plummer (Comm., pp. lii ff.), 
Hawkins (Hor. Syn.?, pp. 201-207). Of the 851 some 312 occur in the Gospel 
and 478 in the Acts. 

9 Hobart, Medical Lang. of St. Luke, 1882. Many of these occur in the 
LXX also, but plenty remain to show his knowledge of the medical phra- 
seology of the time. 


122 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


dantly shown in Ac. 27 and 28.: The question of a double edi- 
tion of the Gospel and Acts does not belong here.? His language 
is that of a man of culture with a cosmopolite tone, who yet knows 
how to be popular also (Deissmann, Light, p. 241f.). He not 
only has a rich vocabulary, but also fine command of the κοινή 
diction. In particular his style is more like that of Paul and 
the writer to the Hebrews. Among matters of detail in Luke one 
will note his use of the infinitives with ἐν τῷ (37 times) and of 
τοῦ with the infinitive (25 instances); σύν (25 times) is frequent, 
though seldom in the other Gospels; καὶ αὐτός (αὐτή) he has 28 
times, and often constructions like αὐτὸς ὁ χρόνος; καὶ ἔγένετο or 
ἐγένετο δὲ he uses 43 times; he has δὲ καὶ 29 times; he loves πορεύο- 
μαι (88 examples); he uses εἰ like an interrogative 18 times; τό 
occurs often before a clause, especially an indirect question; he 
makes frequent use of καὶ ἰδού; ἱκανός is common with him; ἢν 
with present participle occurs 47 times; the descriptive genitive 
is common; πρός with the accusative occurs 151 times with him 
and only 25 in the rest of the N. T.; he is fond of ἐνώπιον; τε (and τε 
kat) is almost confined to him in the N. T.; the optative is alone 
used by Luke in indirect questions and more often otherwise than 
by any other N. T. writer save Paul. This is a literary touch 
but not Atticistic. He alone makes any special use of the future 
participle; he is fond of πᾶς and ἅπας; ὡς in temporal sense is com- 
mon in Luke, once in Mark, not in Matthew; a good many ana- 
colutha occur in Acts, and the change from direct to indirect 
discourse is frequent; the relative is often attracted to the case of 
the antecedent and often begins a sentence (Ac. 2 : 24); ἐπιστάτα 
is used 7 times (peculiar to Luke) rather than κύριε or ῥαββεί; the 
syntax is throughout in general that of the κοινή of the time.’ 


1 Smith, Voy. and Shipw. of St. Paul, 1882. 

2. Blass, Philol. of the Gosp., and Acta Apostol. Bacon (Story of St. Paul, 
1905, p. 156, note) actually urges καὶ éyévero in the “‘we”’ sections of Acts as a 
“pronounced Septuagintism improbable for a Greek’?! Cf. Moulton, Prol., 
p. 16f. On Luke’s style see Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 1, 3, 5, 203, 250 f., 
261, 276, 278, 280, 300, 305. 

3. Cf. Vogel, Zur Charak. des Lukas, pp. 21-37, for criticism of the Syntax of 
Luke; Plummer, Comm. on Luke, has many sensible remarks; Wright, Gosp. 
acc. to Luke, 1900, p. xi, on Luke’s literary habits, and see also Hawkins, Hor. 
Syn.*, pp. 174-193. On relation of Luke to Josephus, cf. Bebb, Luke’s 
Gosp. in Hast. D. B. On Luke’s Hebraisms cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 13 f. Cf. 
Norden, Ant. Kunstpr., II, pp. 486 ff., for differences between Luke and Mark 
and Matthew. See also Harnack, Lukas der Arzt der Verfasser des dritten 
Evang. und der Apostelgesch. (1906). On p. 15 he gives a list of 84 words 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 123 


Luke is also fond of ὁ μὲν οὖν (Acts). The historic present is rare 
in Luke (4 or 6 times). Luke uses the conjunctions and sub- 
ordinate clauses with more literary skill than the other N. T. 
writers. He makes choice use of words and idioms. Cf. his report 
of Paul’s speech on Mars Hill. He accumulates participles, espe- 
cially in the Acts, but not without stylistic refinement. In the 
Acts he is fond of eis when ἐν would ordinarily be used. 

(d) James. It is at first surprising that one recognized as 
such a thorough Jew as James, the brother of our Lord, and who 
used Aramaic, should have written in such idiomatic Greek. “In 
the skilful use of the Greek language its [Epistle of James] author 
is inferior to no N. T. writer.’’! There are very few Hebraisms 
in the Epistle, though the tone is distinctly Jewish, perhaps the 
earliest Christian document in the N. T. But one cannot 
think that James wrote the book in Aramaic, for the indications 
of translation are not present, as Bishop John Wordsworth once 
argued.2_ There is not, however, in James studied rhetoric or 
keen dialectics. The author of Hebrews, Luke and Paul far 
surpass him in formal rhetoric. “The Epistle of James is from 
the beginning a little work of literature,” ‘‘a product of popular 
literature” (Deissmann, Light, p. 235). The writer uses asyn- 
deton very often and many crisp aphorisms. Just as the 
Synoptic Gospels preserve the local colour of the country- 
side, so the Epistle of James is best understood in the open air 
of the harvest-field (ib., p. 241). The incongruity of such a 
smooth piece of Greek as this Epistle being written by a Pales- 
tinian Jew like James vanishes when we consider the bilingual 
character of the people of Palestine (cf. Moulton, Camb. Biblical 
Essays, p. 487). Nevertheless, the author has a Hebrew mould 
of thought reminiscent of O. T. phrases. The atmosphere is 
Jewish and “international vulgarisms” do not explain it all. 
The pleonasms are just those seen in the LX X, and the book has 
the fondness for assonance so common in the O. T. Cf. Oester- 
ley, Exp. Gk. Test., p. 394. He uses many examples that re- 
peculiar in the N. T. to Luke and Paul. On p. 15 of Luke the Physician 
(trans., 1907) Harnack considers the Gk. of Luke’s Gospel “excellent.” “It 
occupies a middle position between the κοινή and Attic Gk. (the language of 
literature).”’ This is not a very exact description, for Harnack here uses 
κοινή for vernac. κοινή and Attic was not the language of literature in Luke’s 
time (save the Atticists), but the literary κοινή. 

1 Thayer, Lang. of N. T., Hast. D. B. 

2 First series of Stud. Bibl., pp. 144 ff. Cf. Mayor, Comm. on James, 
pp. cev fi, 


124 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


mind one vividly of the parables of Jesus and many of the ideas 
and phrases of the Sermon on the Mount are here. There is 
also.a marked similarity between this Epistle and the speech of 
James in Ac. 15 and the letter there given, which was probably 
written by him.! He is fond of repeating the same word or root, 
as θρησκός, θρησκεία (1 : 26f.)?; his sentences, though short, are 
rhythmical’; he is crisp, vivid, energetic; there is little in the 
forms or the syntax to mark it off from the current κοινή or 
the N. T. representatives of it, though his idiomatic use of the 
pronouns is worth mentioning, as is also that of ἄγε as an in- 
terjection, the gnomic aorist, the possible nominative μεστή in 
apposition with γλῶσσαν (3:8). But it is in the vocabulary 
that James shows his individuality, for in this short epistle there 
are 73 (9 doubtful) words not appearing elsewhere in the N. T., 
some of which are found in the LXX,‘ like παραλλαγή. The 
use of συναγωγή (2:2) of a Christian assembly is noteworthy 
(cf. ἐκκλησία In 5:14 and ἐπισυναγωγή in Heb. 10:25). He has 
many compound words like ἀδιάκριτος, bookish words like ἔμφυτος, 
philosophical terms like ὕλη, picturesque words like ὀλολύζω, some 
of a technical nature like πηδάλιον, some strictly classical like 
EOLKE, χρή. 

(ce) JupE. It is here assumed against Spitta® and Bigg® that 
Jude is prior to 2 Peter, the second chapter of which is so much 
like Jude. There is not in Jude the epigram of James, but he has 
a rugged rotundity of style that is impressive and vigorous, if a 
bit harsh. His style is marked by metaphor and the use of trip- 
lets. He cannot be said to be “steeped in the language of the 
LXX” with Chase,’ but there is a more. Hebraistic flavour than 
is observed in James, his brother. He has literary affinities with 
some of the apocryphal books and with some of Paul’s writings. 
If he shows a better command of Greek than 2 Peter, yet his 


1 See this point well worked out by Mayor, James (Epis. of), Hast. D. B. 
Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 279. 

2 Cf. Mayor, Comm., pp. excv ff., for exx. 

3 Ib., Ὁ. ccif. Mayor, ch. viii, has also a luminous discussion of the ‘“‘Gram- 
mar of St. James,’’ which shows conclusively that he has little that is distinc- 
tive in his grammar. Cf. Thayer (Lex., p. 708) for list of words peculiar 
to James. 

4 Cf. Mayor, Comm., p. excif. On συναγωγή cf. Hort, Judaistic Christian- 
ity, p. 150. 

ὅ Der Zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas, 1885. 

6 Comm. on St. Peter and St. Jude, 1901. 

7 Jude (Epis. of), Hast. D. B. 


LS a 





THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 125 


“Greek is a strong and weighty weapon over which, however, he 
has not a ready command.’’! Per contra, there is little that is 
peculiar in his grammar, for he shows a normal use of the Greek 
idiom. The optative occurs twice (πληθυνθείη, verse 2, and ἐπιτιμήσαι 
in 9) and the article is used skilfully with the participle. Cases, 
pronouns, tenses, free use of participles, indicate a real mastery 
of current Greek. The true superlative occurs in τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ 
πίστει. The idiomatic use of ἕβδομος without article is seen in 
Jude 14. The adverbial accusative is seen in τὸ δεύτερον 5 and τὸν 
ὅμοιον τρόπον 7. For further details see Mayor on “Grammar of 
Jude and of Peter’? (Comm., pp. xxvi-lv). He has 20 words 
(one doubtful) not found elsewhere in the N. T.2. A few of them 
like πλανήτης occur in the LXX. Some of them have a stately 
ring like κύματα ἄγρια, and a number occur which are found in 
writers of the literary κοινή. He uses ἡ κοινὴ σωτηρία (“the safety 
of the state’’) in a Christian sense, and so of rpoyeypaupévor (“the 
proscribed”’). But he has also command of technical Christian 
terms like ἅγιοι, κλητοί, πίστις, πνεῦμα, ψυχικός aS Paul used them. 
‘The vividness of his style hardly justifies the term “poetic.’’® 
Deissmann (Light, p. 235) considers Jude a literary epistle in 
popular style and “cosmopolite” in tone (p. 242), with a certain 
degree of artistic expression. The correctness of the Greek is 
quite consonant with the authorship of the brother of Jesus, since 
Palestine was a bilingual country (Moulton, Camb. Bibl. Essays, 
p. 488). Besides, the Epistle has only 25 verses. 

(f) Peter. As Peter was full of impulses and emotions and ap- 
parent inconsistencies, the same heritage falls to his Epistles. 
The most outstanding difference between 1 Peter and 2 Peter is 
in the vocabulary. 1 Peter has 361 words not found in 2 Peter, 
while 2 Peter has 231 not in 1 Peter.t| Many in each case are 
common words like ἁγιάζω, ἐλπίζω, εὐαγγελίζω, etc., in 1 Peter, and 
βασιλεία, ἐπαγγελία, ἐπιγινώσκω, etc., in 2 Peter. 1 Peter has 63 
words not in the rest of the N. T., while 2 Peter has 57 (5 doubt- 
ful); but of these 120 words only one (ἀπόθεσις) occurs in both.® 
This is surely a remarkable situation. But both of them have a 


1 Chase, Jude (Epis. of), Hast. D. B. 

2 See Thayer’s list (Lex., p. 709). For fresh discussion of the gram. aspects 
of Jude and 2 Pet. see Mayor’s Comm. (1908). He accepts the genuineness 
of Jude, but rejects 2 Peter. 

3 Maier, Der Judasbrief, 1906, p. 169. 

4 Bigg, Comm. on St. Peter and St. Jude, p. 225. 

5 Thayer, Lang. of the N. T., Hast. D. B., p. 42”. 


126 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


number of words in common that occur elsewhere also in the 
N. T., like ἀναστροφή, ψυχή, etc.1 Both use the plural of abstract 
nouns; both have the habit, like James, of repeating words,’ 
while Jude avoids repetitions; both make idiomatic use of the 
article; both make scant use of particles, and there are very few 
Hebraisms; both use words only known from the vernacular 
κοινή; both use a number of classical words like ἀναγκαστῶς (1 
Peter, Plato), πλαστός (Her., Eur., Xen., 2 Peter)’; both use pic- 
ture-words!; both seem to know the Apocrypha; both refer to 
events in the life of Christ; both show acquaintance with Paul’s 
Epistles, and use many technical Christian terms. But, on the 
other hand, 1 Peter is deeply influenced by the LXX, while 2 
Peter shows little use of it; 1 Peter is more stately and ele- 
vated without affectation, while 2 Peter has grandeur, though it 
is, perhaps, somewhat “grandiose” (Bigg) and uses a number 
of rare words like ταρταρόω; 1 Peter makes clear distinctions be- 
tween the tenses, prepositions, and uses smooth Greek generally, 
while 2 Peter has a certain roughness of style and even apparent 
solecisms like βλέμμα (2:8), though it is not “baboo Greek”’ 
(Abbott) ® nor like modern “pigeon English’; 1 Peter shows little 
originality and rhetorical power, while 2 Peter, though not so 
original as Jude, yet has more individuality than 1 Peter. 
Deissmann (light, p. 235) says: “The Epistles of Peter and 
Jude have also quite unreal addresses; the letter-like touches are 
purely decorative. Here we have the beginnings of a Christian 
literature; the Epistles of Jude and Peter, though still possessing 
as a whole many popular features, already endeavour here and 
there after a certain degree of artistic expression.” It is not for 
a grammarian to settle, if anybody can, the controversy about 
those two Epistles, but Simcox® is not far wrong when he says 
of 2 Peter that “a superficial student is likelier than a thorough 
student to be certain that it is spurious.” Spitta,’ Bigg’ and 


1 Cf. Zahn, Hinl. in d. N. T., Bd. II, p. 108; B. Weiss, Einl. in ἃ. N. T., 
p. 445. 

2 Bigg, Comm., p. 225f. Cf. also Schulze, Der schriftsteller. Charakter 
und Wert des Petrus, Judas und Jacobus, 1802. 

8. Cf. excellent lists by Chase, Hast. D. B., 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Many of 
these words are cleared up by the pap., like δοκίμιον and ἀρετή. 

4 Vincent, Word-Studies, vol. I, p. 621. 

5 Exp., ser. 2, v. III. Chase, Hast. D. B., p. 808", finds needless difficulty 
with παρεισφέρειν (2 Pet. 1:5), for παρά is ‘alongside,’ ‘in addition.’ 

6 Writers of the N. T., p. 64. 

7 Der Zweite Brief des Petrus. 8 Comm. on St. Peter and Jude. 





THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 127 


Zahn! among recent writers suggest that in 2 Peter we have Peter’s 
own composition, while in 1 Peter we have the Greek of an aman- 
uensis who either wrote out Peter’s ideas, revised them or trans- 
lated Peter’s Aramaic into Greek. We know that Peter had 
interpreters (Mark, for instance), and Josephus used such literary 
help and Paul had amanuenses. On the other hand Chase (Hast- 
ings’ D. B.) and others reject 2 Peter entirely. It is worth men- 
tioning that 2 Peter and the Apocalypse, which are the two books 
that furnish most of the linguistic anomalies in the N. T., both 
have abundant parallels among the less well-educated papyri 
writers, and it is of Peter. and John that the terms ἀγράμματοι 
and ἰδιῶται are used (Ac. 4:13). As we have a problem con- 
cerning 1 Peter and 2 Peter on the linguistic side, so we have 
one concerning John’s Gospel and Epistles on the one hand and 
Revelation on the other. The use of the article in 1 Peter is 
quite Thucydidean in 3: 3 (Bigg), and eight times he uses the 
idiom like τὸν τῆς παροικίας ὑμῶν χρόνον (1:17) and once that 
seen in τὸ βούλημα τῶν ἐθνῶν (4 : 8), the rule in the N. T. The 
article is generally absent with the attributive genitive and with 
prepositions as εἰς ῥαντισμὸν αἵματος (1:2). There is a refined 
accuracy in 1 Peter’s use of ὡς (Bigg), cf. 1:19; 2:16, etc. A 
distinction is drawn between μή and οὐ with the participle in 1: 8. 
Once ἵνα occurs with the future indicative (3:1). The absence 
of ἄν and the particles ἄρα, γε, ἐπεί, ἐπειδή, Te, δή, που, πως 15 notice- 
able. 1 Peter makes idiomatic use of μέν, while 2 Peter does not 
have it. 2 Peter uses the “compact” structure of article, attribu- 
tive and noun, like 1 Peter (cf. 2 Pet. 2:1, 10, 18, 16), but the 
“uncompact” occurs also (cf. 2 Pet. 1:3, 9, 11, 14). In Jude 
and 2 Peter the commonest order is the uncompact (Mayor, Jude 
and Second Peter, p. xxii). The single article in 2 Pet. 1:1, 11 is 
used of two names for the same object. Cf. also Jude 4. The 
article with the infinitive does not occur in 2 Peter (nor Jude). 
2 Peter has some unusual uses of the infinitive after ἔχω (2 Pet. 
1:15) and as result (2 Pet.3:1f.). 1 Peter has the article and 
future participle once (3 : 18) ὁ xaxwowv. Both 1 Pet. (1 : 2) and 
2 Pet. (1:2) have the optative πληθυνθείη (like Jude). 1 Peter 
twice (8 : 14, 17) has εἰ and the optative. See further Mayor on 
“Grammar of Jude and 2 Peter” (Comm., pp. xxvi-lv). 

(g) Pauu. There was a Christian terminology apart from 
Paul, but many of the terms most familiar to us received their 


1 Hinl. ind. Ν. T. Mayor in his Comm. on Jude and 2 Peter (1907) re- 
jects 2 Peter partly on linguistic grounds. 


128 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


interpretation from him. He was a pathfinder, but had inex- 
haustible resources for such a task. Resch! has done good ser- 
vice in putting together the words of Paul and the words of 
Jesus. Paul’s rabbinical training and Jewish cast of mind led Far- 
rar? to call him a Haggadist. Simcox® says that “there is hardly 
a line in his writings that a non-Jewish author of his day would 
have written.” Harnack‘* points out that Paul was wholly un- 
intelligible to such a Hellenist as Porphyry, but Ramsay® replies 
that Porphyry resented Paul’s use of Hellenism in favour of Chris- 
tianity. But Hicks® is certainly right in seeing a Hellenistic side 
to Paul, though Pfleiderer’ goes too far in finding in Paul merely 
“a, Christianized Pharisaism” and a “Christianized Hellenism.” 
Paul and Seneca have often been compared as to style and ideas, 
but a more pertinent linguistic parallel is Arrian’s report of the 
lectures of Epictetus. Here we have the vernacular κοινή of an 
educated man in the second century a.p. The style of Paul, 
like his theology, has challenged the attention of the greatest 
minds.’ Farrar’ calls his language “the style of genius, if 
not the genius of style.’ There is no doubt about its indi- 
viduality. While in the four groups of his letters each group 
has a style and to some extent a vocabulary of its own, yet, as in 
Shakespeare’s plays, there is the stamp of the same tremendous 
mind. These differences of language lead some to doubt the 
genuineness of certain of the Pauline Epistles, especially the Pas- 
toral Group, but criticism is coming more to the acceptance of 
all of them as genuine. Longinus ranks Paul as master of the 
dogmatic style (Παῦλος ὁ Ταρσεὺς ὅντινα καὶ πρῶτόν φημι προιστάμενον 


1 Der Paulinismus und die Logia Jesu, 1904. 

2 Life and Work of St. Paul, vol. I, p. 638. 

3 Writers of the N. T., p. 27. 

4 Miss. und Ausbr. des Christent., p. 354. Cf. Moffatt’s transl., vol. II, 
p. 137. 

5 Exxp., 1906, p. 263. 

6 St. Paul and Hellen., Stud. Bib., IV, i. 

7 Urchristentum, pp. 174-178. 

8 See Excursus I to vol. I of Farrar’s Life of Paul. 

9 Ib., p. 623. On Paul’s style cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 1, 5, 251, 
276, 279, 281 f., 284 f., 289, 300-305. As to the Pastoral Epistles it has been 
pointed out that there is nothing in Paul’s vocabulary inconsistent with the 
time (James, Genuin. and Author. of the Past. Epis., 1906). It is natural 
for one’s style to be enriched with age. The Church Quart. Rev. (Jan., 
1907) shows that all the new words in the Past. Epis. come from the LXX, 
Aristotle, κοινή writers before or during Paul’s time. Cf. Exp. Times, 1907, 
p. 245 f. 


“αν. age 





THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 129 


δόγματος ἀνυποδείκτου). Baur! says that he has “the true ring of 
Thucydides.”’ Erasmus (ad Col. 4 : 10) says: “Tonat, fulgurat, 
meras flammas loquitur Paulus.” Hausrath? correctly says that 
“it is hard to characterize this individuality in whom Christian 
fulness of love, rabbinic keenness of perception and ancient will- 
power so wonderfully mingle.’”’ It is indeed the most personal? 
and the most powerful writing of antiquity. He disclaims classic 
elegance and calls himself ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ (2 Cor. 11 : 6), yet this 
was in contrast with the false taste of the Corinthians. But 
Deissmann (St. Paul, p. 6) goes too far in making Paul a mere 
tentmaker, devoid of culture. He.is abrupt, paradoxical, bold, 
antithetical, now like a torrent, now like a summer brook. But 
it is passion, not ignorance nor carelessness. He was indeed no 
Atticist. He used the vernacular κοινή of the time with some 
touch of the literary flavour, though his quotation of three 
heathen poets does not show an extended acquaintance with Greek 
literature.*’ The difference between the vernacular and the liter- 
ary κοινή is often a vanishing point. Paul’s style is unhellenic in 
arrangement, but in Ro. 8 and 1 Cor. 13 he reaches the eleva- 
tion and dignity of Plato.’ Certainly his ethical teaching has 
quite a Hellenic ring, being both philosophical and _logical.® 
Hatch’ considers Paul to be the foremost representative of the 
Hellenic influence on early Christianity. He shows some knowl- 
edge of Roman legal terms* and uses arguments calling for edu- 
cated minds of a high order. The grammar shows little Semitic 
influence. He uses many rhetorical figures such as paronomasia, 
paradox, etc., which will be discussed in the chapter on that sub- 


1 Paul, vol. II, p. 281. Cf. K. L. Bauer, Philol. Thucyd.-Paul., 1773; also 
his Rhet. Paul., 1782. Cf. Tzschirner, Observ. Pauli ap. epist., 1800; La- 
sonder, De ling. paul. idiom., 1866. 

2 Der Apost. Paulus, p. 502. 

3. Renan, St. Paul, p. 232. Cf. also Jacquier, Hist. des Livres du N. T., 
tome 1°", 1906, p. 37: “Son grec, nous le verrons, n’est pas le grec littéraire, 
mais celui de la conversation.’’ Cf. also pp. 61-70 for discussion of ‘‘ Langue 
de Saint Paul.” Cf. also Adams, St. Paul’s Vocab. St. Paul as a Former of 
Words, 1895. 

4 Cf. Farrar, Exc. III, vol. I of Life of St. Paul. 

5 Norden, Die Ant. Kunstpr., Bd. II, 1898, pp. 499, 509. 

6 Hicks, St. Paul and Hellen., 1896, p. 9. 

7 Hibbert Lect. (Infl. of Hellen. on Chris., p. 12). 

§ Ball, St. Paul and the Rom. Law (1901). Cf. Thack., Rela. of St. Paul to 
Contemp. Thought (1900). Paul’s use of νόμος shows knowledge of the Roman 
lex as well the Jewish Torah. 
᾿ς 9 Mahaffy, Surv. of Gk. Civiliz., p. 310. 


130 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ject, some thirty kinds occurring in his writings. Farrar! sug- 
gests that Paul had a teacher of rhetoric in Tarsus. He is noted 
for his varied use of the particles and writes with freedom and 
accuracy, though his anacolutha are numerous, as in Gal. 2 : 6-9. 
He uses prepositions with great frequency and discrimination. 
The genitive is employed by Paul with every variety of applica- 
tion. The participle appears with great luxuriance and in all 
sorts of ways, as imperative or indicative or genitive absolute, ar- 
ticular, anarthrous, etc. He is Ἑβραῖος ἐξ "EBpaiwy, but he handles 
his Greek with all the freedom of a Hellenist. He thinks in Greek 
and it is the vernacular κοινή of a brilliant and well-educated man 
in touch with the Greek culture of his time, though remaining 
thoroughly Jewish in his mental fibre. The peculiar turns in 
Paul’s language are not due to Hebraisms, but to the passion of 
his nature which occasionally (ef. 2 Cor.) bursts all bounds and 
piles parenthesis and anacoluthon on each other in a heap. But 
even in a riot of language his thought is clear, and Paul often 
draws a fine point on the turn of a word or a tense or a case. To 
go into detail with Paul’s writings would be largely to give the 
grammar of the N. T. In Phil. 2:1 we have a solecism in εἴ τις 
σπλάγχνα. His vocabulary is very rich and expressive. Thayer 
(Lexicon, pp. 704 ff.) gives 895 (44 doubtful) words that are found 
nowhere else in the N. T., 168 of them being in the Pastoral 
Epistles. Nageli? has published the first part of a Pauline lexicon 
(from a to e) which is very helpful and makes use of the papyri 
and inscriptions. The most striking thing in this study is the 
cosmopolitan character of Paul’s vocabulary. There are very 
few words which are found only in the Attic writers, like 
aicxporns, and no cases of Atticism, though even in the letters a to 
e he finds some 85 that belong to the literary κοινή as shown by 
books, papyri and inscriptions, words like ἀθανασία, ἀθετέω, etc. In 
some 50 more the meaning corresponds to that of the literary 
κοινή, AS IN ἀναλύω (Ph. 1:23). To these he adds words which 
appear in the literary κοινή, papyri and inscriptions after Paul’s 
time, words like ἁρπαγμός, ἀναζῆν, etc. Then there are words 
that, so far as known, occur first in the N. T. in the 
Christian sense, like ἐκκλησία. But the vernacular κοινή as set 


1 Life of St. Paul, vol. I, p. 630. 

2 Der Wortsch. des Apost. Paulus, 1905. He says (p. 86): “Ἐπ tiberrascht 
uns nicht mehr, da jeder paulinische Brief eine Reihe von Wortern enthilt, 
die den iibrigen unbekannt sind.” This is well said. Each letter ought to 
have words not in the others. 





THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH [9] 


forth in the papyri and inscriptions furnishes the ground-work 
of his vocabulary, when to this is added the use of the LXX 
(including the Apocrypha) as in ἀντιλαμβάνομαι, ἁγιάζω. Lspe- 
cially noteworthy are some nice Greek points that are wanting 
in Paul (as well as in the rest of the N. T.) and in the papyri and 
inscriptions, as οἷός τέ εἰμι, αἰσθάνομαι, πάνυ, μάλα, ἕπομαι (Seldom in 
the inscriptions), etc. Niageli sums up by saying that no one 
would think that Paul made direct use of Plato or Demosthenes 
and that his diligent use of the LXX explains all his Hebraisms 
besides a few Hebrew words like ἀμήν or when he translated He- 
brew. His Aramaisms (like ἀββά) are few, as are his Latinisms 
(like πραιτώριον). “The Apostle writes in the style natural to a 
Greek of Asia Minor adopting the current Greek of the time, 
borrowing more or less consciously from the ethical writers of the 
time, framing new words or giving a new meaning to old words 
. .. His choice of vocabulary is therefore much like that of Epic- 
tetus save that his intimate knowledge of the LXX has modified 
it.’”! Paul’s Greek, in a word, “has to do with no school, with no 
model, but streams unhindered with overflowing bubbling right 
out of the heart, but it is real Greek” (Wilamowitz-Mollendorff, 
Die griechische Literatur des Altertums, 2. Aufl., p. 159. Cf. Dre 
Kultur der Gegenwart, Tl. I, Abt. 8, 1905). Deissmann (Light, p. 
234) sees Paul wholly as ‘‘a non-literary man of the non-literary 
class in the Imperial Age, but prophet-like rising above his class 
and surveying the contemporary educated world with the con- 
sciousness of superior strength.” 


1 Walter Lock, Jour. of Theol. Stud., 1906, p. 298. Athletic figures are 
almost confined to Paul (and Heb.), and Ramsay (Exp., 1906, pp. 283ff.) thinks 
Tarsus left this impress on him. A further discussion of Paul’s rhetoric will 
be found in the chapter on Figures of Speech. Cf. J. Weiss, Beitr. zur paulin. 
Rhetorik, 1897; Blass, Die Rhyth. der asian. und rom. Kunstpr., 1905. Deiss. 
(Theol. Literaturzeit., 1906, pp. 231 ff.) strongly controverts Blass’ idea that 
Paul used conscious rhythm. Cf. Howson, Metaph. of St. Paul. On Paul’s 
Hellen. see Hicks, St. Paul and Hellen. (Stud. Bibl. et Eccl., 1896); Curtius, 
Paulus in Athens (Gesamm. Abhandl., 1894, pp. 527 ff.); Ramsay, Cities of 
St. Paul (pp. 9, 80-41); Heinrici, Zum Hellen. des Paulus (2 Cor. in Meyer); 
Wilamowitz-MOoll., Die griech. Lit. des Altert. (p. 157); G. Milligan, Epis. to 
the Th. (1908, p. lv). Paul had a‘full and free Gk. vocab., thought in Gk., 
wrote in Gk. as easily as in Aramaic. But his chief indebtedness seems to 
be to the LX X, the vernac. κοινή and the ethical Stoical writers. Milligan (see 
above, pp. lii-lv) has a very discriminating discussion of Paul’s vocab. and 
style. Garvie (Stud. of Paul and His Gospel, p. 6 f.) opposes the notion that 
Paul had a decided Gk. influence, 


132 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(h) Writer oF Hesrews. Bruce! is certain that the author 
was not a disciple of Paul, while Simcox? is willing to admit that 
he may have belonged once to the school of Philo, as Paul did to 
that of Gamaliel. Harnack suggests Priscilla as the author. If 
Paul had “imperial disregard for niceties of construction,’ He- 
brews shows “a studied rhetorical periodicity.”* Von Soden4 
considers that in the N. T. Hebrews is “the best Greek, scarcely 
different in any point from that of contemporary writers.”’ This 
is the more surprising when one observes the constant quotation 
of the LXX. The grammatical peculiarities are few, like the fre- 
quent use of παρά in comparison, ἐπεί with apodosis (protasis sup- 
pressed), the perfect tense to emphasize the permanence of the 
Scripture record which sometimes verges close to the aorist (4 : 3), 
the frequent participles, the varied use of particles, periphrases, 
the absence of the harsher kinds of hiatus, the presence of rhythm 
more than in any of the N. T. books, and in general the quality 
of literary style more than in any other N. T. writing. Westcott 
notes “the parenthetical involutions.” “The calculated force of 
the periods is sharply distinguished from the impetuous eloquence 
of St. Paul.’ The writer does not use Paul’s rhetorical expres- 
sions τί οὖν; τί yap; Moulton (Camb. Bibl. Essays, p. 483) notes 
the paradox that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by one 
who apparently knew no Hebrew and read only the LXX. The 
use of subordinate sentences is common and the position of words 
is carefully chosen. There is frequent use of μέν and τε as well as 


ὅθεν and διό. The optative occurs only once and illustrates the - 


true κοινὴ. The studied style appears particularly in ch. 11 in the 
use of πίστει. The style is hortatory, noble and eloquent, and has 
points of contact with Paul, Luke and Peter. The vocabulary, 
like the style, is less like the vernacular κοινή than any book in 
the N. T. Of 87 words which are found in the LXX and in this 
book alone in the N. T., 74 belong to the ancient literary works 
and only 13 to the vernacular. 18 other words peculiar to this 
Epistle are found in the literary κοινή. There are 168 (10 doubt- 
ful) words in Hebrews that appear nowhere else in the N. T. 
(cf. Thayer, Lexicon, p. 708). These 168 words are quite char- 
acteristic also, like ἀφορᾶν, αἰσθητήριον, πανήγυρις, πρωτοτόκια. West- 


1 Hast. D. B., Hebrews. 2 Writers of the N. T., p. 42. 

8 Thayer, Lang. of the N. T., Hast. D. B.  *° 

4 Karly Chris. Lit., 1906, p. 12. On the lang. of Heb. see the careful re- 
marks of Jacquier (Hist. des Livres du N. T., tome 1°", 1906, pp. 457 ff.). Cf. 
Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 1, 5, 279, 280 f., 288 f., 296 ff., 303 f. 


——— 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 133 


cott! considers the absence of words like εὐαγγέλιον, μυστήριον, 
πληρόω remarkable. The chief bond of contact in the vocab- 
ulary of Hebrews with the κοινή is in the use of “sonorous” 
words like ἀντικαθίστημι, εὐπερίστατος, but the author is by no 
means an Atticist, though he does approach the literary κοινή. 
Deissmann? indeed considers Hebrews as alone belonging “to an- 
other sphere: as in subject-matter it is more of a learned theo- 
logical work, so in form it is more artistic than the other books 
of the N. T.” He even feels that it “seems to hang in the back- 
ground like an intruder among the N. T. company of popular 
books” (Light, p. 248). 

(i) Jonn. The Johannine question at once confronts the mod- 
ern grammarian who approaches the books in the N. T. that are 
accredited to John. It is indeed a difficult problem.* There is 
a triple difficulty: the Gospel presents a problem of its own (with 
the Epistles), the Apocalypse also has its burden, and there is the 
serious matter of the relation of the Gospel and Apocalypse on 
the linguistic side. Assuming that John the Apostle wrote the 
Gospel, Epistles and Apocalypse, we have the following situation. 
The Gospel of John has a well-defined character. There are few 
Hebraisms in detail beyond the use of viol φωτός (12 : 36), καί in 
the sense of “and yet” or “but” (cf. Hebrew 1 and καί in LXX) 
as in 20 : 14, the absence of the particles save οὖν, and the con- 
stant co-ordination of the sentences with rhythmical parallelism. 
In the formal grammar the Greek is much like the vernacular 
(and literary) κοινή, but the cast of thought is wholly Hebrew. 
Ewald! rightly calls its spirit “genuinely Hebrew,” while Renan® 
even says that the Gospel “has nothing Hebrew” in its style. 
Godet® calls the Gospel a Hebrew body with a Greek dress and 
quotes Luthardt as saying that it “has a Hebrew soul in the 
Greek language.”’ Schaff? compares Paul to an Alpine torrent 
and John to an Alpine lake. There is indeed in this Gospel great 
simplicity and profundity. John’s vocabulary is somewhat lim- 
ited, some 114 words (12 doubtful, Thayer, Lexicon, p. 704) be- 

1 Comm. on Heb., Ὁ. xlvi. 2 Exp. Times, Nov., 1906, p. 59. 

3. Cf. Drummond, Charac. and Author. of the Fourth Gosp., 1904; Sanday, 
Crit. of the Fourth Gosp., 1905; Bacon, The Fourth Gosp. in Res. and De- 
bate, 1910. 

4 Quoted in Schaff, Comp. to Gk. N. T., p. 67. 

5 Ib. On p. 73 Schaff puts Jo. 1 : 18 side by side in Gk. and Heb. The 
Heb. tone of the Gk. is clear. 


6 Comm. sur l’Evang. de 8. Jean, vol. I, pp. 226, 232. 
7 Comp. to Gk. N. T., p. 66. 


134 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


longing to the Gospel alone in the N. T. But the characteristic 
words are repeated many times, such as ἀλήθεια, ἁμαρτία, γινώσκω, 
δόξα, ζωή, κόσμος, κρίσις, λόγος, μαρτυρέω, πιστεύω, σκότος, φῶς, etc. 
“He rings the changes on a small number of elementary words 
and their synonyms.”’! But words like ἐκκλησία, εὐαγγέλιον, μετά- 
νοια, παραβολή, πίστις, copia do not occur at all. However, too 
much must not be inferred from this fact, for πιστεύω and evayye- 
λίζω do appear very often.2 Other characteristics of the Gospel 
are the common use of iva in the non-final sense, the distinctive 
force of the pronouns (especially ἐκεῖνος, ἐμός, ἴδιος), the vivid use 
of the tenses (like Mark), the unusual use of otv,? ζωὴ αἰώνιος is 
frequent (21 times, and more than all the rest of the N. T.), fre- 
quent repetition, favourite synonyms.4 The Johannine use of 
καί, δέ, ἀλλά, γάρ, εἰ, ὅτι, μή, ov, etc., is all interesting (see Abbott). 
The prepositions, the cases, the voices, the modes all yield good 
results in Abbott’s hands. The Epistles of John possess the same 
general traits as the Gospel save that οὖν does not occur at all 
save in 3 Jo. 8 while ὅτι is very,common. Kai is the usual con- 
nective. Only eight words are common alone to the Gospel and 
the Epistles in the N. T., while eleven are found in the Epistles 
and not in the Gospel. Westcott,> however, gives parallel sen- 
tences which show how common phrases and idioms recur in the 
Gospel and the First Epistle. The Apocalypse has much in 
common with the Gospel, as, for instance, no optative is found in 
either; ὅπως is not in either save in Jo. 11:57; ἵνα is very common 
in Gospel, 1 John and Apocalypse, more so than in any other 
book of the N. T. save Mark, and ἵνα μή is very common in 
Gospel and Apocalypse; οὖν is almost absent from the Apocalypse 


1 Abb., Joh. Vocab., p. 348. 

2 Ib., p. 158. Abbott has luminous remarks on such words as πιστεύω, 
ἐξουσία, and all phases of John’s vocabulary. 

3 Occurs 195 times in the Gospel and only 8 of the instances in the dis- 
courses of Jesus. Nearly all of these are in the transitional sense. Cf. Abb., 
Joh. Gr., 1906, p. 165. 

4 On Joh. Synon. (like θεωρέω, ὁράω) see ch. III of Abbott’s Joh. Vocab., 
1905. In John ὁράω is not used in present (though often ἑώρακα), but βλέπω 
and θεωρέω. Luke uses it also in present only 3 times, Heb. 2, Jas. 2, Ac. 8, 
Apoc. 18. On the whole subject of Joh. gr. see the same author’s able work 
on Joh. Gr. (1906), which has a careful and exhaustive discussion of the most 
interesting points in the Gospel. 

5 Comm. on Epis. of Jo., pp. xliff. The absence of οὖν, when so character- 
istic of the Gospel, shows how precarious mere verbal argument is. Baur, 
Die Evang., p. 380, calls the Gospel the Apocalypse ‘“transfigured.” Cf. 
Blass on John’s style, Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 261, 276, 278 f., 291, 302. 





THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 135 


as in Epistles and the discourses of Jesus, being common as tran- 
sitional particle in narrative portion of Gospel!; ἄρα, common in 
other Evangelists and Paul, is not found in Gospel, Epistles or 
Apocalypse; μέν, so common in Matthew, Luke (Gospel and Acts), 
Paul and Hebrews, is not found at all in Apocalypse and John’s 
Epistles and only eight times in his Gospel; ὥστε, which appears 
75 times elsewhere in the N. T., is not found in Gospel, Epistles 
or Apocalypse save once in Jo. 3:16; μή ποτε, fairly common in 
Matthew, Luke and Hebrews, does not occur in John’s writings 
save in Jo. 7:26 (Paul uses it also once only, 2 Tim. 2 : 25, 
preferring μή πως, which John does not have); μαρτυρέω is more fre- 
quent in Gospel than in 1 John and Apocalypse, but μαρτυρία is as 
common in Apocalypse as Gospel; ὄνομα is frequent in Gospel and 
Apocalypse as applied to God; οἶδα is found less often in Apoca- 
lypse than in Gospel; ἀληθινός is common in Gospel, Epistle and 
Apocalypse, though ἀληθής and ἀλήθεια do not appear in the Apoca- 
lypse; νικάω occurs only once in Gospel (16:33), but is common 
in 1 John and Apocalypse; δίδωμι is more frequent in Gospel and 
Apocalypse than in any other N. T. book (even Matt.); δεί- 
κνυμι appears about the same number of times in Gospel and 
Apocalypse; λόγος is applied to Christ in Jo. 1:1 and Rev. 
19 : 13; the peculiar expression καὶ νῦν ἐστίν which occurs in John 
5 : 25 is similar to the καί ἐσμεν of 1 Jo. 3:1, and the καὶ οὐκ εἰσί 
of Rev. 2:2, 3:9; all are fond of antithesis and parenthesis 
and repeat the article often. Over against these -is to be placed 
the fact that the Apocalypse has 156 (83 doubtful) words not in 
the Gospel or Epistles, and only nine common alone to them. 
Certainly the subject-matter and spirit are different, for the Son 
of Thunder speaks in the Apocalypse. Dionysius? of Alexandria 
called the language of the Apocalypse barbaric and ungram- 
matical because of the numerous departures from usual Greek 
assonance. The solecisms in the Apocalypse are not in the realm 
of accidence, for forms like ἀφῆκες, πέπτωκαν, διδῶ, etc., are com- 
mon in the vernacular κοινή. The syntactical peculiarities are 
due partly to constructio ad sensum and variatio structurae. Some 
(“idiotisms”’ according to Dionysius) are designed, as the expres- 
sion of the unchangeableness of God by ἀπὸ ὁ ὧν (1:4). As to 
ὁ ἦν the relative use of ὁ in Homer may be recalled. See also 
ἡ ovat in 11 : 14, ὅμοιον υἱόν in 14 : 14, οὐαὶ τοὺς x. in 8:18. Benson 

1 Similarly τε, which occurs 160 times in the Acts, is found only 8 times in 


Luke’s Gospel. Cf. Lee, Speaker’s Comm., p. 457. 
2 Apud Eus. H. E., VII, xxv. 


136 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(Apocalypse) speaks of “a grammar ‘of Ungrammar,” which is a 
bold way of putting it. But the “solecisms” in the Apocalypse 
are chiefly cases of anacolutha. Concord is treated lightly in the 
free use of the nominative (1 :5; 2 : 20; 3 : 12), in particular the 
participles λέγων and ἔχων (4:1; 14:14); in the addition of a 
pronoun as in 3:8; in gender and number as in 7:9; in the use 
of parenthesis asin 1:5f. Cf. Swete, Apocalypse, p. exviii f. 
The accusative, as in the vernacular κοινή (cf. modern Greek) 
has encroached upon other cases as with κατηγορεῖν (12 : 10). The 
participle is used freely and often absolutely in the nominative as 
ὁ νικῶν (2 : 26). Most of the variations in case are with the parti- 
ciple or in apposition, as ὁ μάρτυς after Χριστοῦ (1:5). Moulton! 
has called attention to the numerous examples of nominative ap- 
position in the papyri, especially of the less educated kind. The 
old explanation of these grammatical variations was that they 
were Hebraisms, but Winer? long ago showed the absurdity of 
that idea. It is the frequency of these phenomena that calls for 
remark, not any isolated solecism in the Apocalypse. Moulton? 
denies that the Apocalypse has any Hebraisms. That is possibly 
going too far the other way, for the book is saturated with the 
apocalyptic images and phrases of Ezekiel and Daniel and is very 
much like the other Jewish apocalypses. It is not so much par- 
ticular Hebraisms that meet us in the Apocalypse as the flavour 
of the LX X whose words are interwoven in the text at every turn. 
It is possible that in the Apocalypse we have the early style of 
John before he had lived in Ephesus, if the Apocalypse was writ- 
ten early. On the other hand the Apocalypse, as Bigg holds true 


1 Exp., 1904, p. 71. Cf. also Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 151; Reinhold, 
Graec. Patr. etc., p. 57f.; Schlatter, Die Spr. und Heimat des vierten 
Evang. Schl. overemphasizes the Aramaic colour of the Gospel. 

2 W.-M., p. 671. 

3 Prol., p. 9. Cf. also Jilicher, Intr. to N. T.; Bousset, Die Offenb. Joh., 
1896; Lee, Speaker’s Comm. on Rev. Swete (Apoc. of St. John, 1906, p. 
exx) thinks that John’s ‘eccentricities of syntax belong to more than one 
cause: some to the habit which he may have retained from early years of 
thinking in a Semitic language; some to the desire of giving movement and 
vivid reality to his visions, which leads him to report them after the manner 
of shorthand notes, jotted down at the time; some to the circumstances in 
which the book was written.”” The Apoc. ‘‘stands alone among Gk. literary 
writings in its disregard of the ordinary rules of syntax, and the success with 
which syntax is set aside without loss of perspicuity or even of literary power.” 
Swete welcomes gladly the researches of Deissmann, Thumb and Moulton, 
but considers it precarious to compare a literary document like the Apoc. 
with slips in business letters, etc. 





THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 137 


of 2 Peter, may represent John’s real style, while the Gospel and 
Epistles may have been revised as to Greek idioms by a friend or 
friends of John in Ephesus (οἵ. Jo. 21 : 24). With this theory 
compare Josephus’ War and Antiquities. One is slow (despite 
Moffatt’s positiveness in the Exp. Gk. Test.), in the light of Dante, 
Shakespeare, Milton, to say that John could not have written 
the Apocalypse, though it. be the last of his books. Besides what 
has been said one must recall that the Apocalypse was composed 
on the Isle of Patmos, in some excitement, and possibly without 
careful revision, while the Gospel and First Epistle probably had 
care and the assistance of cultured friends. At any rate the ver- 
nacular κοινή is far more in evidence in the Apocalypse than in 
the Gospel and Epistles. “As Dante had the choice between the 
accepted language of education, Latin, and the vulgar tongue, so 
St. John had to choose between a more artificial kind of Greek, 
as perpetuated from past teaching, and the common vulgar 
speech, often emancipated from strict grammatical rules, but 
nervous and vigorous, a true living speech.’’! 

VII. N. T. Greek Illustrated by the Modern Greek Vernacu- 
lar. Constant use will be made of the modern Greek in the 
course of the Grammar. Here a brief survey is given merely to 
show how the colloquial κοινή survives in present-day Greek ver- 
nacular. Caution is necessary in such a comparison. The literary 
modern Greek has its affinities with the literary κοινή or even 
with the Atticists, while the vernacular of to-day often shows 
affinities with the less educated writers of papyri of the N. T. 
time. The N. T. did indeed have a great effect upon the later 
κοινή when theological questions were uppermost at Alexandria 
and Constantinople.? The cleavage between the literary and the 
vernacular became wider also. But apart from ecclesiastical 
terms there is a striking likeness at many points between the ver- 
nacular κοινή and modern Greek vernacular, though modern Greek 
has, of course, Germanic and other elements’ not in the κοινή. 
The diminutive’ is more common in the modern Greek than in 


1 Ramsay, Letters to the Seven Churches, 1905, p. 209. In general see 
Seeberg, Zur Charak. des Apost. Joh., Neue Kirch. Zeitschr., 1905, pp. 51-64. 

2 Cf. Gregory Naz., II, 18, A; Gregory Nyssa, III, 557 B; Reinhold, De 
Graec. Patr. etc., 1898. 

3 Thumb, Indoger. Forsch., 1903, p. 359f. Boltz (Die hell. Spr., 1881, 
p. 10) quotes Rangabé as saying that the mod. Gk. is as far removed from 
that of the LXX as from that of Xenophon. 

4 Cf. Hatz., Einl. in d. neugr. Gr., p. 37 f., for list. 


1388 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the κοινή and usually in c, as τὸ ἀρνί. The optative is rare in the 
N. T.; in the modern Greek it has disappeared. The infinitive is 
vanishing before ἵνα in the N. T.; in the modern Greek va has dis- 
placed it completely save with auxiliary verbs.1_ The accusative? 
in modern Greek has made still further headway and is used even 
with ἀπό and all prepositions. The ui verb has entirely vanished 
in modern Greek vernacular except εἶναι. The forms in --οσαν, 
—oveay are very common, as are the a forms in aorist and imper- 
fect. The forms in —es (-as) for perfect and first aorist are also 
frequent. The middle voice has almost vanished as a separate 
voiee (cf. Latin). Prepositions in the vernacular (chiefly eis) have 
displaced the dative. The superlative is usually expressed by 
the article and the comparative. Kennedy® gives an interesting 
list of words that appear either for the first time or with a new 
sense in the LXX or the N. T. (or the papyri) that preserve that 
meaning in the modern Greek, as dua (‘roof’), θυσιαστήριον (‘altar’), 
καθηγητής (‘professor,’ in N. T. ‘master’), ξενοδοχεῖον (‘hotel,’ in 
N. T. fevodoxéw=‘entertain strangers’), παιδεύω (‘chastise,’ from 
παῖς), φθάνω (‘arrive’), yoptatw(‘feed’),etc. The list could be greatly 
extended, but let these suffice. A specimen of modern Greek 
vernacular is given from Pallis’ translation of Jo. 1 : 6-8: Βγῆκε 
ἕνας ἄνθρωπος σταλμένος ἀπὸ TO Θεό᾽ τ᾽ ὄνομά του ᾿Ιωάνης. Αὐτὸς ἦρθε γιὰ 
κήρυγμα, γιὰ νὰ κηρύξει τὸ φῶς, ποὺ νὰ κάνει Kv’ ὅλοι νὰ πιστέψουν. Δὲν 
εἶταν ἐκεῖνος τὸ φῶς, παρὰ γιὰ νὰ κηρύξει τὸ φῶς. The literary modern 
Greek in these verses differs very little from the original N. T. 
text, only in the use of ὑπῆρξεν, ὀνομαζόμενος, διὰ va, dev, nro. Moul- 
ton® in an interesting note gives some early illustrations of 
modern Greek vernacular. In the second century A.D. ἐσοῦ is 


1 It still persists in Pontic-Cappadocian Gk. according to Thumb, Theol. 
Literaturzeit., 1903, p. 421. 

2 There is a riot of indifference as to case in the vernacular Byz. Gk., as 
σὺν τῆς γυναικός. Cf. Mullach, Gr. der griech. Vulgarspr., p.27. Jean Psichari, 
“Ῥόδα καὶ Μῆλα (1906), has written a defence of the mod. Gk. vernac. and has 
shown its connection with the ancient vernac. The mod. Gk. has like free- 
dom in the use of the genitive case (cf. Thumb, Handb., pp. 32 ff.). Prep- 
ositions have displaced the partitive gen., the genitive of material and of 
comparison (abl.), in mod. Gk. The mod. Gk. shows the acc. displacing the 
gen. and dat. of the older Gk. (op. cit., p. 35 1.) after ἀκολουθῶ, ἀκούω, ἀπαντῶ, 
etc. The double acc. goes beyond anc. Gk. usages (op. cit., p. 36) as ὅλα ρόδινα 
τὰ βλέπω, ‘I see everything rosy.’ 

SS ΠΟΙ ΟΝ year kK app 109 tee 

4 Cf. Thumb’s Handb. der neugr. Volksspr. (1895); V. and D., Handb. to 
Mod. Gk. (1887); Thumb-Angus, Handb. of Mod. Gk. Vernac. (1912). 

5 Prol., p. 234. 








THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 1389 


found in OP 528. He quotes Thumb (BZ ix, 234) who cites 
from an inscription of the first century A.D. éxovces as nominative 
and accusative plural. And Ramsay (Cities and Bish., 11, p. 537) 
gives ἐπιτηδεύσουν as third plural form on a Phrygian inscription 
of the third century a.p. As one illustration note Paul’s use of 
κατέχω (Ro. 1:18). In modern Greek dialects κατέχωτε ἠξεύρω, “1 
know.’ 





PARTI 
ACCIDENCE 


7 
ων 
» 
aes fe! 
I ; Γῷ Ἶ ' 
vu rie 
J | hee a ὧν 
: otras Wind 
Pe. Os ate 


oi 
ἐᾷ 





au 






CHAPTER V 
WORD-FORMATION 


I. Etymology. Grammar was at first a branch of philosophy 
among the Greeks,.and with the foundation of the Alexandrian 
library a new era began with the study of the text of Homer.! 
After Photius etymology “rules the whole later grammatical 
literature.”’? The Stoic grammarians were far better in ety- 
mology than in anything else and we owe them a real debt in 
this respect, though their extended struggle as to whether anal- 
ogy or anomaly ruled in language has left its legacy in the long 
lists of “exceptions” in the grammars.’ In some grammars the 
term etymology is still applied to the whole discussion of Forms 
or Accidence, Formenlehre. But to-day it is generally applied 
to the study of the original form and meaning of words. The 
word ἐτυμολογία is, of course, from ἔτυμος and λόγος, and ér-vyos, 
meaning ‘real’ or ‘true,’ is itself from the same root ετ-- from which 
ér-eos, ‘true,’ comes. So also ἐτ- άζω, ‘to test.” Compare also San- 
skrit sat-yas, ‘true,’ and sat-yam, ‘truth,’ as well as the Anglo-Saxon 
s6d, ‘sooth.’ To ἔτυμον is the true literal sense of a word, the 
root. No more helpful remark can be made at this point than to 
insist on the importance of the student’s seeing the original form 
and import of each word and suffix or prefix. This is not all that 
is needed by any means, but it is a beginning, and the right be- 
ginning.® “It was the comparative study of languages that first 


1 Riem. and Goelzer, Phonét. et Et. des Formes Grq. et Lat., 1901, p. 245. 

2 Reitzenstein, Gesch. der griech. Etym., 1897, p. vi. 

3 Steinthal, Gesch. der Sprachw. etc., 2. Tl., pp. 347 ff. 

4 (ἐδ ἔτυμος λόγος hei®t ja auch ‘die wahre Bedeutung’; daf man hier ἔτυ- 
pos sagte und nicht ἀληθής, liegt daran, daf ionische Sophisten, namentlich 
Prodikos, die Etymologie und Synonymik aufbrachten.” F. Blass, Hermen. 
und Krit., Bd. I, Miiller’s Handb. ἃ. klass. Alt., 1892, p. 183. 

5 See Pott, Etym. Forsch., 1861; Curtius, Gk. Etym., vols. I, II, 1886; 
Prellwitz, Etym. Worterb. der griech. Spr., 1893; Brug. und Delb., Grundr. 
der vergl. Gr., 1897-1901; Skeat, Etym. Dict. of the Eng. Lang., etc. 

143 


144 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


gave etymology a surer ΠΟ]. Curtius means etymology in 
the modern sense, to be sure. 

II. Roots.2 It is not to be supposed that what are called roots 
necessarily existed in this form. They represent the original 
stock from which other words as a rule come. What the original 
words actually were we have no means of telling. ‘They were not 
necessarily interjections, as some have supposed. Mere articu- 
late sounds, unintelligible roots, did not constitute speech. Some 
interjections are not roots, but express ideas and can often be 
analyzed, as “jemine’=Jesu Domine.’ Others, like most nursery 
words, are onomatopoetic. There is, besides, no evidence that prim- 
itive man could produce speech at will.4 But a few root-words 
appear like the Latin 7 (‘go’) and probably the Greek 7 (though ἠέ 
is found in Epic Greek). The number of Greek roots is compara- 
tively few, not more than 400, probably less. Harris® observes 
that of the 90,000 words in a Greek lexicon only 40,000 are what 
are termed classic words. The new words, which are constantly 
made from slang or necessity, are usually made from one of the 
old roots by various combinations, or at any rate after the anal- 
ogy of the old words.6 Words are “the small coin of language,’’? 
though some of them are sesquipedalian enough. There seem to 
be two ultimate kinds of words or roots, verbs and pronouns, 
and they were at last united into a single word as φη-μί, ‘say I.’ 


1 Curtius, Gk. Etym., vol. I, p. 16. 

2 The whole subject of N. T. lexicography calls for reworking. Deissmann 
is known to be at work on a N. T. Lex. in the light of the pap. and the 
inscr. Meanwhile reference can be made to his Bible Studies, Light, and 
his New Light on the N. T.; to J. H. Moulton’s articles in the Exp. 
(1901, 1903, 1904, 1908); to Kennedy’s Sour. of N. T. Gk. (for LXX and 
N. Τὸ; to Thayer’s N. T. Gk. Lex. and his art. on Lang., of N. T. in Hast. 
D. B.; to Cremer’s Theol. Lex. of N. T.; to Mayser’s Gr. d. griech. Pap. For 
the LX X phenomena see careful discussion of Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 112- 
136. Nothing like an exhaustive discussion of N. T. word-formation can yet 
be attempted. But what.is here given aims to follow the lines of historical 
and comparative grammar. We must wait in patience for Deissmann’s Lex. 
George Milligan is at work with Moulton on his Vocabulary of the New 
Testament. Cf. also Nageli, Der Wortsch. des Apost. Paulus, a portion of 
which has appeared. Especially valuable is Abb. Joh. Vocab. (1905). For 
the LXX οἵ. also Swete, Intr. to O. T. in Gk., pp. 302-304. The indices to 
the lists of inscr. and pap. can also be consulted with profit. 

3 Paul, Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., p. 181. Thi poe 

5 MS. notes on Gk. Gr. 

6 Cf. on slang, Wedgwood, Intr. to the Dict. of the Eng. Lang.; Paul, 
Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., p. 175. 

7 Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 235. 


WORD-FORMATION 145 


It does not seem possible to distinguish between verbal and nomi- 
nal roots, as in English to-day the same word is indifferently verb 
or noun, “walk,’’ for instance. The modern view is that verbs are 
nominal in origin (Hirt, Handb., p. 201). The pronominal roots 
may furnish most of the suffixes for both verbs (ῥήματα) and nouns 
(ὀνόματα). Verbs, substantives and pronouns (ἀντωνομίαι), there- 
fore, constitute the earliest parts of speech, and all the others are 
developed from these three.t Adjectives (ὀνόματα ἐπίθετα) are 
merely variations from substantives or pronouns. Adverbs (ézup- 
ρήματα) are fixed case-forms of substantives or adjectives or pro- 
nouns. Prepositions (προθέσεις) are adverbs used with nouns or 
with verbs (in composition). Conjunctions (σύνδεσμοι) are adverbs 
used to connect words and sentences in various ways. Inten- 
sive (ἐπιτάσεως) particles are adverbs from nominal or pronominal 
stems of a special kind. Speech has made a very small be- 
ginning with isolated words; in fact the sentence is probably as 
old as human speech, though we first discuss words.2, The number 
of root-words with the mere ending is not very great, but some 
few survive even in the N. T., where the case-ending is added 
directly to the root, as ad-s (ἅλα, Mk. 9: 50), with which compare 
Latin sal, English sal-t. So vats (Ac. 27:41), Latin nd@-is. In- 
stead of ads the N. T. elsewhere follows the κοινή in using τὸ 
ἅλας, and τὸ πλοῖον instead of vats. In πούς (7165-s) the root is only 
slightly changed after the loss of ὃ (analogy of οὖς or ὀδούς). The 
pronoun εἷς (&-s) is similarly explained. Pronouns and numerals 
use the root directly. In verbs we have many more such roots 
used directly with the personal endings without the thematic 
vowel o/e and sometimes without any tense-suffix for the pres- 
ent, like φη-μί (¢a-pi). The whole subject of verbs is much more 
complicated, but in general the non-thematic forms are rapidly 
disappearing in the N. T., while in the vernacular modern Greek 
the non-thematic or μὲ verbs are no longer used (save in the case 
of εἶμαι), as δίδω for δίδω-μι, for instance. A number of these roots 
go back to the common Indo-Germanic stock. Take δικ, the root 
of δείκνυ-μι. The Sanskrit has dic-d-mi; the Latin dic-o, in-dic-o, 
qu-dex; the Gothic tetho; the German zeigen. Take the thematic 
verb σκέπ-το-μαι. The Sanskrit root is spac (‘look’), spag=spy. 
The Zend has φρας, the Latin spec-to, spec-ulum, spec-to, etc. In 
the Greek root metathesis has taken place and σπεὲκ has become 

1 “Uber das relative Alter der einen oder der anderen Wortklasse liBt 


sich nichts Sicheres ausmachen’”’ (Vogrinz, Gr. des hom. Dial., 1889, p. 164). 
2 Brug., Kurze vergl. Gr., p. 281. 


146 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


σκεπ in σκέπ-το-μαι (‘to spy out’), σκοπ-ή (‘a watching’), σκοπ-ιά 
(‘a watch-tower’), σκοπ-ός (‘a spy,’ ‘a goal’), σκώψ (‘owl’).t Cf. 
Ph. 8 : 14 xara σκοπόν. The old Greek writers? made μυστήριον Ξε 
μῦς τηρεῖν! } 

Ill. Words with Formative Suffixes. The Indo-Germanic 
languages have a highly developed system of affixes,’ prefixes, 
infixes, suffixes. The suffixes are used for various purposes, as 
case-endings of nouns, as personal endings of verbs, as aids in the 
creation of words (formative suffixes). The Greek is rich in these 
formative suffixes, which are more or less popular at various peri- 
ods of the language. The suffixes in the Greek are quite similar to 
those in the older Sanskrit. When the formative suffixes are used 
directly with the root, the words are called primitives; when the 
stem of the word is not a root, it is called a derivative. Hence 
there are primitive and derivative verbs, primitive and deriva- 
tive substantives, primitive and derivative adjectives. There 
are, of course, in the N. T. Greek no “special” formative suffixes, 
though the κοινή does vary naturally in the relative use of these 
terminations from the earlier language. In the modern Greek a 
number of new suffixes appear like the diminutives --πουλος (πῶλος, 
‘foal’), κτλ. “In all essentials the old patterns are adhered to” 
in the N. T. word-formation.4- See also Hadley-Allen (pp. 188 We 
for the meaning of the Greek formative suffixes. 

(a) Verss. On the stem-building of the verb one can consult 
Hirt or Brugmann for the new point of νον. Without attempt- 
ing a complete list of the new words in the κοινή, I give what 
is, I trust, a just interpretation of the facts concerning the new 
words appearing from the time of Aristotle on that we find in the 
N. T. Hence some classes of words are not treated. 

1. Primary or Primitive Verbs. No new roots are used to 
make verbs with old or new terminations® in the κοινή. The ten- 


1 Cf. Rachel White, Cl. Rev., 1906, pp. 203 ff., for interesting study of 
ἐπισκήπτω. 

2 Blass, Hermen. und Krit., Bd.I,p.191. Heine, Synon. des neutest. Griech., 
1898, has a very helpful discussion of N. Τ᾿. word-building (pp. 28-65), but 
does not distinguish the κοινή words. 

3 Next to Sans. Gk. uses more inflections and so more affixes. Cf. Jann., 
Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 45. 

4 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 61. On the whole subject of word-building see 
Brug., Griech. Gr., 1900, pp. 160-362; K.-BI., Bd. II, Ausf. Gr., pp. 254-340. 

> Brug. op. cit. Hirt, Handb. der griech. Laut- und Formenl., 1902, pp. 
360-391. 

6 Schmid, Der Atticis. etc., 4. Bd., p. 702. 





WORD-FORMATION 147 


dency is all towards the dropping of the non-thematic or μὲ forms 
both with the simple root and with the suffix. The remnants of 
the ye forms, which are not quite obsolete in the N. T., will be 
given in the chapter on the Conjugation of the Verb. Here may 
be mentioned ἀπόλλυμι, which uses the suffix —vv.!_ Thematic verbs 
made from the root by the addition of o/e are very common, like 
λέγ-ω, λείπ-ω (Aur). The N. T., as the κοινή, has new presents like 
κρύβω, virtw, χύννω, etc. These kept increasing and are vouched 
for by modern Greek. Cf. Thumb, Handbook, pp. 129 ff. 

2. Secondary or Derivative Verbs. Not all of these verbs are 
formed from nouns; many come also from verbs. Denominatives 
are made from nouns, like τιμάτω from τιμή, while verbals (post- 
verbals, Jannaris”) are made from verbs. The simple denomi- 
natives,’ ending in —dw, —éw, --εὐω, --ἀζω, --ἰζω, are not always 
distinguished from the intensive verbals or the causative denomi- 
natives, though --όω, —aivw, --νω more commonly represent the 
latter. ᾿Οπτάνω (from ὄπτω) besides Ac. 1:3 appears in the LXX, 
Hermes, Tebt. Papyri. Cf. also the rare λιμπάνω. The κοινή is 
rich in new verbs in —yw. Verbs in --ἀω are common in the N. T., 
as in the κοινή, like τιμάω, dupaw, Faw, etc. ᾿Ανα-ζάω occurs in Artem., 
Sotion, inscriptions, etc. In the modern Greek verbs in --ἀω have 
gained at the expense of verbs in -εω.Σ They belong to the oldest 
Greek speech and come from feminine stems in —a.° Verbs in -afw 
show great increase in the N. T. as in the κοινή and modern Greek,® 
like ἁγιάζω (ἅγιος, ἁγίζω, LXX), &radiatw (ἐντάφια, Anthol., Plut.), 
νηπιάζω (νήπιος) in Hippocrates, στυγνάζω (from στυγνός) in Schol. 
on Atsch. and in LXX σινιάζω (σινίον, eccl., Byz.). Πυρράζω (Mt. 
16 :2f.) occurs in LXX and Philo, but W. H. reject this passage. 

The majority of the new verbs in --ἔω are compound, as ἀσχημονέω, 
TAnpopopew (πληρο-φόρος, LX X, pap.), but δυνατέω (only in N. T.) 
is to be noticed on the other side.” ’Axatpéw (from ἄκαιρος) is found 


1 On history of the μὲ verbs see Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 234. In the pap. 
verbs in —vu keep the non-thematic form in the middle, while in the active 
both appear. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 38. 

* Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 300. 

3 Harris, MS. Notes on Gk. Gr. 

4 Thumb, Handb., p. 175; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 218, 300. 

5 Siitterlin, Gesch. der Verba Denom. in Altgriech., 1891, p. 7. Cf. also 
Pfordten, Zur Gesch. der griech. Denom., 1886. Mayser (Gr., pp. 459-466) has 
an interesting list of derivative verbs in the Ptol. pap. Cf. Frinkel, Gr. Den. 

6 Thumb, Handb. of Mod. Gk., V., p. 1951. There is frequent inter- 
change between forms in --ἀζῳ, —ifw and --ῶ. 

7 Blass, Gr. of IN. T. Gk., p. 61. 


148 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


in Diodorus; εὐπροσωπέω (εὐπρόσωπος) is found in Gal. 6:12 (in 
papyri, 114 B.c.; ὅπως εὐπροσωπῶμεν, Tebt. P. No. 192 f.). Cf. 
Moulton, Hxpositor, 1903, p. 114. These verbs have always been 
very numerous, though —ew gradually retreats before -aw. Tpnyo- 
pew (Arist., LXX, Jos.) is formed from the perfect ἐγρήγορα, 
which is not in the N. T., but Winer long ago found a similar 
form in ἐπικεχειρέω (Papyri Taurin. 7).: ’Edarrovew (Arist., LXX, 
pap.) is from ἔλαττον. ᾿Ελλογέω (and --ἀω) is in inscriptions and 
papyri. ᾿Εξακολουθέω (Polyb., Plut., inscriptions) is not “biblical” 
as Thayer called it. Αὐθεντέω (αὐθέντης, αὐτός and ἔντεα) is in the 
κοινή, according to Moeris, for the Attic αὐτοδικέω. (In the late 
papyri see Deissmann, Light, p. 85.) No great distinction in 
“sense exists between -ἀω and —é. | 

Verbs in -εὐω are also very common and are formed from a 
great variety of stems. λΔἰχμαλωτεύω (from αἰχμάλωτος) is read in 
2 Tim. 3:6 only by De EKL al. pl. Or., the form in --ἰζω being 
genuine. It is, however, common in the LXX, as is ἔγκρατεύομαι 
(1 Cor. 9: 25), from ἔγκρατής (in Aristotle). ΤΓυμνιτεύω (not γυμνη- 
τεύω, Dio Chrys., Plut., Dio Cass., etc.) is found in 1 Cor. 4:11 
and is from γυμνήτης. Zndeve (Simplic., Democr.), not ζήλωσον, is 
the correct text in Rev. 3:19 (so W. H. with ABC against NP). 
Both are from ζῆλος. Θριαμβεύω (from θρίαμβος) is in the literary 
κοινή ‘leparebw (Lu. 1: 8) is from ἱερεύς and is found in the 
LXX, the κοινή writers and the inscriptions. Μεσιτεύω (Heb. 
6:17) is from μεσίτης and is found in Arist., Polyb. and papyri. 
Μαθητεύω is from μαθητής (Plut., Jambl.); ὀλοθρεύω (Heb. 11: 28, 
LXX) is from ὄλεθρος (ADE read ὀλεθρεύων in Heb. 11:28). In 
Ac. 3:23 ἐξολεθρεύω is the form accepted by W. H. after the 
best MSS. of the LXX.3 Παγιδεύω (Mt. 22:15) is from παγίς 
and occurs in the LXX. Παρα-βολεύομαι is the correct word in 
Ph. 2:30 against CKLP which read παρα-βουλεύομαι. The word 
is from παρά-βολος, which has not been found in other writers, but 
an inscription (ii/aA.D.) at Olbia on the Black Sea has the very 
form παραβολευσάμενος used by Paul (cf. Deissmann, Light, p. 84). 
Περπερεύομαι (1 Cor. 18 : 4) is made from zépzepos and is found in 


1 W.-M., p. 115. 

2 Cf. θρίαμβον εἰσάγειν, triumphum agere. Goetzeler, Einfl. ἃ. Dion. von 
Ital. auf ἃ. Sprachgeb. d. Plut., 1891, p. 203. Deiss. (Light, p. 368) gives 
this word (with ἀρετή, ἐξουσία, δόξα, ἰσχύς, κράτος, μεγαλειότης) as proof of a paral- 
lel between the language of the imperial cult and of Christianity. 

’ Cf. W.-M., note, p. 114. Mayser (Gr., pp. 415-509) gives a very com- 
plete discussion of ‘‘Stammbildung”’ in the Ptol. pap. 


WORD-FORMATION 149 


Antoninus. Xpnorebouwa is from χρηστός. Three verbs in -θω 
appear which are made from verbs in -ἀω and —éw, viz. ἀλήθω 
(ἀλέω), κνήθω (Kyaw), νήθω (vew), One (νήθω) being found also in Plato 
Polit. (p. 289 c). Cf. modern Greek θέτω (τίθημι). 

The causative ending --όω is usually formed on noun-stems and 
is very common, sometimes supplanting verbs in —etw or —ifw, as 
ἀνα-καινόω (Isocrates, dvakawifw),! ἀναστατόω (from ἀνάστατος, LXX, 
papyri. Cf. dvacraro? με, ‘he upsets me,’ Deissmann, Light, p. 81); 
ἀφ-υπνόω (Anthol., classical ἀφυπνίζω) ;; dexarow (classical dexarebw) ; 
δολιόω (LXX, from δόλιος); δυναμόω (LXX, 600]. and Byz., from 
δύναμις); ἐξουδενόω (often in LXX, but W. H. read ἐξουδενέω in 
Mk. 9:12, Plutarch even ἐξουδενίζω); θεμελιόω (LXX) is from 
θεμέλιον; καυσόω (from καῦσος, Disec., Galen); κεφαλιόω (Lob., ad 
Phryn., p. 95, κεφαλίζω, though not in any known Greek author) 
W. H. read in Mk. 12:4 with NBL as against κεφαλαιόω and it 
means ‘beat on the head’ (cf. κολαφίζω). So κολοβόω (from κόλοβος, 
Arist., Polyb., Diod.); vexpow (from νεκρός, Plut., Epict., M. Aur., 
inscriptions) ; κραταιόω (LXX, eccl.), from κρατύνω; capow (Artem., 
Apoll., Dysc.), from caipw (cdpos); σημειόω (from σημεῖον, Theoph., 
Polyb., LX X, Philo, Dion. Hal., etc.); σθενόω (Rhet. Gr.), from 
σθενέω (σθένος) ; χαριτόω (LXX, Jos., ecel.), from χάρις. Verbs in —dw 
do not always have the full causative idea,? a&6w=‘deem worthy’ 
and éixarow= ‘deem righteous.’ 

Verbs in --ἰζω do not necessarily represent repetition or inten- 
sity. They sometimes have a causative idea and then again lose 
even that distinctive note and supplant the older form of the 
word. Forms in -ifw are very common in modern Greek. Ῥαντίζω 
(LXX, Athen.), for instance, in the N. T. has displaced paivw, and 
βαπτίζω (since Plato) has nearly supplanted Barrw. These verbs 
come from many sorts of roots and are very frequent in the N. T., 
as the κοινή is lavish with them. The new formations in the κοινή 
appearing in the N. T. are as follows: aiperifw (from αἱρετός, LXX, 
inscriptions); αἰχμαλωτίζω (literary κοινή and LXX), from αἰχμά- 
λωτος; ἀναθεματίζω (LXX and inscriptions), from ἀνάθεμα; ἀνεμίζω 
(Jas. 1:6) is found in schol. on Hom. Od. 12, 336, the old form 
being ἀνεμόω; ἀτενίζω (from ἀτενής, Arist., Polyb., Jos.); δειγματίζω 
(from δεῖγμα) appears in apocryphal Acts of Peter and Paul; 
δογματίζω (from δόγμα) is in Diodorus and the LX X; éyyifw (from 
ἔγγύς, from Polyb. and Diod. on); ἐξ-υπνίζω (from ὕπνος, LXX, 
Plut.); Qearpitw (from θέατρον) in ecclesiastical and Byzantine 
writers, ἐκθεατρίζω being in Polybius; ἱματίζω (from ἱμάτιον) is 

1 Cf. Siitterlin, Zur Gesch. der Verba Denom., p. 95. mead: 


150 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


found in Serapeum papyrus 163 B.c.; ἰουδαΐζω (from ᾿Ιουδαῖος) is 
found in the LX X and Josephus and is formed like ἑλληνίζω and 
similar ethnic terms; καθαρίζω (classic καθαίρω, from καθαρός, LXX, 
Jos., inscriptions); κρυσταλλίζω (from κρύσταλλος, Rev. 21:11) is 
still “not found elsewhere” (Thayer); μυκτηρίζω (from μυκτήρ, ‘the 
nose’) is in the LX.X; ὀρθρίζω (from ὄρθρος) is in the LXX; πελεκίζω 
(from πέλεκυς) is common in literary κοινή; σκορπίζω (akin to σκορ- 
πίος, root skerp) is in LX-X and in literary κοινή, Attic form being 
σκεδάννυμι, old Ionic according to Phrynichus; σπλαγχνίζομαι (from 
σπλάγχνα, Heb. 2°71) occurs in LXX, Attic had an active 
σπλαγχνεύω; συμμορφίζω (from σύμμορφος) is the correct text in 
Ph. 3:10 against συμμορφόω (EKL), though neither word is known 
elsewhere, perhaps coined by Paul; φυλακίζω (from φυλακή) is in 
LXX and Byzantine writers. Of verbs in --ζω, yoyytfw (ono- 
matopoetic, like τονθρύζω of the cooing of doves) is in the LXX 
and the papyri. . 

Verbs in --νω are fairly common, like παροξύνω. Only one word 
calls for mention, σκληρύνω (from σκληρός), which takes the place 
of the rare σκληρόω and is found in LXX and Hippocrates. No 
new verbs in —aivw (like εὐφραίνω) appear in the N. T. Verbs in 
—oxw are, like the Latin verbs in —sco, generally either inchoative 
or causative. It is not a very common termination in the N. T., 
though εὑρίσκω, γινώσκω and διδάσκω occur very often, but these 
are not derivative verbs. In the N. T. the inchoative sense is 
greatly weakened. ‘The suffix belongs to the present and the im- 
perfect only. In modern Greek it has nearly disappeared save 
in the dialects! Γαμίσκω (accepted by W. H. in Lu. 20:34) 
rather than γαμίζω is causative (Arist. pol.); γηράσκω and μεθύσκω 
both come from the earlier Greek.? ᾿Ἐν-διδύτσκω occurs in the 
LXX, Jos., inscriptions. The new present στήκω (Mk. 11: 25) is 
made from the perfect stem ἕστηκα (στέκω in modern Greek). As 
in N. T., so in modern Greek desideratives in —ceiw, --σιάω drop 
out. The verbs in --άω 50] retained (ἀγαλλιάω, ἀροτρ-ιάω, θυμ-ιάω, 
κοπ-ιάω) have no desiderative meaning. Of these ἀγαλλιάω, for 
the old ἀγάλλομαι, is late κοινή; ἀροτριάω is from Theophr. on, 
κοπιάω 15 late in the sense of ‘toil.’ No new reduplicated verbs 
appear in the N. T. 

(b) SUBSTANTIVES. 

1. Primary or Primitive Substantives. Here the formative 
(stem-suffix) suffix is added to the root. It is important to seek the 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 302; Thumb, Handb., p. 133. 
2 Cf. Donaldson, New Crat., p. 615, for discussion of --σκω verbs. 


WORD-FORMATION [1 


meaning not only of the root, but of this formative suffix also 
when possible. The root has in most cases the strong form, as 
in Ndy(Aey)-o-s. These substantives are thus from the same root 
as the verb. With --μό-ς, --μή, expressing action, are formed in 
the old Greek words like θυ-μός, τι-μή. With —ua, denoting re- 
sult, we find ἀντ-από-δο-μα (LX X, old Greek ἀντ-από-δο-σις, from 
ἀντ-απο-δίδωμι) ; διά-στη-μα (from δι-ίστημι, Arist., Polyb., Philo); 
év-6u-ua (from é-diw, LXX, Strabo, Jos., Plut.); θέλη-μα (from 
θέλω, Arist. and LX X); κατά-κρι-μα (from κατα-κρίνω, Dion. Hal., 
pap.) ; κατά-λυ-μα (from κατα-λύτ-ω, literary κοινή for old κατ-αγωγεῖον, 
and with idea of place); κατά-στη-μα (καθ-ίστη-μι, Plut. and the 
LXX); κτίσ-μα (from κτίζω, Strabo, Dion. Hal.); πρόσ-κομ-μα (from 
προσ-κόπ-τω, in LXX and Plut.). The suffix --σι-ς, meaning action 
(abstract), appears in ἀνά-βλεψεις (Arist., LX X); ἀνά-δειξ-ις (from 
ἀνα-δείκ-νυ-μι, Plut., Diod., Strabo, Sirach); θέλητσις in Heb. 2 :4 
(from θέλω, a “vulgarism,” according to Pollux); κατά-νυξ-ις (from 
κατα-νύσστω, LXX); κατά-κρισις (from κατα-κρίνω, Vettius Valens, 
eccl.); πε-ποίθ-η-σις (from πέ-ποιθ-α, πείθω, Josephus and Philo, 
condemned by the Atticists) ; πρόσ-κλι-σις (from προσ-κλίντω, Polyb. 
and Diod.); πρόσ-χυ-σις (from προσ-χέτ-ω, Justin Martyr and later). 
The suffix --μονή is used with πεισ-μονή (from πείθω, Ignatius and 
later) and ἐπι-λησ-μονή (ἐπι-λανθ-άνω, ἐπι-λήσ-μων, Sirach). Σαγ-ήνη 
(LXX, Plut., Lucian) has suffix --ήνη (ef. -ονο, -ονη, ete.). δΔια- 
omop-& (δια-σπείρω, LXX, Plut.) and προσ-ευχ-ή (προσ-εύχ-ομαι, 
LXX, inscriptions) use the suffix --ὁ (—n). Cf. ἀπο-γραφ-ή (N. T., 
papyri), ἀπο-δοχή (inscriptions), βροχή (papyri), ἐμπλοκή (ἐμπλέκω, 
inscriptions), δια-ταγή (δια-τάσσω, papyri, inscriptions, later writ- 
ings). The agent is usually —rns (Blass, Gr., p. 62), not —rwp or 
—Tnp 85 in duwoxrys (from διώκω, earliest example) and 66-rns (from 
δί-δω-μι, classic dornp. But cf. σω-τήρ). See γνώστης (γι-νώσκω, 
LXX, Plut.), κτίσ-της (κτίζω, Arist., Plut., LX X), ἐπι-στά-της (only 
in Luke, ἐφίστημι). See further under compound words for more 
examples. In modern Greek --τῆς is preserved, but —rwp and rnp 
become —ropns, —rnpas. Jannaris, op. cit., p. 288; Thumb, Hand- 
book, Ὁ. 49. I pass by words in —evs, —unv, --ττρον, ete. 

2. Secondary or Derivative Substantives. Only important words 
not in common use in the older Greek can be mentioned. 

(a) Those from verbs. Words in --μός expressing action. From 
verbs in —afw come ἁγιασ-μός (ancient Greek ἁγίζω, but later form 
common in LXX and N. T.); ἁγνισ-μός (from ayvitw, Dion. Hal., 
LXX, Plut.); ἀπαρτισ-μός (Dion. Hal., Apoll. Dysc., papyri); 
ἁρπαγ-μός (ἁρπάζω is from root dpm, like Latin rapio. ‘Apray-pyds once 


152 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


in Plutarch, ἁρπαγή common from A‘schylus)!; γογγυσ-μός (from 
γογγύζω, Antonin.) ; ἐνταφιασ-μός (Plutarch and scholia to Eur. and 
Arist., ἐνταφιάζω) ; ἱματισ-μός (from ἱματίζω, LXX, Theophr.,Polyb., 
Diod., Plut., Athen.); πειρασ-μός (from πειράζω and common in 
the LXX). From verbs in -ifw we have βαπτισ-μός (Blass, Gr. of 
N. T. Gk., p. 62) used by Josephus of John’s baptism,” but not in 
the N. T. of the ordinance of baptism, save in Col. 2:12, in X° 
BD*FG 47, 67**, 71, a Western reading rejected by W. H.; 
ὀνειδισ-μός (Plutarch and Dion. Hal.); παροργισ-μός (not found 
earlier than LXX nor in κοινή writers, Dion. uses rapopyifw) ; πορισ- 
pos (Sap., Polyb., Jos., Plut., Test. XII Patr.); ῥαντισ-μός (LXX); 
σαββατισ-μός (Plut. and eccl. writers); σωφρονισ-μός (Jos., Plut., 
etc.); ψιθυρισ-μός (from ψιθυρίζξω, LXX, Clem. Rom., Plut., ono- 
matopoetic word for the hissing of the snake). The ending --μός 
survives in literary modern Greek. Cf. Jannaris, op. cit., p. 288. 
The tendency to make new words in --μός decreased. The modern 
Greek vernacular dropped it (Thumb, Handbook, p. 62). 

Abstract nouns in --σις are βίω-σις (in Sirach, from βιόω); ἀνα- 
καίνω-σις (ἀνα-καινότω, Htym. M. Herm.); ἀπάντη-σις (ἀπ-αντά-ω, 
LXX, Polyb., Diod., papyri); ἀπο-κάλυψις (LX X, Plut.); ἀπο-κατά- 
στα-σις (Polyb., Diod., papyri, ete.); ἀπο-στα-σία (LX X); ἐκξζήτητ-σις 
(ἐκ- ζητέω, true text in 1 Tim. 1:4, Basil Ces., Didym.); ἐν-δόμη-σις 
(from ἐνδομέω, Jos., also ἐνδώμησις); ἐπιπόθη-σις (LX X, from ém- 
ποθέω); ὑπ-άντη-σις (LXX, Jos., App.). Words in --σις, common 
in Hebrews, make few new formations in the later Greek. 
᾿Αγάπη begins to displace ἀγάπησις (LX X, inscription in Pisidia, 
and papyrus in Herculaneum). Abstract nouns in -εἰα (W. H. 
—ia) are chiefly from verbs in --εὐω as ἀρεσκεία (from ἀρεσκεύω, 
Polyb., Diod., papyri, and usually in bad sense); ἐπι-πόθεια (so 
W. H., not ἐπι-ποθία, in Ro. 15 : 23, from ἐπιποθέω, probably 
by analogy like ἐπιθυμία. Not found elsewhere). ’Epifeia (from 
ἐριθεύω, Arist. pol. The verb from ἔριθος, ‘working for hire’); 
ἱερατεία (from ἱερατεύω, Arist. pol., Dion. Hal., LX X, inscriptions) ; 
λογεία (—ia) is from doyebw (‘collect’) and is found in inscrip- 
tions, ostraca, papyri (see Deissmann, Light, p. 105); μεθοδεία 
(from μεθοδεύω, which occurs in the κοινή, from μέθοδος, but not 
the abstract noun). 


1 Rutherford, New Phryn., p. 407; Donaldson, New Crat., p. 451; Light- 
foot on Ph. 2 : 6. 

2 Ant. 18. 5, 2. Cf. Sturtevant, Stud. in Gk. Noun-Formation (Cl. Philol., 
vii, 4, 1912). For long list of derivative substantives in the Ptol. pap. see 
Mayser, Gr., pp. 416-447. 





WORD-FORMATION 158 


From ὀφείλω we have ὀφειλή (common in the papyri), ὀφείλημα 
(Plato, Arist., LXX). Words in —ya (result) are more common in 
the later Greek and gradually take an abstract idea of —ovs in 
modern Greek.! The new formations appearing in the N. T. are 
a-yvon-ua (O. T. Apoc., from ayvoéw); αἰτίω-μα (correct text in 
Ac. 25:7, and not airiaya, from airidouwa). Cf. αἰτίωσις in 
Eustathius, p. 1422, 21. This form as yet not found elsewhere) ; 
ἄντλημα (from ἀντλέω, Plut., what is drawn, and then strangely a 
thing to draw with, like ἀντλητήρ or ἀντλητήριον); ἀπ-αύγασ-μα 
(from ἀπαυγάζω, and this from ἀπό and αὐγή, in Wisdom and 
Philo); ἀπο-σκίασ-μα (from ἀποσκιάζω, and this from ἀπό and σκιά. 
Only in Jas. 1:17); ἀσθένη-μα (from ἀσθενέω, in physical sense in 
Arist. hist., papyri); βάπτισ-μα (from βαπτίζω, “peculiar to N. T. 
and ecclesiastical writers,’ Thayer). In βάπτισ-μα, as distinct 
from βαπτισ-μός, the result of the act is included (cf. Blass, Gr. 
of N. T. Gk., p. 62); ἐξέρα-μα (from ἐξεράω, in Dioscor., example of 
the verb, cf. Lob., ad Phryn., p. 64); ἥττη-μα (from ἡττάο-μαι, 
LXX, in ecclesiastical writers); ἱεράτευ-μα (from iepatebw, LX X); 
κατ-όρθω-μα (from κατ-ορθόω, literary κοινή, as Polyb., Diod., Strabo, 
Jos., Plut., Lucian and 3 Mace.); ῥάπισ-μα (from ῥαπίζω, An- 
tiph., Anthol., Lucian); στερέω-μα (from orepedw, Arist., LXX). 
Blass? calls attention to the fact that in the later Greek words in 
—ua, like those in --σις, —rns, —ros, often prefer stems with a short 
vowel, as δόμα (δόσις), θέμα (θέσις), though this form is already in 
the older Doric, κλίσμα, κρί-μα, πόμα (Attic πῶμα). Hence ἀνάθε-μα 
in N. T., though ἀνάθημα in Lu. 21:5 (W. H. acc. to BLQT, etc.), 
and in the papyri “nouns in —ya are constantly showing short 
penult.”? But ἀνάθεμα, like θέμα and δόμα, belongs to the list 
of primary substantives. 

Words in --τῆς (agent) are fairly numerous, like βαπτισ-τής (from 
βαπτίζω, Jos.); βιασ-τήῆς (from βιάζῳ. Pind., Pyth. and others use 
βιατάς) ; γογγυσ-τής (from γογγύζω, Theodotion and Symm. trans- 
lation of the LXX); ἑλληνισ-τής (from ἑλληνίζω, not in Greek 
authors, though ἑλληνίζω is, as in Xen., Anab., and Strabo, etc.) ; ἐξ- 
ορκισ-τής (from ἐξ-ορκίζω, Jos., Lucian, eccl. writers); εὐαγγελισ-τής 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 289. Thumb, Handb., p. 65. On frequency in 
LXX see C. and &., Sel. from LXX, p. 28. Cf. Frinkel, Griech. Denom., 1906. 

2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 62f. For same thing in LXX (ἀνάθεμα, πρόσθεμα, 
δόμα, etc.) see C. and S., Sel. from LXX, p. 28. 

3. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 108. He instances besides ἀνάθεμα in the 
sense of ‘curse,’ θέμα, ἐπίθεμα, πρόσθεμα, πρόδομα. On ἀνάθεμα, for exx. in 111/B.c. 
inscr., see Glaser, De Rat., quae interc. inter serm. Polyb. etc., 1894, p. 82. 


154 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(from εὐαγγελίζω, eccl. writers) ; κερματισ-τῆς (from κερματίζω, Nicet., 
Max. Tyr.); κολλυβισ-τής (found in Men. and Lys.) has no verb 
κολλυβίζω, but only κόλλυβος, a small coin; λυτρω-τῆς (from λυτρόω, 
LXX and Philo); μερισ-τής (from μερίζω, Pollux); προσ-κυνη-τῆς 
(from προσκυνξω, inscriptions, eccl. and Byz.); στασιασ-τής (from 
στασιάζω, Diod., Dion. Hal., Jos., Ptol.); τελειω-τής (from τελειόω, 
only in Heb. 12 : 2). 

A few late words in --τήρ-ιον (from —7np and —.ov) occur as ἀκροα- 
τήριον (from ἀκροάομαι, Plut. and other κοινή writers) where 
-τήριον means ‘place’; ἱλασ-τήριον (from ἱλάσκομαι, LXX, inscrip- 
tions, papyri, Dio Chrys.) is a substantive in the N. T., made 
probably from the adjective ἱλαστήριος (cf. σωτήριος) and means 
‘propitiatory gift’ or ‘means of propitiation’ and does not allude 
to the mercy seat! or covering. However, in Heb. 9:5 ἱλαστήριον 
does have the meaning of ‘place of propitiation’ or ‘mercy seat’ 
(cf. θυμια-τήριον). Deissmann passed this passage by, though he is 
correct in Ro. 3:25. Cf. φυλακτήριον. | 

(8) Those from substantives. Several words expressing place 
are formed after the fashion of the older Greek as ἀφεδρών (prob- 
ably from the Macedonian ἄφεδρος, and that from ἕδρα and ἀπό) 
which may be compared with κοπρών; βραβεῖον (from βραβεύς, Me- 
nand. Mon., Opp., Lycoph., Clem. Rom.); ἐλαιών (from ἔλαιον, 
like ἀμπελ-ών from ἄμπελος, in the LXX, Jos., inscriptions and 
papyri),? with which compare μυλών (—Gvos) in Mt. 24:41 accord- 
ing to DHM and most cursives instead of μύλοςς Moulton (The 
Expositor, 1903, p. 111) has found φοικών (—Gvos), ‘palm-grove,’ in 
A. P. 31 (112 B.c.). Εἰδωλεῖον (--ιον W. H.), found first in 1 Mace. 
and 1 Esd., is formed after the analogy of μουσε-ῖο-ν. 'Τελώνιον 
(from τελώνης) is found in Strabo. Τετράδιον (Philo) is from τετράς, 
the usual guard in the prisons. Several new words in —7ns (qual- 
ity) appear, as ἀδελφό-της (from ἀδελφός, 1 Macc., 4 Macc., Dio 
Chrys., eccl. writers); θεό-της (from θεός, Lucian, Plut.); κυριό-της 


1 See Deiss., B. S., p. 191 f., where a lucid and conclusive discussion of the 
controversy over this word is given. See also Zeitschr. fiir neutest. Wiss., 4 
(1903); p. 193. 

2 Blass is unduly sceptical (Gr., p. 04). Deiss. (B. S., p. 208 f.) finds nine 
examples of ἐλαιών ΞΞ ‘place of olives’ or ‘olive orchard’ in vol. I of the Ber. 
Pap., and Moulton (Exp., 1903, p. 111; Prol., p. 49) has discovered over 
thirty in the first three centuries a.p. In Ac. 1:12 it is read by all MSS. 
and is correct in Lu. 19:29 (ag. W. H.) and 21:37 (ag. W. H.). ᾿Ελαιῶν is 
right in Lu. 19:37, etc. In Lu. 19: 29; 21: 37, question of accent. Cf. 
also ἀμπελών (from ἄμπελος, LXX, Diod., Plut.) which is now found in 
the pap. 


WORD-FORMATION 155 


(from κύριος, originally adj., eccl. and Byz. writers). Συρο-φοινίκισσα 
is the text of NAKL, etc., in Mk. 7: 26 as against Lipa Φοινίκισσα 
in BEFG, etc. In either case φοινίκισσα, not φοίνισσα (Text. 
Rec.) which is the usual feminine of φοίνιξ, as Κίλισσα is of 
Κίλιξ. Lucian has a masculine Συροφοίνιξ and Justin Martyr a 
feminine Συροφοινίκη. From this last φοινίκισσα probably comes. 
Cf. the use of βασίλισσα, the Atticists preferring βασιλίς or 
βασίλεια. 

Ἡρῳδιανός (from Ἡρῴδης) and Χριστ-ιανός (from Χριστός) first 
appear in the Ν. T., and are modelled after Latin patronymics 
like Caesarianus (Καισαρ-ιανός, Arrian-Epictetus). Blass! goes un- 
necessarily far in saying that the N. T. form was Χρηστ-ιανός 
(from Χρηστός), though, of course, « and 7 at this time had little, 
if any, distinction in pronunciation. Μεγιστάν is from μέγιστος 
(as νεάν from νέος). Cf. Latin megistanes. Μεγιστάν is found in 
LXX, Jos., Maneth. Πλημμύρα (LXX, Dion. Hal., Jos., Philo) is 
from πλήμμη. There was, of course, no “Christian” or ‘biblical’ 
way of forming words. 

Diminutives are not so common in the N. T. as in the Byzan- 
tine and modern Greek? where diminutives are very numerous, 
losing often their original force. Βιβλαρίδιον (a new form, but 
compare λιθαρίδιον) is read in Rev. 10:2 by NACP against 
βιβλιδάριον (fragment of Aristoph.) according to C* and most of 
the cursives and βιβλίον (by B). Variations occur also in the text 
of verses 8,9, 10. Τυναικάριον (from γυνή) is used contemptuously 
in 2 Tim. 3:6 (also in Antonin. and Epict.). Ἰχθύδιον (from 
ἰχθύς), κλινίδιον and κλινάριον (from κλίνη) occur from Aristoph. on. 
Κοράσιον (from κόρη, called Maced. by Blass) is used disparagingly 
in Diog. Laert. and Lucian, but in LX X and Epict. as in the N. T. 
that is not true, though it hardly has the endearing sense (some- 
times found in the diminutive) in κυνάριον (kives=‘street-dogs’), 
but that sense appears often in παιδίον as in Jo. 21:5. ᾿Ονάριον 
(from ὄνος) is found in Machon and Epictetus. ᾿Οψάριον (from 
ὄψον) is found in Alexis and Lucian, and ὀψώνιον (likewise from 
ὄψον) is used by Dion., Polyb., Jos., Apocrypha and papyri. Πτε- 


1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 63. Cf. Lipsius, Ursp. des Christennamens, 1873. 
W.-Sch. (p. 1385) suggests that these two words are not after the Lat. model, 
but after the type of ᾿Ασιανός, which was foreign to the European Greeks. 
But ’Actavés (from ’Acia) is in Thucyd. and besides is not parallel to Χριστός, 
Χριστ-ιανός. Cf. Eckinger, Die Orthog. lat. Worter in griech. Inschr., 1898, 
Ῥ 7: 

2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 292; Thumb, Handb., p. 62. 


156 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ρύγιον (from πτέρυξ) comes from Arist. down, but ψιχίον (from 
Wit) does not appear elsewhere. Both ὠτάριον (Anthol., Anax.) and 
ὠτίον (LUX X) are from οὖς, but have lost the diminutive idea, just 
as μάτι in modern Greek means merely ‘eye’ (ὀμμάτιον). Blass! 
indeed accuses Luke of atticising when he uses οὖς in Lu. 22 : 50. 

(vy) Those from adjectives. The new substantives derived from 
adjectives in the later Greek found in the N. T. all have suffixes 
expressing quality. With —ia we find ἀπο-τομ-ία (from ἀπό-τομος, 
Diod., Dion., pap.); ἐλαφρία (from ἐλαφρός, cf. Lob., ad Phryn., 
p. 343. Cf. αἰσχρ-ία from αἰσχρός, Kust.); παραφρον-ία (from παρά- - 
φρων. Greek writers use παραφρο-σύνη, but cf. εὐδαιμον-ία from εὐ- 
δαίμων). So περισσεία (from περισσός, LX X, inscriptions, Byz.). 
W. H. use the ending -ia with κακοπάθε-ια (from κακοπαθή5). 
With --σύνη several new words occur from adjectives in --ος 
with the lengthening of the preceding vowel, as ἀγαθω-σύνη (from 
ἀγαθός, eccl.); ἁγιω-σύνη (from ἅγιος, not in earlier Greek writers); 
μεγαλω-σύνη (from stem μεγάλο of μέγας, LX X and eccl.). These 
forms are like ἱερω-σύνη from ἱερός (also in N. T.) which is as old as 
Herod. and Plato. Still μεγαλο-σύνη and ἱερο-σύνη are both found 
in inscriptions or in Glycas.2. Most of the words in --σύνη belong 
to the later language. ᾿Ελεημο-σύνη (from ἐλεήμων, Callim. in Del., 
Diog. Laert., LX-X), like other words in --σύνη, loses the ν. So 
ταπεινο-φρο-σύνη (Jos., Epict.). 

Rather more numerous are the new words in —77s,* as ἁγιό-της 
(from ἅγιος, 2 Mace.); ἁγνό-της (from ἁγνός, inscriptions); ἀδηλό- 
τῆς (from ἄδηλος, Polyb., Dion. Hal., Philo); ἀφελό-της (from 
ἀφελής, eccl. writers, ancient Greek ἀφέλεια) ; γυμνό-της (from γυμ- 
vos, Deut., Antonin.); ματαιό-της (from μάταιος, LXX and 600]. 
writers); μεγαλειό-της (from peyadetos, Athen., Jer.); πιό-της (from 
πίων, Arist., Theophr., LXX). ᾿Ακαθάρ-της (Rev. 17:4) is not 
supported by any Greek MSS. 

The neuter (and often the masculine and feminine) of any ad- 
jective can be used as a substantive with or without the article, as 
τὸ δοκίμιον (from δοκίμιος, Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 259 f., Dion. 
Hal., Long., LX X, papyri). Like μεθόριον (the Syrian reading for 
ὅρια in Mk. 7: 24) is προσφάγιον (προσ-φάγιος, —ov from προσ-φα- 


τ ΟΝ Ὁ" Gig, ρΡ 05. 

2 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 124, n. 14. On the termination --σύνη see Aufrecht, Ber. 
Zeitschr. fiir vergl. Sprachf., 6. Heft. 

5 - Nis VS 

4 On words in -τῆς see Lob. ad Phryn., p. 350; Buhler, Das griech. Secun- 
darsuffix rns, 1858; Friinkel, Gesch. d. Gr. Nom. Ag. (1910). 





WORD-FORMATION 157 


γεῖν, inscriptions) ,opay.ov (σφάγιος, --ον, from σφαγή, Am., Ezek.) , ὑπο- 
λήνιον (ὑπολήνιος, —ov, from ὑπὸ Anvov, Demiopr. in Poll., Geop., LX X. 
Cf. ὑπο-ζὑγιον). As already seen, ἱλασ-τήριον is probably the neuter 
of the adjective ἱλασ-τήριος, —a, —ov (from ἱλάσκομαι). So φυλακ- 
τήριον is the neuter of the adjective φυλακ-τήριος, —a, —ov (from 
φυλακτήρ, φυλάσσω, Dem., Diosc., Plut., LXX).1 Σωτήριον and 
σωτηρία (from σωτήριος) are both common in the old Greek as 
is the case with tep-Gov (from ὑπερῷος, —wios). Zevx-rnpia (from 
ζευκ-τήριος, only in Ac. 27:40) reverts to the abstract form in --ἰα. 
(0) ADJECTIVES. 

1. Primary or Primitive Adjectives. These, of course, come 
from verbal roots. ‘Ayapr-wdds (from root ἁμαρτ-άνω, Arist., 
Plut., LXX, inscriptions) is like φείδτωλος (4 Mace. 2: 9), from 
᾿ς geld-ouar. Πειθ-ός (W. H. πιθ-ὀς from πείθω, as φειδ-ός from φείδομαι) 
is not yet found elsewhere than in 1 Cor. 2:4, but Blass? regards 
it as “a patent corruption,” πειθοῖς for πειθοῦ. The evidence is 
in favour of πειθοῖς (all the uncials, most cursives and versions). 
Payos (from root day—) is a substantive in the N. T. with paroxy- 
tone accent as in the grammarians, the adjective being ¢ay-és. 
The other new adjectives from roots in the N. T. are verbals in 
-ros. There is only one verbal (gerundive) in —réos (Lu. 5: 38, 
elsewhere only in Basil), and that is neuter (βλητέον), “a survival 
of the literary language in Luke.”* The sense of capability or 
possibility is only presented by the verbal παθη-τός (from root 
παθ--, πάσχω, eccl. writers). But the weakened sense of the verbal 
in —ros, more like an ordinary adjective, is very common in the 
later τοῖς But they are rare in the modern Greek (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 151). These verbals correspond to the Latin participle 
in —tus,> like yrwords, or to adjectives in —bilis, like épatés. They 
are common in the N. T., though not many new formations 
appear. They are usually passive like γραπ-τός (from γράφω, 
Georg. apol., LXX), though προσ-ήλυ-τος (προσ-ἔρχτ-ομαι, root 
πηλυθ-- , LX X, Philo) is active in sense. The ancient form was 


1 This termination became rather common in the later Gk., as, for instance, 
in ἀνακαλυπτήριον, δεητήριον, θανατήριον, ἰαματήριον. See also Stratton, Chap- 
ters in the Hist. of Gk. Noun-Formation, 1889. 

ἀπ τ of N: T. Gk., p. 64. So,W.-Sch., p. 135. 

§ Viteau, Ess. sur la Synt. des Voix, Rev. de Philol., p. 38. 

4 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 297. ‘Exév also is wholly adjective and μέλλων 
sometimes so. Cf. Brugmann, Grundr. d. vergl. Gr., p. 429. 

5 W.-M., p. 120. Cf. Viteau, Ess. sur le Synt. de Voix, Rev. de Philol., 
ΠΡ. 41. For deriv. adj. in the Ptol. pap. see Mayser, Gr., pp. 447-455. 


158 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ἔπηλυς. A number of new verbals were formed on compound 
words which will be discussed later. For the syntactical aspects 
of the verbal adjectives see discussion of the participle (cf. Moul- 
ton, Prolegomena, p. 221). 

2. Secondary or Derwative Adjectives. 

(a) Those from verbs. Σιτισ-τός (from σιτίζω, Jos., Athen.) is 
to be mentioned. It is equivalent to the Latin saginatus and is 
passive in meaning. 

(8) Those from substantives. Some new words in —wos occur 
as ἀμαράντινος (from ἀμάραντος, Philost., inscriptions); καθημερ-ινός 
(from καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, Athen., Plut., Jos.) is for ancient καθημέριος; 
κόκκ-ινος is from κόκκος (LXX, Plut., Epict., papyri); ὀρθρ-ινός (from 
ὄρθρος, LX X, older form ὄρθριος), with which compare ἑσπερ-ινός 
(from ἑσπέρα, from Xen. on) in the minusc. 1, 118, 209 (Lu. 12: 88); 
πρωινός (so W. H., from πρωΐ, for the older πρώιος, LXX, Plut., 
Athen., etc.); πύρ-ινος (from πῦρ, Arist., LXX, Polyb., Plut.); 
ταχινός (from τάχα) from Theocritus on (LXX also). 

There are several words in --ἰκός, like ἐθνικός (from ἔθνος, Polyb., 
Diod.); κεραμ-ικός (from κέραμος, Hipp., Plat. pol., LXX) which 
supplanted the earlier κεράμιος, Kepapeods; κυρι-ακός (from κύριος, 
—axds instead of --ικός after 1, 600]. writers) is found in papyri of 
Faytm and in inscriptions of Phrygia and Lydia.’ So λειτουργι- 
κός (from λειτουργία, LX X, papyri) and ὀνικός (from ὄνος, in a con- 
tract in the Fayim Papyri dated Feb. 8, a.p. 33). 

Of special interest are several words in —.vos and --ἰκός. ᾿Οστράκ- 
wos (from ὄστρακαν, Hipp., Anthol., LXX), ‘made of clay,’ 
‘earthen’; σάρκ-ινος (from σάρξ, Aristoph., Plato, Arist.) is thus 
not a new word, but is used in Heb. 7:16 and by Paul in 1 Cor. 
3:1; Ro. 7:14 (correct text in each instance), where many 
MSS. have σαρκ-ικός. Indeed σάρκινος in these two passages must 
mean more than made of flesh or consisting in flesh, perhaps 
“rooted in the flesh” (Thayer).? Cf. relation of ἀληθ-ινός to ἀλη- 
θές. Still a real distinction seems to be observed between σάρκ- 
wos and σαρκ-ικός in 1 Cor. 8:1 and 3:3. Σαρκ-ικός (from σάρξ, 
Arist., Plut., LXX) is a man who lives according to the flesh 
and is here opposed to those who are πνευματ-ικοί (from πνεῦμα, 
from Arist. down, but not in LXX, pertaining to the wind). 
But ὁ ψυχ-ικός (from ψυχή, Arist., Polyb., down) is the man pos- 

1 Deiss., B. S., p. 217 f.; Liget, p. 361; Thieme, Die Inschr. v. M., p. 15. 

2 See comm. in loco. W.-M. (p. 128) held that σάρκινος was ‘“‘hardly to be 


tolerated” in Heb. 7 : 16, but Schmiedel (p. 139) has modified that statement. 
Cf. on -πἰνος, Donaldson, New Crat., p. 458. 


WORD-FORMATION 159 


sessed of mere natural life (1 Cor. 2 : 14) as opposed to regenerate 
(πνευματ-ικός) life (1 Cor. 2:15). Σαρκ-ικός can be applied to either 
of these two distinct classes.) But in 1 Cor. 3:3 ἔτι γὰρ σαρκικοί 
éore Paul reproaches the Corinthians. Proper names also have 
-ικός, aS "EGpa-ixos. Note accent in Τυχ-ικός. ‘Pwya-ixos (from 
Ῥώμη) is read in Lu. 23:38 by the Western and Syrian MSS., 
common in the literary κοινή (Polyb., Diod., ete.). 

Αἰώνιος, though found in Plato and Diod., is not a common 
adjective. But cf. LXX, O. T. Apoc., Philo, inscriptions, papyri. 
Cf. Moulton and Milligan, Hapositor, 1908, p. 174. Aoximos 
is from δοκιμή (Dion. Hal., Long., LX X, papyri). Μίσθιος is 
from μισθός (LX X, Plut.), while Ῥωμαῖος is common in the lit- 
erary κοινή. Μελίσσιος (from μέλισσα, like θαλάσσιος from θάλασσα) 
is read by the Syrian class of documents in Lu. 24:42. The 
word occurs nowhere else, though Nic. has μελισσαῖος and 
Eustath. μελίσσειος. 

(y) Those from adjectives. There are only a few new adjectives 
of this character, but they present special difficulties. About 
ἐπιούσιος (found only in Mt. 6:11 and Lu. 11:3 and used with 
ἄρτος) there has raged a long controversy. It has been derived 
successively from ἐπί and οὐσία, ‘bread for sustenance,’ though 
οὐσία only has the sense of ὕπαρξις in philosophical language (an- 
other theory, ‘bread of substance’ in the spiritual sense); from ἐπί 
and dp (ἐπόντιος, ἐπούσιος, like ἑκών, ἑκούσιος, etc.), ‘bread for the 
present,’ though the c in ἐπί is not allowed to remain with a vowel 
save when a digamma existed as in ἐπιεικής ; from ἐπ-ιών (ἔπ-ειμι, 
‘approach’), like ἡ ἐπιοῦσα (ἡμέρα), ‘the next day’ (Ac. 16:11), this 
last acommon idiom. Lightfoot? has settled the matter in favour 
of the last position. See also ἤρεμος (from ἠρεμής, adv. ἠρέμα, 
Lucian, Eustath., Hesych); νεωτερικός (from νεώτερος, ὃ Mace., 
Polyb., Jos.). In περιούσιος (from περι-ὠν, περίειμι, LXX) no seri- 
ous problem in etymology arises, for περί retains the c in composi- 
tion with vowels. It is used with λαός, to express the idea that 
Israel belongs to God as his very own. Πιστ-ικός (from πιστός, 


1 See Trench, N. T. Synon., 1890, pp. 268 ff. 

2 See Rev. of the N. T., pp. 194-234. Deiss., B. S., p. 214, calls attention 
to Grimm’s comment on 2 Mace. 1:8 about τοὺς ἐπιουσίους being added to rods 
ἄρτους by ‘three codices Sergii.””? Cf. W.-Sch., p. 136 f., n. 23, for full details. 
Cf. Bischoff, ᾿Επιούσιος, p. 266, Neutest. Wiss., 1906. Debrunner (Glotta, IV. 
Bd., 3. Heft, 1912) argues for ἐπὲ τὴν οὖσαν ἡμέραν, ‘for the day in question.’ 

3. Cf. Lightfoot, Rev. of the N. T., pp. 234-242, for full discussion of 


περιούσιος. 


160 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Plato, Diog., Dion. Hal., in sense of persuading, but Artem., 
Cedrenus and other late writers in sense of ‘genuine’) is hardly 
to be derived from πιπίσκω or πίω and hence= ‘drinkable.’ 
‘Genuine nard’ is a much more probable meaning. For curious 
details see Winer-Schmiedel, p. 188, n. 24. Ποταπός is from the 
older ποδαπός and occurs in Dion. Hal., Philo, Jos., papyri. 

(δ) Those from adverbs. From ἄνω come ἀνώτερος (Polyb., LXX, 
' Arist.) and ἀνω-τερικός (Hippoc., Galen); é&w-repos (LX-X, Strabo, 
etc.). See also éow-repos (only N. T.); xarw-repos (Theoc., Hippoc., 
Athen.). Cf. Hagen, Bildung d. griech. Adverbien. 

(ἃ) THe Apvers. The adverb φειδομένως (from the participle 
φειδόμενος, Plut., Mosch., Alex.) is a new word of this nature. Cf. 
ὁμολογουμένως in the older Greek. So τυχόν, ὄντως and ὑπερβαλλόν- 
τως. The neuter accusative singular and plural of adjectives con- 
tinue to be used adverbially. Βαθέως occurs also in Theoc. and 
Ailian. ᾿Ακμήν (Theoc., Polyb., Strabo) is in the inscriptions also 
as well as ἐν ἀκμᾶι (cf. Ditt., Syll. 326, 12). Ἑβραϊστί (Sirach) is 
properly formed (cf. Ἑλληνιστί) from’EBpais. ᾿Ἰουδαϊκῶς is in Jos. 
See also ἐθνικῶς (Apoll. Dyse., Diog. Laert.). Εἶτεν (correct text 
Mk. 4 : 28) is arare Ionic form for εἶτα (papyri also). Κενῶς 
is used from Arist. on. ᾿Ολίγως occurs out of the N. T. only in 
Anthol. and Aquila. Πρώτως (correct text Ac. 11:26) occurs here 
for the first time. Ῥητῶς is found in Polyb., Strabo, Plut. 
‘Pwuatort is common in the literary κοινή (Plut., App., etc.) and 
in Epictetus. Σωματικῶς comes from Aristotle and Plutarch. 
Τυπικῶς is in the ecclesiastical writers. Φυσικῶς is in Aristotle, 
Philo, etc. Mayser (Gr., pp. 455-459) has a good list of deriva- 
tive adverbs. See ch. VII for full discussion of the formation 
of the adverb. 

IV. Words Formed by Composition (Composita). The Greek 
in the Ptolemaic papyri is not equal to modern German in the 
facility with which agglutinative compound words (διπλᾶ Aris- 
totle termed them) are formed, but it is a good second. The N. T. 
writers make use of many of the new compounds (some new 
kinds also), but not more than the literary κοινή, though more than 
the Atticists or Purists.1 The following lists will show how fond 
the N. T. is of double prepositional compounds like ἀντ-ανα-πληρόω, 
ἀπο-κατ-αλλάσσω, ἐπι-συν-άγω, συν-αντι-λαμβάνομαι, etc. So also com- 
pound prepositional adverbs like ἐνώπιον, κατενώπιον, κατέναντι, ete. 
On the whole subject of compound words in the Ptolemaic papyri 
see Mayser, Gr., pp. 466-506. Compound words played an in- 

j 1 Schmid, Der Atticismus, Bd. IV, p. 730. 


WORD-FORMATION 161 


creasing τόθ in the κοινή. Cf. Jannaris, op. cit., Ὁ. 310. See in 
particular F. Schubert, Zur mehrfachen prdfixalen Zusammen- 
setzung 1m Griechischen, Xenia Austriaca, 1893, pp. 191 ff. 

(a) Kinps oF ComMPouND WorDS IN GREEK: proper composition 
(σύνθεσις), copulative composition (παράθεσις), derivative composi- 
tion (rapacivOects). In the first class the principal idea is ex- 
pressed by the second part of the word, while the first and 
qualifying part is not inflected, but coalesces with the second, 
using merely the stem with connective vowel. As an example 
take oixo-vouos, ‘manager of the house.’ The second kind of 
composition, paratactic or copulative, is the mere union of two 
independent words like παρά-κλητος. It is not common in the 
old Greek save in the case of prepositions with verbs, and even 
this usage is far more frequent in the later Greek. It is seen in 
many late compound adverbs as in ὑπερτάνω. The third or deriv- 
ative composition is a new word made on a compound, whether 
proper or copulative, as εἰδωλο-λατρία (or —eia) from εἰδωλο-λατρεύω. 
The above classification is a true grammatical distinction, but it 
will be more serviceable to follow a more practical division of the 
compound words into two classes. Modern linguists do not like 
the term ‘‘proper composition.” In principle it is the same as 
copulative. 

(Ὁ) INSEPARABLE PREFIxES. These make a cross-line in the 
study of compound words. They enter into the formation of 
verbs, substantives, adjectives and adverbs. By prefixes here is 
not meant the adverbs and prepositions so commonly used in 
composition, but the inseparable particles ἀ-- (ἀν-) privative, ἀ-- 
collective or intensive, ἀρχι--, δυσ--, ἡμι--, νη--- As examples of such 
new formations in the N. T. may be taken the following substan- 
tives and adjectives (chiefly verbals) with ἀ-- privative: ἀ-βαρής 
(from Arist. down, papyri, in metaphysical sense); ἀ-γενεα-λόγητος 
(LXX); a-yvados (Thom. Mag.); a-yvonua (O. T. Apoc., papyri); 
ἀγρι-ἔλαιος (Arist., papyri); d-yvoew (Apoc., papyri); ἀ-δηλότης 
(Polyb., Dion. Hal., Philo); ἀ-διά-κριτος (from Hippocrates down) ; 
ἀ-διά-λειπτος (Tim. Locr., Attic inscriptions, 1/B.c.); ἀ-διατ-φθορία 
(not in ancient Greek); ἀ-δυνατέω (LXX, ancient Greek means 
‘to be weak’); ἀ-θέμιτος (for earlier ἀ-θέμιστος); ἄτθεσμος (LXX, 
Diod., Philo, Jos., Plut.); ἀτθετέω (LX X, Polyb.); ἀ-καιρέω (Diod.) ; 
ἀ-θέτησις (Diog. Laert., eccl. writers, papyri); ἀ-κατά-γνωστος 
(2 Mace., eccl. writers, inscriptions, papyri); ἀ-κατα-κάλυπτος 

(Polyb., LXX, Philo); ἀ-κατά-κριτος (earliest example); ἀ-κατά- 
Autos (4 Mace., Dion. Hal.); ἀ-κατά-παστος (found only here. 


162 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


This is the reading of AB in 2 Pet. 2:14 rather than 4-xara- 
παυστος, verbal of καταπαύω, found in Polyb., Diod., Jos., Plut., 
οἵ. W. H., App., p. 170; Moulton, Prol., p. 47); ἀ-κατα-στασία 
(Polyb., Dion. Hal., papyri); ἀ-κατά-στατος (Hippoc., Polyb., 
LXX); ἀ-κατά-σχετος (LX X, Diod.); ἀ-κυρόω (Diod., Dion. Hal., 
Plut., 1 Esdr.); ἀ-λάλητος (Anth. Pal.); ἀ-μέθυστος (LX X, Dion. 
Hal., Plut.); ἀ-μετά-θετος (Polyb., LX X, Diod., Plut., inscriptions) ; 
ἀ-μετα-νόητος (Lucian, Philo, papyri); ἀν-αντί-ρητος (from Polyb. 
down, inscriptions); ἀνταπο-λόγητος (Polyb., Dion. Hal., Plut.); 
ἀν-εκ-δι-ήγητος (Clem. Rom., Athen.); ἀν-ἐκ-λειπτος (Diod., Plut., 
papyri); av-év-bexros (Artem., Diog. Laert., eccl., Byz.); ἀν-εξ- 
ερεύνητος (LX X, Symm., Dio Cass.); av-ef-txviacros (LXX, 600]. 
writers); ἀν-επ-αίσχυντος (Jos.); dv-eb-Oeros (Moschion); ἀν-ίλεως 
(reading in Jas. 2: 13 of L, other MSS. have dv-éXeos, old Greek 
ἀν-ηλεής); ἄ-νομος (LX X, ἀ-νομία from Thuc.); ἀν-υπό-τακτος (Artem., 
Philo); ἀ-παρά-βατος (Jos., Plut., papyri, etc.); ἀ-πείραστος (Jos., 
ecel., old Greek ἀ-πείρατος); ἀ-περί-τμητος (LXX, Philo, Plut.); 
ἀ-πρόσ-ιτος (lit. κοινή); ἀ-πρόσ-κοπος (Sir., Sext., inscriptions); ἄτραφος 
(LXX, Jos.); ἄ-σπιλος (Anthol., eccl.); ἀ-στατέω (Anthol.); ἀ-στοχέω 
(Polyb., Plut., Lucian, papyri); ἀ-στήρικτος (Anthol.); ἀ-φελότης 
(eccl. writers); ἄτφθαρτος (Arist., Wisd., Plut., inscriptions); ἀτ-φιλὰ- 
ayabos (papyri and 2 Tim. 3:3); ἀ-φιλ-τάργυρος (Diod., Hippoc., 
inscriptions, papyri).! 

With ἀρχι-- (from ἄρχω) we have ἀρχ-άγγελος (eccl.); ἀρχ-ιερα- 
τικός (inscr., Jos.); ἀρχ-ιερεύς (LXX, inscr.); ἀρχι-ποιμήν (Test. 
of 12 Patr., wooden tablet from Egypt, Deissmann, Exp. Times, 
1906, p. 61); ἀρχι-συν-ἀγωγος (inser., eccl.); ἀρχι-τελώνης (only in 
Lu. 19:2); ἀρχι-τρί-κλινος (Heliod., ef. συμποσι-άρχης in Sirach). 
Cf. ἀρχι-φυλακίτης, P.Tb. 40 (B.c. 117), ἀρχι-δεσμο-φύλαξ (LXX). 

With ἀ-- connective or intensive are formed ἀ-νεψιός (for ἀ-νεπ- 
τιός, LXX, οἵ. Lat. con-nepot-ius), ἀ-τενίζω (Polyb., Diod., Jos., 
Lucian) 2 

With dvo— we have δυσ-βάστακτος (LXX, Philo, Plut.); δυσ- 
εντέριον (late form, correct text in Ac. 28:8, older form δυσ-εντερία); 


1 Cf. Hamilton, The Neg. Comp. in Gk., 1899. “The true sphere of the 
negative prefix is its combination with nouns, adjectives and verbal stems 
to form adjective compounds” (p. 17). Cf. also Margarete Heine, Subst. 
mit a privativum. Wack. (Verm. Beitr. zur griech. Sprachk., 1897, p. 4) 
suggests that ἄδης is from dei and —ée, not from ἀ-- and ἰδεῖν. Ingenious! Cf. 
Wack. again, Das Dehnungsgesetz der griech. Composita, 1889. 

2 Cf. on ἀ-- connective or intensive, Don., New Crat., p. 397. Also Déder- 
lein, De ἄλφα intenso, 1830. 








WORD-FORMATION 163 


δυσ-ερμήνευτος (Diod., Philo, Artem.); δυσ-νόητος (Arist. Diog. 
Laert.); δυστφημία (LXX, Dion. Hal., Plut.). 

With ἡμι-- (cf. Lat. semz) are found only ἡμι-θανής (Dion. Hall., 
Diod., LX-X, Strabo), ἡμίτωρον (so W. H., Strabo, Geop., NP have 
—wpiov). Cf. ἥμισυς. 

For vy— note νηπιάζω (Hippoc., eccl.). 

(c) AGGLUTINATIVE CompouNnps (Juctaposition or Parathesis). 
This sort of composition includes the prepositions and the cop- 
—ulative composition (dvandva). This last is much more com- 
mon in the κοινή than in the older Greek. Cf. Jannaris, op. cit., 
p..310, and Mayser, Gr., p. 469. 

1. Verbs. The new compound verbs are made either from 
compound substantives or adjectives or by combining adverbs 
with a verb-stem or noun-stem or by adding a preposition to the 
older verb. This last method is very frequent in the later Greek 
due to “a love for what is vivid and expressive.”! This embel- 
lishment of the speech by compounds is not absent from the sim- 
plest speech, as Blass? shows in the case of Titus, where over thirty 
striking compound words are found, omitting verbals and other 
common ones. Moulton (Cl. Quarterly, April, 1908, p. 140) shows 
from the papyri that the compound verb is no mark of the literary 
style, but is common in the vernacular also. The preposition fills 
out the picture as in ἀντι-μετρέω (Lucian), and so ἀντι-λαμβάνω 
(Diod., Dio Cass., LX X). So also observe the realistic form of 
the preposition in é£-acrparrw (LXX, Tryphiod.) in Lu. 9 : 29; 
κατα-λιθάζω (6001. writings) in Lu. 20:6. The modern Greek 
even combines two verbs to make a compound, as παιζω-γελῶ. 
As examples of new compound verbs may be given ἀγαθουργέω, 
ἀγαθοεργέω, in 1 Tim. 6: 18 (eccl.); ἀγαθο-ποιέω (LXX, later writers) ; 
ἀλλ-ηγορέω (Philo, Jos., Plut., grammatical writers); ava-faw (in- 
scriptions, later writers); dva-Qewp-ew (Diod., Plut., Lucian); ἀνα- 
στατότω (LXX, papyri); av-erafw (LXX, papyri); ἀντι-δια-τίθημι 


1 W.-M., p. 127. Cf. Winer, De Verb. cum Praep. compos. in N. T. usu, 
1834-43. 

2 Gr. of Ν. T. Gk., p. 70. Mostly adj., but ze0-apxetv occurs in the list. 
Blass, ib., p. 65, even thinks that it is not the province of grammar to discuss 
the numerous compounds with prepositions. It belongs to the lexicon. The 
lists that I give are not complete for prepositional compounds because of lack 
of space. See Helbing (Gr. d. Sept., pp. 128-1386) for good list of compound 
verbs in the LXX. Mayser (Gr., pp. 486-506) gives list of compound verbs 
in the Ptol. pap. The κοινή is fond of compound verbs made of noun and 
verb. Cf. εἰ ἐτεκνοτρόφησεν, εἰ ἐξενοδόχησεν (1 Tim. 5:10). So ὑψηλοφρονεῖν 
(text of W. H. in 6:17). 


164 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(Philo, ecel. writers); ἀντι-παρ-ἔρχο-μαι (Anthol., Sap., eccl. writers, 
Byz.); ἀντ-οφθαλμέω (Sap., Polyb., eccl. writers); ἀπ-ελπίζω (LXX, 
Polyb., Diod., inscriptions); ἀπο-γράφομαι (papyri); ἀπο-θησαυρίζω 
(Sir., Diod., Jos., Epict.); ἀπο-κεφαλίζξω (LXX, Hpict., etc.); αὐθ- 
ἐντέω (Polyb., papyri); γονυ-πετέω (Polyb., Heliod., eccl. writers) ; 
δια-γνωρίζω (Philo, schol. in Bekk.); δια-γογγύζω (LXX, Heliod., 
Byz.); δια-γρηγορέω (Herod., Niceph.); δι-αυγάζω (Polyb., Plut.); 
δια-τφημίζω (Aratus, Dion. Hal.); 6:-epunvebw (2 Macc., Polyb., 
Philo); δι-οδεύω (LX X, Polyb., Plut.); dovd-aywyéw (Diod. Sic. and 
on); elpnvo-roew (LXX, Hermes); éx-daravaw (Polyb.); ἐκ-δικέω 
(LXX, Apoll., Diod.); ἐμ-βατεύω (inser.); e-Kawifw (LXX); ἐν- 
κακέω (Polyb., Symm. translation of LXX, Philo, Clem. Rom.); 
év-xpiw (Tob., Strabo, Anthol., Hpict.); ἐξ-αρτίζω (Jos., Hipp.); 
ἐξεισχύω (Sir., Strabo, Plut.); ἐπι-σκηνόω (Polyb.); ἐπι-φαύσκω 
(LXX, Acta Thom.); ém-xopnyew (Dion. Hal., Phal., Diog. Laert., 
Alex. Aphr.); ἑτερο-διδασκαλέω (eccl. writers); érepo-fvyew (LXX); 
εὐταρεστέω (LXX, Philo, Diod.); εὐτδοκέω (probably simply from 
εὖ and δοκέω, as there is no such form as δόκος or εὔδοκος, and cf. 
καρα-δοκξω in Polyb., Diod., Dion. Hal.); εὐθυ-δρομέω (Philo); 
εὐ-καιρέω (from Polybius on, papyri); εὐτπροσ-τωπέω (P. Tb., Chrys.) ; 
θηριο-μαχέω (Diod., Artem., Ign.); ¢wo-yovew (Theophr., Diod., 
Lucian, Plut.); ζωο-ποιέω (Arist., Theophr., LX X); κακ-ουχέω (from 
obsolete κακ-οῦχος, i.e. κακόν, ἔχω, LXX, Diod., Dio Cass., Plut.); 
καλο-ποιξω (Etym. Magn., LXX, Philo); xara-Gapéw (Polyb., 
Diod., App., Lucian papyri); κατ-αγωνίζομαι (Polyb., Jos., Lucian, 
Plut., 4118}; κατ-αντάω (Polyb., Diod., eccl. writers, papyri); 
κατα-κληρο-δοτέω (LXX); κατα-πονέω (2 and 3 Macc., Hipp., Polyb., 
Diod., Jos., Al., etc.); κατ-εξ-εουσιάζξω (only N. T.); κατ-οπτρίζω 
(Athen., Diog. Laert., Philo); if the conjectural xev-eu-Barebw in 
Col. 2:18 be correct (as is now no longer probable), xev-eu- 
Barns has to be presupposed; Aa-rowéw (LXX, Diod., Dion. Hal., 
Strabo); λιθο-βολέω (LX X, Diod., Plut.); Noyo-uaxéw (only instance 
in 2 Tim. 2 : 14); μακροτθυμέω, (LX X, Plut.); μεθ-ερμηνεύω (Polyb., 
Diod., Sir., Plut.); wera-wopddw (Diod., Philo); μετριο-παθέω (Philo, 
Jos.) ; μοσχο-ποιέω (LXX and 6060]. writers); μυτωπάζω (Arist.); οἰκο- 
δεσποτέω (Lucian, Plut.); ὁμείρομαι is a puzzle (Fritzsche derives it 
from ὁμοῦ and εἴρω, but other compounds with ὁμοῦ have instru- 
mental-associative, not genitive case, as ὁμιτλέω, from ὅμιλος 
(ὁμοῦ, ἴλη); Photius and Theophr. get it from ὁμοῦ ἡρμόσθαι; but, 
as Nicander uses μείρομαι ἱμείρομαι, modern editors print ὁμει- 
ρόμενοι In 1 Th. 2:8 (6-, W. H., elsewhere only in Job and 
Symm., Ps. 62); ὀρθο-ποδέω (only instance); ὀρθο-τομέω (LXX, 666]. 


“ἃ νι Ἄ 





WORD-FORMATION 165 


writers); ὀχλο-ποιέω (only in Ac. 17:5); παρα-βολεύομαι (inscr. 
ii/A.D.); παρ-εισ-τέρχομαι (Polyb., Philo, Plut.); περι-λάμπω (Diod., 
Jos., Plut.); πληρο-φορέω (LXX, eccl. writers); προ-ελπίζω (Posid., 
Dexipp., Greg. N.); προσ-εγγίζω (LXX, Polyb., Diod., Lucian); 
προσ-κληρόω (Philo, Plut., Lucian); προσωπο-λημπτέω (N. T. word); 
συνταυξάνω (LXX, inscriptions); συνταποστέλλω (LXX, papyri, in- 
scriptions); στρατο-λογέω (Diod., Dion. Hal., Jos., Plut., ete.); 
συν-υπο-κρίνομαι (Polyb., Plut.) and many other verbs with συν; 
rexto-yovew (Anthol.); τεκνο-τροφέω (Arist.); τετραταρχέω (Jos.); 
tpoto-popew (LX X and 600]. writers, so W. H. with NBDHLP, 
etc., in Ac. 13 : 18); tpodo-dopéew (LX X and 600]. writers, so ACE 
and some cursives in Ac. 13:18); ὑπερ-πλεονάζω (Ps. Sal, He- 
rond., Herm.); ὑπο-λιμπάνω (Themist., Dion. Hal., eccl. and Byz.); 
φιλο-πρωτεύω (Artem., Plut.); φρεν-απατάω (eccl. and Byz. writers); 
xpovo-rpiBew (Arist., Plut., Heliod., Byz. writers). Thus, it will 
be noticed, verbs compounded with nouns are very common in 
the κοινή. 

Often two prepositions are used in composition with the same 
verb, where the proper meaning must be given to each. The use 
of double prepositional] compounds grew rapidly in the κοινή; cf. 
Schmid, Att. IV, pp. 708 ff. Mayser gives a long list in the Ptol. 
papyri (Gr., pp. 497-504), some of which are old and some new. 
Of 162 examples 96 are new. The N. T. is in perfect accord with 
the κοινή here. So it is with ἀντι-παρ-έρχομαι (Anthol., Wisdom, 
eccl. and Byz. writers) in Lu. 10:31; ἀντ-ανα-πληρόω in Col. 1 : 24 
(Dem., Dio Cass., Apoll. Dysc.); ἀντι-δια-τίθημι (Philo, Diod.); 
ἀπο-κατταλλάσσω (not in old Greek), ἐπι-δια-τάσσομαι (only in 
N. T.); ἐπι-συν-άγω (LXX, AXsop, Polyb.); κατ-εξ-ουσιάζω (only in 
N. T.); παρ-εισ-τέρχομαι (Polyb., Philo, Plut.); mpo-ev-apyoua (only 
in N. T.); συν-ανα-μίγνυμι (LXX, Plut.); συν-ανα-παύομαι (LXX, 
Dion. Hal., Plut.); συν-αντι-λαμβάνομαι (LX X, Diod., Jos., inscrip- 
tions, papyri); ὑπερ-εκ-χύνω (LX X); ὑπερ-εν-τυγχάνω (eccl.). There 
is in the papyri (P. Tb. I, 66) a triple prepositional compound, 
προ-αντ-αν-αιρέω. ' 

2. Substantives. Here again the new compound substantive 
draws on verbs, substantives, adjectives, adverbs and preposi- 
tions for part or all of the word. There are also double compound 
substantives from compound substantives, adjectives, adverbs and 
prepositions like προσωπολημψία, ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος, διαπαρατριβή. The 
great majority have substantive or adjective for the second half 
of the word. These nouns are more often abstract than concrete. 
᾿Αγαθο-ποιία (from adjective and verb-stem, eccl. writers); ἀγαθο- 


166 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ποιός (adjective and verb-stem, Sirach, Plut. and later papyri); 
ἀγρι-ἔλαιος (from ἄγριος and ἔλαιος, Arist.); αἱματ-εκ-χυσία (from 
substantive, preposition and verb χύνω, eccl. writers); ἀκρο-βυστία 
(LXX); ἀλεκτορο-φωνία (Aisop, Strabo, eccl. writers); ἀλλοτρι-επί- 
σκοπος (from ἀλλότριος and ἐπί-σκοπος, Dion. Areop., 600]. writers. 
Deissmann finds a synonym for the word in ἀλλοτρίων ἐπιθυμη- 
τής, Fayim Papyri. See Bible Studies, p. 224); ἄμφ-οδον (LXX, 
Aristoph., Hyper., papyri); ἀνά-δειξις (Sir., Polyb., Plut.); ἀνα- 
στροφή in the ethical sense (LXX, Polybius on, inscriptions in 
Pergamum and Magnesia); ἀνά-χυσις (Strabo, Philo, Plut.); ἀνθ- 
ὑπατος (Polyb., Dion. Hal., Lucian, Plut., inscriptions); ἀντί-λυτρον 
(one translation of Ps. 48:9, Orph.); ἀντί-χριστος (probably 
formed by John, eccl.); ἀργυρο-κόπος (Plut., LX X, papyri); ἀρσενο- 
κοίτης (Anthol., ecel.); ἀπο-καρα-δοκία (verb —ew in LXX, Jos., Plut.); 
ἀσι-ἀρχης (inscriptions, Polyc.); γαζοτφυλάκιον (LX X, Jos., Strabo); 
γλωσσό-κομον (earlier γλωσσοκομεῖον, LX X, Jos., Plut., Longin., in- 
scriptions, papyri); δεισι-δαιμονία (Polyb., Diod., Jos., Plut.); δεσμο- 
φύλαξ (Jos., Lucian, Artem., ἀρχι-δεσμο-φύλαξ, LXX); δι-ερμη-νία 
(only in AD 1 Cor. 12:10; δι-ερμηνευτής probably correct 1 Cor. 
14:28, NAKL against ἑρμηνευτήῆς by BDFG); δια-παρα-τριβή (not 
found elsewhere) is the correct text for 1 Tim. 6:5, not zapa- 
δια-τριβή, Which may be compared with παρα-κατα-θή-κη in 2 Tim. 
1:12, but παρα-θή-κη (Herod., LX X, inscriptions, papyri) is the 
true reading; δωδεκά-τφυλον (Clem. of Rome, N. T. Apoc.); δικαιο- 
κρισία (Test. xii Pat., eccl., papyri); dwpo-dopia is read by MSS. 
BDFG against διακονία in Ro. 15: 315; ἐθελο-θρησκία (from verb 
ἐθέλω and θρησκία, eccl., cf. ἐθελο-δουλεία) ; εἰδωλο-λατρεία (W. H. —ia, 
two substantives, eccl.) and εἰδωλο-λάτρης (eccl.); εἰλι-κρίνεια (LXX, 
Theophr. Sext., Stob.); ἐκ-πλήρωσις (2 Mace., Dion. Hal., Philo, 
Strabo); éx-revea (2 Macc., Judith, inscriptions); &-edpov (late 
form of ἐνέδρα, LXX); ἐξ-ανά-στα-σις (double compound, Polyb.); 
ἐπι-συν-αγωγή (double compound, 2 Mace., inscriptions, Artem., 
Ptol.); ἐπι-σύτστασις (double compound, LXX, Philo, Sext.); ém- 
xop-nyia (eccl.); eb-doxia (LXX, inscriptions); εὐρ-ακύλων (a hybrid 
from-edpos and Lat. aquilo, like auto-mobile; so W. H. for Text. 
Rec. εὐρο-κλύδων in Ac. 27: 14, which is Etym. Magn. alone); 
ἡδύτοσμος (Strabo, Theophr.); ᾿Ἱερο-σολυμείτης (Jos.); καλλι-ἔλαιος 
(Arist.); καλο-διδάσκαλος (only in Tit. 2 : 3); καρδιο- γνώστης (eccl. 
writers); κατ-αγγελεύς (inscriptions); κατάτ-θεμα (only in Rev. 22 : 8); 
κατά-κριμα (Sir., Dion. Hal., papyri); κατάτλειμμα (N*DEFGKLP 
in Ro. 9: 27 for ὑπό-λ, LXX, Gal.); κατ-ήγωρ (papyri; οἵ. Deiss- 
mann, Light, p. 90; Radermacher, Gr., p. 15); κατάτλυμα (LXX, 





WORD-FORMATION 167 


Polyb., Diod.); κατα-πέτασμα (LXX, Jos., Aristeas, Philo, inscrip- 
tions); κενο-δοξία (4 Macc., Polyb., Philo, Plut., Lucian); κοσμο- 
κράτωρ (Orph., eccl. writers, inscriptions); κωμό-πολις (Strabo, Ag. 
and Theod., eccl.); Aoyo-uaxia (only in 1 Tim. 6:4); ματαιο-λογία 
(Plut., Porph.); μεσο-νύκ-τιον (Arist., LXX, κοινή writers); μεσό- 
τοιχον (Erat.); μεσ-ουράνημα (Manetho, Plut.); μετ-οικεσία (LXX, 
Anthol.); μισθ-απο-δοσία and -δότης (eccl.); pwpo-doyia (Arist., 
Plut.); νομο-διδάσκαλος (eccl.); νυχθ-ήμερον (Alex., App., Geop.); 
οἰκο-δεσπότης (Alexis, Jos., Plut., Ign., ete.); oixo-doun (possibly 
Arist., Theophr., certainly LX X, Diod., Philo, Jos., Plut., con- 
demned by Phrynichus); oivo-rérns (Polyb., LXX, Anthol., 
Anacr.); ὀλιγο-πιστία (eccl. and Byz.); ὁλο-κληρία (LXX, Diog. 
Laert., Plut.); 6px-wyooia (LXX, Jos., τὰ ὁρκ-ωμόσια in Attic); 
ὁρο-τθεσία (eccl.); ὀφθαλμο-δουλία (only instance is in N. T,.); 
παλιν-γενεσία (Philo, Longin., Lucian, Plut.); παντο-κράτωρ (LXX, 
eccl., Anthol.); παρά-κλητος (Aq. Theod., Diog. Laert., Dio Cass., 
papyri, inscriptions); παρα-χειμασία (Polyb., Diod.); πατρι-ἀρχης 
(LX X); περί-θεσις (Arr., Gal., Sext.); περι-κάθταρμα (LXX, Epict., 
Curt.); περι-οχή (Theophr., Diod., Plut., etc.); mepi-roun (LXX, 
JOS., papyri); περί-ψημα (Tob., Ign.); πραυ-παθία (Philo, Ign.); zpo- 
αὐλιον (Pollux); προ-σάββατον (LXX, eccl.); προσ-αίτης (lit. κοινή); 
πρόσ-κομμα (LXX, Plut.); προσ-καρτέρησις (inscriptions, 81 A.D.); 
προσ-κυνητής (inscriptions, eccl., Byz.); προσ-φάγιον (inscriptions, 
ὄψον ᾿Λττικῶς, προσ-φάγιον Ἑλληνικῶς, Moeris); προσωπο-λήμπτης 
(Chrys.); προσωπο-λημψία (eccl.); πρωτο-καθεδρία (660].; πρωτο-κλισία 
(eccl. writers); πρωτο-τόκια (LX X, Philo, Byz.); ῥαβδ-οῦχος (ῥάβδος, 
ἔχω, literary κοινή); padi-ovlpynua (literary κοινή, eccl.); σαρδ-ὀνυξ 
(Jos., Plut., Ptol.); σιτο-μέτριον ( Polyb., Diod., Jos., inscriptions) ; 
oxnvo-rnyia (Arist., LXX, Philo, inscriptions); σκηνο-ποιός (Atlian, 
eccl.); σκληρο-καρδία (LX X); στρατο-πέδ-αρχος, —apxns (reading of 
Syrian class in Ac. 28: 16), though critical text rejects both 
(Dion. Hal., Jos., Lucian); συκο-μορέα (Geop.); various new words 
with σύν, like συν-αιχμάλωτος, συν-κατάτ-θεσ-ις, συν-κληρονόμος (Philo, 
inscriptions); συν-κοινωνός, συντοδία (LXX, Strabo, Jos., Epict., 
Plut.); συν-πρεσ-βύτερος, σύν-τροφος (LXX), ete.; ταπεινο-φροσύνη 
(Jos., Epict.); rexvo-yovia (Arist.); rerpa-dpxns (Strabo, Jos.); vio- 
θεσία (Diod., Diog. Laert., inscriptions); ὑπερ-έκεινα (Byz. and eccl.) ; 
ὑπο-γραμμός (2 Mace., Philo, eccl.); ὑπό-λειμμα (from ὑπο-λείπω, 
LXX, Arist., Theoph., Plut., Galen); ὑπο-λήνιον (LX_X, Demioph.); 
ὑπο-πόδιον (LX X, Lucian, Att.); ὑπο-στολή (Jos., Plut.); ὑπο-ταγή 
(Dion. Hal.); ὑπο-τύπωσις (Sext. Emp., Diog. Laert.); φρεν-απάτης 
(papyri, eccl. writers); χαλκο-λίβανον (LX X); xeupd-ypadov (Polyb., 


168 $A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Dion. Hal., Tob., Plut., Artem., papyri); χρε-οφειλέτης (from 
χρέος Or χρέως and ὀφειλέτης, LXX, Atsop, Plut., Dion. Hal.); 
χρηστο-λογία (Kust., 6600]. writers); χρυσό-λιθος (Diod., LXX, Jos.); 
χρυσό-πρασος (only in Rev. 21:20); ψευδ-αδελφός, ψευδ-απόστολος, 
ψευδο-διδάσκαλος, ψευδό-χριστος are all compounds of ψευδής and are 
N. T. words; ψευδο-προφήτης (ancient Greek ψευδόμαντις) is found 
in LXX, Philo, Jos.; Wevdd-waprus (LXX) and ψευδο-μαρτυρία 
both go back to Plato and Aristotle. The papyri show many 
examples of such compounds. Cf. κωμο-γραμματεύς, P.Th. 40 
(HiGr 1a 7): 

3. Adjectives. It will not be necessary to repeat the adjec- 
tives formed with inseparable prefixes a—, etc. The method of 
many grammars in dividing the compounds according to the 
element in the first or second part has not been followed here. It 
is believed that the plan adopted is a simpler and more rational 
exposition of the facts. These adjectives are compounded of 
two adjectives like ὀλιγό-ψυχος, an adjective and substantive like 
ἀκρο-γωνιαῖος or vice versa ἀνθρωπ-άρεσκος; a Substantive and a 
verbal like χειρο-ποίητος; a preposition and a verb like συμ-παθής, 
with two prepositions and verbal like zap-eic-axros; an adverb 
and a preposition and a verbal like εὐ-πρόσ-δεκτος, etc. The ad- 
jective compounds used in the N. T. characteristic of the κοινή 
are somewhat numerous. ᾿Αγαθο-ποιός (Sirach, Plut.); ἀγρι-έλαιος 
(Anthol.); ἀκρο-γωνιαῖος (eccl.); addo-yerns (LXX and Temple 
inscriptions meant for gentiles to read); ἀν-εξί-κακος (from ἀνά, 
éxouac and κακός, Lucian, Justin M., Poll., papyri); ἀνθρωπ-άρεσκος 
(LXX, eccl.); ἀπό-δεκτος (Sext. Emp., Plut., inscriptions); ἀπο-συν- 
aywyos (2 Esdr.); ἀρτι-γέννητος (Lucian, Long.); αὐτο-κατά-κριτος 
(eccl. writers); βαρύ-τιμος (Strabo); ypa-wéins (from γραῦς, εἶδος, 
Strabo, Galen); δεξιο-λάβος (true reading in Ac. 23: 23, late eccl. 
writers); δευτερο-πρῶτος (cf. devrep-eoxaros, only MSS. in Lu. 6: 1); 
διτθθάλασσος (Strabo, Dio Chrys., eccel.); di-~uxos (eccl.); ἔκτ-θαμβος 
(Polyb., eccl.); ἐκ-τενής (Polyb., Philo); &-rpouos (only in ND 
Heb. 12:21, other MSS., &-rpouos, LXX, Plut.); ἔκ-φοβος (Arist., 
Plut.); ἐπι-θανάτιος (Dion. Hal.); ἐπι-πόθητος (eccl.); érepd-yAwo- 
gos (LXX, Strabo, Philo); εὐτάρεστος (Wisd., eccl., inscr., but 
Xen. has evapéorws); εὔ-κοπος (Polyb., LXX); εὐτλογητός (LXX, 
Philo); εὐ-μετά-δοτος (Anton.); εὐ-πάρ-εδρος (for Text. Rec. εὐ-πρόσ- 
edpos, Hesych.); εὐ-περί-στατος (only in Heb. 12 : 1); εὐ-πρόσ-δεκτος 
(Plut., eccl.); evpt-xwpos (Arist., LXX, Diod., Jos.); εὔτσπλαγχνος 
(Hippoc., LXX, eccl. writers); θεο-δίδακτος (eccl.); θεό-πνευστος 
(Plut., Phoc., 600]. writers, inscriptions); is-ayyedos (cf. ἰσό-θεος, 


WORD-FORMATION 169 


Philo, eccl.); ἰσό-τιμος (cf. icd-~vxos, Philo, Jos., Plut., Lucian, 
Aslia, etc.) ; καθημερινός (from καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, Judith, Theophr., Athen., 
Plut., Alciph., Jos.); κατ-είδωλος (only in Ac. 17 : 16); Kevd-do£os 
(Polyb., Diod., Philo, Anton., eccl. writers); λα-ξευτός (LX ΧΡ); 
λειτ-ουργικός (LXX, 600]. writers); μακρο-χρόνιος (LXX, Hipp., 
Agath.); ματαιο-λόγος (Telest.); μογι-τλάλος (LXX, schol. to 
Lucian); νεότφυτος (LXX, papyri, Aristophanes?); ὀκτα-ήμερος 
(eccl. writers); ὀλιγότπιστος (only in N. T.); ὀλιγότψυχος (LXX, 
Artem.); ὁλο-τελής (Plut., Hexapla, eccl. writers); av-odpyos 
(Arist., κοινή, LXX); παρα-λυτικός (eccl. writers); παρ-εἰστ-ακτος 
(Strabo); παρ-επί-δημος (Polyb., Athen., LXX); πατρο-παρά-δοτος 
(Diod., Dion. Hal., eccl. writers); πεντε-και-τδέκατος (Diod., Plut., 
etc.); πολλα-πλασίων (Polyb., Plut., ete.); πολύ-σπλαγχνος (LXX, 
Theod. Stud.); πολύ-τιμος (Plut., Herodian, Anthol.); ποταμο- 
φόρητος. (only in Rev. 12:15 and Hesych.); προ-βατικός (from 
᾿ πρότ-βατον, LXX, Jo. 5:2); πρόσ-καιρος (4 Mace., Jos., Dio Cass., 
Dion. Hal., Strabo, Plut., Herodian); προ-φητικός (Philo, Lucian, 
eccl.); πρωτό-τοκος (LX X, Philo, Anthol., inscriptions, eccl.); on7é- 
Bpwros (LXX, Sibyll. Or.); σκληρο-τράχηλος (LX X); σκωληκό-βρωτος 
(Theophr.); σύμ-μορφος (Lucian, Nicand.); συμ-παθής (LXX); σύν- 
ψυχος (eccl. writers); συν-εκ-λεκτός (only in 1 Pet. 5:18); σύν-σωμος 
(eccl. writers); συ-στατικός (Diog. Laert.); ταπεινότφρων (from τα- 
πεινός, φρήν, LXX, Plut.); rpi-creyos (Dion. Hal., Jos., Symm.); 
φθιν-οπωρινός (Arist., Polyb., Strabo, Plut.); φιλ-αγαθός (Arist., 
Polyb., Wisd., Plut., Philo); φίλ-αυτος (Arist., Philo, Plut., Jos., 
Sext.); φιλ-ήδονος (Polyb., Plut., Lucian, etc.); φιλό-θεος (Arist., 
Philo, Lucian, etc.); φρεν-απάτης (eccl. writers); χειρ-αγωγός 
(Artem., Plut., etc.); χειρο-ποίητος (LXX, Polyb., Dion. Hal., 
papyri); χρυσο-δακτύλιος (Jas. 2:2, elsewhere only in Hesych.). 
It will be apparent from this list how many words used in 
the N. T. appear first in Aristotle or the literary κοινή. Aris- 
totle was no Atticist and broke away from the narrow vocab- 
ulary of his contemporaries. Many of these late words are found 
in the papyri and inscriptions also, as is pointed out. But we 
must remember that we have not learned all that the papyri and 
inscriptions have to teach us. Cf. also the numeral adjective 
δεκα-τέσσαρες (LXX, Polyb., papyri).t See further chapter VII, 
Declensions. . | 

4. Adverbs. The late Greek uses many new adverbs and new 
kinds of adverbs (especially compounds and prepositional ad- 
verbs). For list of the new prepositional adverbs see chapter on 

ICT Dias, Grou N. 1. Gk; p. 70; 


170 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


prepositions. These are usually formed either from adjectives 
like ἐν-ώπιον (neuter of ἐν-ὠπιος) or by composition of preposition 
and adverb as in ὑπερ-άνω, or preposition and adjective as in ἐκ-πε- 
ρισ-σοῦ, or two or more prepositions (prepositional adverbs as in 
ἀπ-ἐν-αντι), or apreposition and a noun-root as in ἀπο-τόμως, or a Sub- 
stantive and a verb as in νουν-εχῶς, or an adjective and a substan- 
tive as in παν-πληθεί, or an adjective and an adverb as in πάν-τοτε, 
or a preposition and a pronoun as in ἐξ-αυτῆς. In a word, the com- 
pound adverb is made from compound adjectives, substantives, 
verbs with all sorts of combinations. The κοινή shows a distinct 
turn for new adverbial combinations and the N. T. illustrates 
it very clearly. Paul, especially, doubles his adverbs as in ὑπερ- 
εκ-περισσοῦ. ‘These adverbs are generally formed by parathetic 
composition and are used as prepositions in the later Greek, in- 
correctly so according to Blass.t. But it must be remembered that 
the κοινή developed according to its own genius and that even the 
Atticists could not check it. In Luke παν-πληθεί (Lu. 23 : 18) and 
παν-οικεί (Ac. 16 : 34) are not derived from adjectives or previous 
adverbs, but from substantives (perhaps assoc. instr.). As to the 
use of adverbs as prepositions, all prepositions were originally 
adverbs (cf. ἐν-αντίον). In the later language we simply can see 
the process of development in a better state of preservation. No 
magical change has come over an adverb used with a case. It is 
merely a helper of the case-idea and is part of the analytic linguistic 
development. 

The chief compound adverbs used in the N. T. characteristic 
of the κοινή are here given. As the list of adverbs is much smaller 
than those of verbs, substantives and adjectives, compounds 
with a— privative are included here. ᾿Α-δια-λείπτως (Polyb., Diod., 
Strabo, 1 Mace., papyri); ava-wecov-and dva-pepos is the Text. Rec. 
in Rev. 7:17 and 1 Cor. 14: 27, but this is not the modern edit- 
ing, rather ἀνὰ μέσον, etc.; ἀν-αντι-ρήτως (Polyb., ete.); ἀντι-πέρα 
(Xen. ἀντι-πέραν, Polyb., etc.); ἀπ-έναντι (Polyb., LXX, papyri 
and inscriptions); ἀ-περι-σπάστως (Polyb., Plut.); ἀπο-τόμως 
(Polyb., Diod., Wisd., Longin.); δηλ-αυγῶς (so NCLA in Mk. 
8 : 25 for rnd\-avyés); δια-παντός is the way Griesbach and Tisch. 
print διὰ παντός; ἔκ-παλαι (Philo and on, inscriptions); ἐκ-τενῶς 
(Polyb., LXX, inscriptions); ἔν-ταντι (LXX, inscriptions); ἐντώπιον 
(Theoc., LXX, papyri); é&-amwa (LXX, Jamb., Byz.); ἐξ-αυτῆς 
(Theogn., Arat., Polyb., Jos., ete.); ἐφ-άπαξ (Lucian, Dio Cass., 

1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 65. Cf. Mayser’s Gr., pp. 485 ff. Jannaris, 
§ 1490. 


WORD-FORMATION . POL 


etc.); καθ-εξῆς (Atlian, Plut.); κατ-ένταντι (LXX, Hermas); κατ- 
ev-wmiov (LXX); νουν-εχῶς (Arist., Polyb.); παν-πληθεί (Dio Cass.) ; 
παν-οικεί (rejected by the Atticists for πανοικίᾳ [LX X], Plato Eryx., 
Philo, Jos.); πάν-τοτε (Sap., Menand., Dion. Hal., condemned by 
the Atticists for ἑκάστοτε); παρ-εκτός (LXX); προσ-φάτως (LXX, 
Polyb., Alciph.); ὑπερ-άνω (Arist., LXX, Polyb., Jos., Plut., ete.); 
bmep-exeva (Byz. and eccl.); ὑπερ-εκ-περισσοῦ (Dan. 2: 22, Ald., 
Compl.); ὑπερ-εκ-περισσῶς (T, W. H. marg. 1 Th. 5:13, Clem. 
Rom.); ὑπερ-λίαν (EKust.); ὑπερ-περισσῶς (only Mk. 7:37). There 
are two ways of writing some of these compound adverbs, either 
as single words or as two or more words. ‘The editors differ as 
to διὰ παντός, ἐφ᾽ ἅπαξ, ἐκ-πάλαι, καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, καθ᾽ ὅλου, ὑπὲρ ἐκεῖνα, 
etc. The editors do as they wish about it. These compound 
adverbs were still more numerous in the Byzantine writers.!. For 
further list of verbs compounded with prepositions see ‘‘ Language 
of the N. T.” by Thayer, in Hastings’ ἢ). B. The κοινή was fond 
of compound words, some of which deserve the term sesquipe- 
dalian, like καταδυναστεύω, συναντιλαμβάνομαι, etc. We must not for- 
get that after all these modern words from Aristotle onwards 
are only a small portion of the whole. Kennedy (Sources of N. T. 
Greek, p. 62) claims that only about 20 per cent. of the words in 
the N. T. are post-Aristotelian. Many of this 20 per cent. reach 
back into the past, though we have no record as yet to observe. 
The bulk of the words in the N. T. are the old words of the 
ancients, some of which have a distinct classic flavour, literary 
and even poetic, like αἰσθητήριον, πολυποίκιλος. See list in Thayer’s 
article in Hastings’ D. B., III, p. 37. 

These lists seem long, but will repay study. They are reason- 
ably complete save in the case of verbs compounded with preposi- 
tions and substantives so compounded. As a rule only words 
used by Aristotle and later writers are given, while Demosthenes 
is not usually considered, since he was more purely Attic. 

V. Personal Names Abbreviated or Hypocoristic. ‘The chap- 
ter on Orthography will discuss the peculiarities of N. T. proper 
names in general. Here we are concerned only with the short 
names formed either from longer names that are preserved or 
from names not preserved. This custom of giving short pet- 
names is not a peculiarity of Greek alone. It belonged, moreover, 
to the early stages of the language and survives still.2 It was used 
not merely with Greek names, but also with foreign names brought 
into the Greek. It is proof of the vernacular κοινή in the N. T. 

᾿ΕΝ Ὁ. 1.2.7. 2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr.; p. 293. 


12 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Cf. English “Tom” and “Will.” These abbreviated names are 
regularly from compounds, as Ζηνᾶς for Znvd-dwpos (Tit. 3:13). 
Of the various forms used in these abbreviated names only 
three occur in the N. T., τας, -ἧς, -@s. The great majority 
belong to -ας or —ds.1 ᾿Αμπλίας (or --ιᾶς) is the reading of the 
Western and Syrian classes in Ro. 16:8 for ᾿Αμπλιᾶτος (Latin 
Amopliatus); ’Avépéas is, according to Blass,” “ἃ genuine old Greek 
form,’’ while Schmiedel*® thinks it can come from ’Avépopédns; 
᾿Αντίπας is an abbreviation of ᾿Αντίπατρος (Rev. 2:13) (found in 
inscription iii/A.D. at Pergamum‘); ᾿Λπολλώς, possibly® an abbre- 
viation for ᾿Απολλώνιος, is the reading of D in Ac. 18:24, though 
N 15, 180 read ᾿Απελλῆς here, while ᾿Απελλῆς 15 read by all MSS. 
in Ro. 16:10 (cf. Doric ᾿Απελλᾶς in inscriptions, PAS, 11, 397); 
᾿Αρτεμᾶς (Tit. 3:12) is an abbreviation of ’Aprepidwpos; Δημᾶς 
(Col. 4:14; Phil. 24; 2 Tim. 4:10) is probably an abbreviation 
of Δημήτριος, though Δήμαρχος is possible (Anuéas also=Anuas), not 
to mention Δημάρατος, Δημόδοκος ; ᾿Επαφρᾶς (Col. 1:7; 4:12; Phil. 
23) is (Ramsay so takes it, Hxpositor, Aug., 1906, p. 153. Cf. 
genitive ᾿Επαφρᾶδος, PAS, iil, 375; Fick-Bechtel, p. 16) an ab- 
breviation of ᾿Επαφρόδιτος (Ph. 2:25; 4:18), but it does not fol- 
low that, if true, the same man 15 indicated in Ph. and Col.; Ἑρμᾶς 
(Ro. 16:14) is from the old Doric form abbreviated from ‘Ep- 
μόδωρος; Ἑρμῆς (Ro. 16:14) may be merely the name of the god 
given to a man, though Blass doubts it®; Ζηνᾶς (Tit. 3:13) is 
from Znvddwpos; Oevdas (Ac. 5:36) is possibly an abbreviation of 
Θεόδωρος ; ᾿Ιουνίας (sometimes taken as feminine ’Iouvia, Ro. 16:7) 
may be ᾿Ιουνιᾶς as abbreviation of ᾿Ιουνιανός; Κλεόπας (Lu. 24:18) 
is apparently an abbreviation of Κλεόπατρος; Λουκᾶς (Col. 4:14; Phil. 
24; 2 Tim. 4:11) is an abbreviation of Λουκανός and of Λούκιος; 
Νυμφᾶς (Col. 4:15) is probably derived from Nuyudddwpos; ᾿Ολυμπᾶς 


1 See Fick-Bechtel, Die griech. Personennamen, 1894; Pape, Wérterbuch 
der griech. Kigennamen, 1842, ed. Benseler, 1870; Keil, Beitr. zur Onomatolo- 
gie; W. Schulze, Graeca Lat., 1901; Hoole, the Class. Klem. in the N. T., 1888; 
Kretsch., Gesch. der griech. Spr., Die kleinasiat. Personennamen, pp. 311-370. 

2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 71. 

3 W.-Sch., p. 143. 4 Deiss., B. S., p. 187. 

5 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 143 f., for objections to this derivation. In a Fayim 
pap. (Deiss., B. S., p. 149) ᾿Απολλώνιος occurs ὃς καὶ συριστὲ "Iwvdbas. Cf. 
Brug., Griech. Gr., 1900, p. 175. 

6 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 71. Cf. also Fick-Bechtel, p. 304. Fick (xxxvili) takes 
it from Ἑρμοκράτης, as also Ἑρμᾶς. 

7 Ramsay (Exp., Dec., 1912, pp. 504 ff.) quotes inscription of Pisid. 
Antioch where Λουκᾶς and Λούκιος are used for the same person. — 


WORD-FORMATION 173 


(Ro. 16:15) is apparently abbreviated from ᾿Ολυμπιόδωρος, though 
᾿Ολυμπιανός is possible; Παρμενᾶς (Ac. 6:5) is probably an abbre- 
viation of Παρμενίδης, though Blass! suggests Παρμένων; Πατρόβας 
(Ro. 16:14) is derived from Πατρόβιος; Σίλας (Ac. 15:22, etc.) is 
the same man as Σιλουανός (MSS. often Σιλβανός), as Paul always 
calls him (1 Th. 1:1, etc. So Peter in 1 Pet. 5:12); Στεφανᾶς 
(1 Cor. 1:16; 16:15, 17) may be either a modification of Στέφα- 
vos or an abbreviation of Στεφανηφόρος; Σώπατρος (Ac. 20:4) is read 
Σωσίπατρος by a dozen of the cursives and the Sah. Cop. Arm. 
versions, while Σωσίπατρος is the correct text in Ro. 16:21, but 
it is not certain that they represent the same man, for Σώπατρος 
is from Bercea and Σωσίπατρος from Corinth, though it is pos- 
sible. ᾿Αρχέλαος, Νικόλαος appear in the N. T. in the unabbreviated 
forms, though in the Doric the abbreviated forms in —as were used. 
On the subject of the N. T. proper names one can consult also 
Thieme, Die [nschriften von Magnesia am Méander und das N. T., 
1906, p. 39 f. He finds twenty of the N. T. names in the Mag- 
nesia inscriptions, such as ᾿Απφία, “Apreuds(’Apreutdwpos), etc. Kupia 
is a common proper name (cf. Hatch, Journal of Bibl. Lit., 1908, 
p. 145). For the papyri illustrations see Mayser, Gr. der griech. 
Papyrt (Laut- und Wortlehre, 1906), p. 259 f. Cf. also Traube, 
Nomina Sacra (1907), who shows that in both B and δὲ as well 
as D the abbreviation THC XPC is found as well as the more 
usual IC XC. Cf. Nestle, Exp. Times, Jan., 1908, p. 189. Moul- 
ton (Cl. Quarterly, April, 1908, p. 140) finds ᾿Λκουσίλαος in the 
body of a letter in a papyrus and ᾿Ακοῦτι, the abbreviated ad- 
dress, on the back. See also Burkitt, Syriac Forms of N. T. Proper 
Names (1912), and Lambertz, Die griech. Sklavennamen (1907). 
VI. The History of Words. This subject concerns not merely 
the new words appearing in the N. T. but all words there used. 
This is the best place for a few remarks on it. It is not enough 
to know the etymology, the proper formation and the usage in 
a given writer. Before one has really learned a word, he must 
know its history up to the present time, certainly up to the period 
which he is studying. The resultant meaning of a word in any 
given instance will be determined by the etymology, the history 
and the immediate context.2 The etymology and the history be- 
long to the lexicon, but the insistence on these principles is within 


1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 71. Cf. Meisterh., Gr. der att. Inschr. (pp. 114- 
118), for formation of proper names. 

2 Cf. Heine, Synon. des neutest. Griech., p. 29. Goodell, The Gk. in Eng., 
1886, gives a popular exhibition of the influence of Gk. on Eng. 


174 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the purview of grammar. The N. T. Greek on this point only 
calls for the same treatment granted all literature in all languages: 
and ages. 

Take σκάνδαλον, for instance. It is a shorter form of the old 
Greek word σκανδάληθρον, ‘trap-stick.’ The root σκανδ is seen in the 
Sanskrit skdéndamt, ‘to dart,’ ‘to leap.’ The Latin has it in scando, 
de-scendo. The termination --ἀληθρον is possibly the suffix —rpov 
(-Opov) for instrument and σκανδ-άλα(η). The form σκανδάλη occurs 
in Alciphro, of which σκάνδ-αλο-ν is simply the neuter variation. 
Σκάνδ-αλο-ν occurs first in the LX X as a translation for Hpi or 
Siw, ‘a noose,’ ‘a snare,’ as in Ps. 69 (68) : 29. It was the trap- 
stick, the trap, the impediment; then a stumbling-block or any 
person who was an occasion of stumbling, as in Josh. 23:13. So 
Peter became a stumbling-block to Jesus, σκάνδαλον εἶ ἐμοῦ (Mt. 
16:23). Christ crucified became a σκάνδαλον to the Jews (1 Cor. 
1:23). Take again ἐκ-κλησία (from ἔκ-κλητος, éxkahew). The root 
καὶ appears in the Latin cal-endae, con-cil-ium, nomen-cla-tor; in 
the Old High German hal-dn, ‘to call.’ Originally ἐκ-κλησία was a 
calling-out of the people from their homes, but that usage soon 
passed away. It became the constitutional assembly of Athens 
and “we must banish from our minds all remembrance of its ety- 
mology.”! In the LXX the word is used as the equivalent of 
bop, the assembly of the Israelites as a whole. In the N. T. 
the word takes a further advance. It still appears in the sense of 
‘assembly’ at times, as in 1 Cor. 11:18, but usually, as Thayer 
shows (Lewicon), the idea of the word is that of body or company 
of believers whether assembled or not, the body of Christ. This 
is true at times where the idea of assembly is impossible, as in 
Ac. 8:3. The word in this sense of body of Christians is used 
either in the local (Ac. 8:38) or the general sense (Mt. 16 : 18). 
In the general sense the word does not differ greatly from one 
aspect of the word βασιλεία. These examples must suffice. 

VII. The Kinship of Greek Words. The study of the family tree 
of a word is very suggestive. Aeix-vu-ue is a good illustration 
in point.. It has the root δικ which appears in the Sanskrit di¢-a- 
mi, ‘to show,’ Latin dic-o, Gothic tevho, German zeigen, ete. 
On the root δικ a number of Greek words are built, as dix-n, 
‘the way pointed out,’ ‘right’ or ‘justice’; δίκην, ‘after the way’ 
or ‘like’; δεῖξ-ις, ‘a showing’; de?y-ua, ‘something shown’; dix-avos, 
‘a man who seeks to go the right way,’ ‘righteous’; δικ-αιόω, ‘to 


1 Hicks, Cl. Rev., 1887, p. 43. See also Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. 
N. T., pp. 57-60. 


WORD-FORMATION 175 


make or declare one te be righteous’; δικ-αίω-σις, ‘the act of declar- 
ing one righteous’; δικ-αίω-μα, ‘the thing declared to be right’; 
δικ-αιο-σύνη, ‘the quality of being right,’ ‘righteousness’; dcx-aiws, 
‘righteously’ or ‘justly’; δικ-αιω-τῆς or δικ-ασ-τής, ‘one who decides 
righteously’; δικ-ασ-τήριον, ‘the place for judging righteously.’ 
Each of these words occurs in the N. T. save three, δίκην, δικ-αιω- 
Ths, δικασ-τήριον. With these twelve words the difference in mean- 
ing is not so much due to historical development (like ἐκκλησία) as 
to the idea of the various suffixes. It is, of course, true that the 
N. T. has a special doctrine of righteousness as the gift of God 
which colours most of these words. The point is that all these 
various points of view must be observed with each word. An- 
other illustration that will not be followed up is \v-rpov (Mt. 
20 : 28), ἀπο-λύ-τρω-σις (Ro. 3 : 24). The ideas of action, agent, 
result, instrument, quality, plan, person, etc., as shown by the 
suffixes, differentiate words from each other. 

Green in his Handbook to Grammar of N. T. Greek? illustrates 
this point well with the root κρι (kp), giving only the examples 
that occur in the N. T. They will be found interesting: first, the 
verb, κρίντω, ἀνα-κρίν-ω, ἀντ-απο-κρίντομαι, ἀπο-κρίντομαι, δια-κρίντ-ω, 
ἔγ-κρίντω, ἐπι-κρίντω, κατα-κρίντω, συγ-κρίντω, συν-υπο-κρίντ-ομαι, ὑπο- 
κρίντω; second, the substantive, κρί-σις, κρί-μα, κρι-τήριον, κρι-τής, 
ἀνά-κρι-σις, ἀπό-κρι-μα, ἀπό-κρι-σις, διά-κρι-σις, εἰλι-κρίντεια, κατά-κρι-μα, 
κατά-κρι-σις, πρό-κρι-μα, ὑπό-κρι-σις, ὑπο-κρι-τής; third, adjectives, 
κρι-τικός, ἀ-διά-κρι-τος, ἀ-κατά-κρι-τος, ἀν-υπό-κρι-τος, αὐτο-κατά-κρι-τος, 
εἰλι-κρι-νής. 

The development of this line of study will amply repay the 
N. T. student. 

VIII. Contrasts in Greek Words or Synonyms. The Greek is 
rich in synonyms. In English one often has a choice between the 
Anglo-Saxon word or its Norman-French equivalent, as ‘to ask”’ 
or “to inquire.”’? The Greeks made careful distinctions in words. 
Socrates tripped the Sophists on the exact meaning of words as 
often as anywhere. We are fortunate in N. T. study in the pos- 
session of two excellent treatises on this subject. Trench, Syno- 
nyms of the N. T., 1890, is valuable, though not exhaustive. But 
he gives enough to teach one how to use this method of investi- 
gation. Heine, Synon. des neutest. Griech., 1898, is more com- 
prehensive and equally able. The matter can only be mentioned 


1 § 149, new ed., 1904. 
2 Cf. Skeat, Prin. of Eng. Etym., Ist ser. (Native Words, 1892); 2d ser. 
(Foreign Words, 1891). 


176 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


here and illustrated. With δίκαιος, for instance, one should com- 
pare ἀγαθός, ἅγιος, καθαρός, καλός, ὅσιος, before he can obtain a 
complete idea of Ν. T. goodness or righteousness. We see Jesus 
himself insisting on the use of ἀγαθός for the idea of absolute 
goodness in Mk. 10:18, οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς 6 θεός. Both ἀγαθός 
and δίκαιος occur in Lu. 29 :δ0. In Lu. 8:15 the phrase καρδία 
ἀγαθὴ καὶ καλή approaches Socrates’ common use of καλὸς κ᾿ ἀγαθός 
for “the beautiful and the good.” It is also the Greek way of 
saying “gentleman” which no other language can translate. To 
go no further, τέρας, δύναμις and σημεῖον are all three used to de- 
scribe the complete picture of a N. T. miracle. Νέος is ‘young’ 
and ‘not yet old,’ καινός is ‘recent’ and ‘not ancient.’ 


CHAPTER VI 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 


The term orthography is used to include all that pertains to the 
spelling of Greek words. Phonetics deals with the sounds of the 
letters. The orthography was constantly changing, but not so 
rapidly as did the sounds. Each had an independent develop- 
ment as is seen very strikingly in the modern Greek vernacular 
(Thumb, Handbook of the Mod. Gk. Vernac., p. 6). There has 
never been a fixed orthography for the Greek tongue at any stage 
of its history. ‘There has always been an effort to have new 
phonetic spelling to correspond to the sound-change. Cf. Blass, 
Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 6. The confusion in spelling grew with the 
centuries as in English. Many delicate questions confront us at 
once. It has not seemed possible to give the explanation of all 
the varied phonetic (true or merely analogical) and orthographic 
changes in the use of the vowels and consonants. An orderly 
collection of the facts with historical side-lights is all that is 
attempted. 

I. The Uncertainty of the Evidence. It is difficult to tell 
what is the vernacular usage in N. T. times on many points, 
though somewhat less so since the discovery of the papyri. 

(a) THe ANcIENT LITERARY SPELLING. The difficulty is much 
increased by the comparison of the phonetic spelling of the modern 
vernacular with the historical orthography of the ancient literary 
Greek.! This method applied to any language may lead one into 
error. Modern conversational English differs widely in orthog- 
raphy from Spenser’s Faerie Queene. For most of the history 
of the Greek language no lexicons nor grammars were in use. 
There were the schools and the books on the one hand and popu- 
lar usage on the other. The movement of the Atticists was just 
the opposite of the modern phonetic spelling movement in Eng- 
lish. The Atticists sought to check change rather than hasten it. 
It is to be remembered also that the Atticists were the cloister 


1 Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 19 f. 
177 


178 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


copyists of the ancient Greek writings and of the N. T. Later 
copyists reflect local types, some more conservative, some less so. 
The law of life is best here, as always, without artificial impulse or 
restraint. In seeking to restore the orthography of the κοινή ver- 
nacular of the first century A.D. one must not be handicapped by 
the literary Attic nor the modern Greek vernacular, though each 
will be of service. In simple truth one has to be less dogmatic 
these days concerning what could or could not have been in the 
past. Breasted! calmly assures us that before 3000 B.c. “the al- 
phabetic signs, each of which stood for one consonant,’’ were in 
use in Egypt. He adds: “Had the Egyptian been less a creature 
of habit, he might have discarded his syllabic signs 3500 years 
before Christ, and have written with an alphabet of 24 letters.” 
The Greek language was a growth and did not at first have 24 
letters. E, even in early Attic,? not to mention Cretan, had the 
force of ε, ἡ and sometimes εἰ. Indeed Jannaris? asserts that 
“the symbols 7 and w, in numerous cases also t, originated at 
school as mere compensatory marks, to represent positional or 
‘thetic’ « or o.” It is not surprising with this origin of vowels 
(and consonants do not differ) that variations always exist in the 
v sound and use of the Greek letters. Blass‘ is clearly right when 
he points out that in changes in the sounds of words “it is usual 
for the spelling not to imitate the new sound off-hand,” and in the 
case of the N. T. writers there was “no one fixed orthography in 
existence, but writers fluctuated between the old historical spelling 
and a new phonetic manner of writing.” Moulton® adds that the 
N. T. writers had to choose “between the literary and illiterate 
Greek of their time,” and “an artificial orthography left the door 
open for not a few uncertainties.” Here is a “letter of a prodigal 
son’ (B.G.U. 846 ii/a.p. See Milligan, Gk. Papyri, Ὁ. 93.) in which 
we have “phonetic” spelling in abundance: Kat dla πάντων] εὔχομαί 
σαι ὑγειαίνειν. TO προσκύνημά σου [ποι]ῶ κατ᾽ atkaorny ἡμαίραν παρὰ 
τῷ κυρίῳ [Σερ]απείδει. Τεινώσκειν σαι θέλω κτλ. There is here inter- 
change of ε and a, of c and et. 

(ὁ) Toe DiaLect-CoLouRED VERNACULAR. The dialects explain 
some variations in orthography. One copyist would be a better 
representative of the pure vernacular κοινή, while another might 


1 A Hist. of Egypt, 1906, p. 45. 

2 Meisterh., Gr. etc., p. 3; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 26 f.; Solmsen, Inscr. 
Graecae etc., pp. 52 ff. 

3 Op. cit., p. 27. 

+ Grol Ne AGk nso. 5 Prol:, p. 42: 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 179 


live where Attic, Ionic, Doric or Northwest Greek had still posi- 
tive influence. Often what looks like a breaking-down of the lan- 
guage is but the survival or revival of old dialectical forms or 
pronunciation. But these variations are mainly due to the per- 
sonal equation. It was not till the time of Marcus Aurelius that 
the learned grammarians succeeded in formulating the artificial 
rules which afterwards prevailed for writing the old classical 
Greek. The first century A.D. was still an age of freedom in or- 
thography. Even in the fourth century a.p. the scribe of δ΄ pre- 
fers cu rather than εἰ, while in the case of B é often occurs where ε 
is the rule elsewhere. This is not mere itacism, but is also indi- 
vidual preference.! “The oldest scribes whose work we possess 
(centuries 4 to 6) always kept themselves much freer from the 
schools than the later.”? But, even if Luke and Paul did not 
know the old historical spelling in the case of « mute (subscript) 
and εἰ, it is merely cutting the Gordian knot to “follow the By- 
zantine school, and consistently employ the historical spelling in 
the N. T.” and that “without any regard to the MS. evidence.”’ 
It is not the spelling of the Byzantine school nor of the Attic 
dialect that we are after, but the vernacular Greek of the first cen- 
tury A.D., and this is not quite “the most unprofitable of tasks,” 
as Blass would have us believe.' 

(c) Tue Unctats. They do complicate the situation. On some 
points, as noted above, the great uncials δὲ and B differ, but usu- 
ally that is not true. There is a general agreement between the 
older uncials in orthography as against the later uncials and the 
cursives which fell under the spelt of the Byzantine reformers, 
who sought to restore the classical literary spelling. The Syrian 
class of documents therefore fails to represent the orthography of 


1 Hort, The N. T. in Orig. Gk., App., Notes on Sel. Read., p. 152. But 
in the Intr. (p. 304) Hort is not willing to admit “peculiarities of a local or 
strictly dialectic nature” in the N. T. Still Hort (Notes on Orth., p. 151) 
allows the Doric ὁδαγέω (ὁδηγέω) in “single MS.” like B and 1), προσαχεῖν in 
B, ῥάσσω in D, ete. Hirt (Handb. d. Griech., p. 53) attributes much of the 
vocal change to dialect-mixing and analogy. On & and B see Hort, op. cit., 
p: 306 f. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 6f. 

3 Ib., p. 7. Hort (p. 302 f. of the Intr. to the N. T. in Orig. Gk.) makes a 
strong defence of his effort to give as nearly as possible “the spelling of the 
autographs by means of documentary evidence.” There must not be “slov- 
enly neglect of philological truth.’ But Moulton (Prol., p. 47) does not ‘‘set 
much store by some of the minutia which W. H. so conscientiously gather 
from the great uncials.’’ Certainly ‘finality is impossible, notwithstanding 
the assistance now afforded by the papyri’”’ (Thack., Gr., p. 71). 


180 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the vernacular κοινή of the first century A.D. The Syrian class, for 
instance, reads Καπερναούμ, not Καφαρναούμ. But do the MSS. 
which give us the pre-Syrian types of text preserve the auto- 
graphic orthography? The fourth century is a long time from the 
first and the presumption might seem to be to some extent against 
the Neutral, Alexandrian and Western classes also. The temp- 
tation is constant to spell as people of one’s time do. This diffi- 
culty is felt by every editor of classical Greek texts and often 
purely arbitrary rules are used, rules made by modern critics. 
. Hort! is willing to admit that in some instances the spellings 
found in the great uncials which are at variance with the Textus 
Receptus are due to the “literary spellings of the time” when the 
MSS. were written, “but for the most part they belong to the 
‘vulgar’ or popular form of the language.’’? Hort could see that 
before we had the new knowledge from the papyri and inscrip- 
tions. He adds?: “A large proportion of the peculiar spellings of 
the N. T. are simply spellings of common life. In most cases 
either identical or analogous spellings occur frequently in inscrip- 
tions written in different countries, by no means always of the 
more illiterate sort.” This fact showed that the unclassical spell- 
ings in the uncials were current in the Apostolic age and were the 
most trustworthy even if sometimes doubtful. “Absolute uni- 
formity belongs only to artificial times,’’ Hort* argues, and hence 
it is not strange to find this confusion in the MSS. The confusion 
existed in fact in the first century a.p. and probably the auto- 
graphs did not follow uniform rules in spelling. Certain it is that 
the N. T. writings as preserved in the MSS. vary. But itacism 
applies to all the MSS. to a certain extent and makes it difficult 
to know what vowel or diphthong was really before the scribe. 
- In general the N. T., like the LXX, is grounded in matters of or- 
thography on the rules of the grammarians of the time of the 
Ceesars (Appollonius and Herodian) rather than upon those of 
the time of Hadrian, when they had an archaistic or Atticistic 
tendency (Helbing, Grammatik ἃ. LXX, p. 1). Moulton (Prol., 
p. 42) thinks that “there are some suggestive signs that the great 
uncials, in this respect as in others, are not far away from the 
autographs.” But Thackeray (op. cit., p. 56) denies that this 


1 Op. cit., p. 303 f. Jann. (Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 35) calls attention to the fact 
that the professional copyists not only had to copy accurately, but “in the 
received uniform spelling.” Cf. also Helbing, Gr. ἃ. LXX, p.2. For further 
remarks on the phenomena in the LXX MSS. see Swete, O. T. in Gk. p. 300f. 

2 Op. cit., p. 304. * Op. cit., p. 308. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 181 


conclusion can be drawn ipso facto of the LXX, since it was trans- 
lated (the Pentateuch certainly) some three centuries earlier than 
the N. T. was written. 

(d) Tue Papyri. They strengthen the case for the uncials. 
Deissmann! and Moulton? show that the great uncials correspond ἡ 
in orthography not only with the contemporaneous inscriptions 
as Hort had seen, but also with the papyri of the better-educated 
writers. Among the strictly illiterate papyri writers one can 
find almost anything. The case of éa4v=dy in relative clauses is + 
worked out well by Moulton to prove this point. In the papyri 
dated B.c. the proportion of ἐάν to ἄν in such cases is 13 to 29, while 
in the first century A.D. it is 76 to9. But in the fourth century 
A.D. it is 4 to 8 and the usage disappears in the sixth century A.D. 
Thackeray (Grammar, vol. I, pp. 65 ff.) shows (after Deissmann*) 
how the LXX confirms this conclusion for ἐάν -- ἄν. The usage 
appears in B.c. 183; copyists are divided in different parts of the 
same book as in Exodus or Leviticus; it is predominant in the 
first and second centuries A.D., and then disappears. Thackeray : 
(p. 58) traces οὐθείς (unOeis) “from its cradle to its grave’ (from 
378 B.c. to end of ii/A.p.) and shows how in ii/A.D. οὐδείς is supreme 
again. This point very strikingly confirms the faithfulness of the 
uncials in orthography in a matter out of harmony with the time 
when the MSS. were written. We may conclude then that Hort 
is right and the uncials, inscriptions and papyri give us the ver- 
nacular orthography of the κοινή with reasonable correctness. 

II. Vowel-Changes (στοιχεῖα φωνήεντα). In the old times the 
vowels underwent many changes, for orthography was not fixed. 
Indeed is it ever fixed? If the Atticists had let the κοινή have a 
normal development, Dr. Rutherford would not have complained 
that Greek was ruined by their persistence “in an obsolete or- 
thography instead of spelling as they speak.’’* But as early as 
403 s.c. the orator Archinos® had a law passed in Attica prescrib- 
ing the use of the Ionic alphabet in the schools. The early Greek 
used only a, ε, t, 0, v, and no distinction was made in writing be- 


.B.'S.,-pp.. 202 ff. 2 Prol., pp. 42 ff. 

3 B.S., pp. 202 ff. On the whole subject of the difficulty of N. T. orthog. 
see W.-Sch., pp. 31 ff. Deiss. (B. S., p. 180) is clearly right in denying a 
“N. T. orthography” save as individual writers, as now, have their peculiar- 
ities. For general remarks about vowel changes in LXX MSS. see Swete, 
O. T. in Gk., p. 301 f.; Thack., Gr., vol. I, pp. 71-100; Helbing, Gr., Laut- u. 
Wortl., pp. 3-14. 

4 Nicklin, Cl. Rev., 1906, p. 115, in review of Rutherford’s A Chap. in 
the Hist. of Annotation, 1905. 5 Cf. Bekker, Anec. Gr., vol. II, p. 783. 


182 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


tween long and short vowels, as indeed was never done in the 
case of t and v. The Ionic invented! Q for long o. Before the 
introduction of the Ionic alphabet, I.E. @ and @ were represented 
by «. H was at first the aspirate like Hebrew 7 and then now 
aspirate and now long ε or a as the inscriptions amply show. It 
is very common in the early inscriptions to see ε thus used as 
long and o likewise, as in &a and 7os. Cf. ε, o for spurious diph- 
thongs εἰ, ov. The kinship of these vowels with the Phoenician 
alphabet is plain, as a is from N, e from 7}, c from %, ο from Y, v 
from the doubling of ἡ (and so a Greek invention). It is inter- 
esting to note that the Sanskrit has three pure vowels, a, 2, u, 
while e and o are diphthongs in origin. In Sanskrit a far surpasses 
all other vowel-sounds, more than twice as many as all other vowel- 
sounds put together.? Schleicher* speaks of the weakening of a 
into 7 and w, and thus he goes back to an original a sound for all 
the vowels. In Latin also a breaks into 6, 7 and u.4 Even in 
Attica in the first century B.c., in spite of Archinos’ law, the in- 
scriptions use sometimes au and ae, εἰ and ut, ἡ and t, v and ε, v and 
υι,ι and e interchangeably.’ Uniformity did not exist in one dialect, 
not to mention the persistent differences between the various Greek 
dialects. ‘These changes were going on constantly all over the 
Greek world in the first century A.D. For the alphabetical changes 
in the dialects see Buck’s Greek Dialects, pp. 15 ff. These inter- 
changes between vowels are interesting. 

(a) THE CHANGES (INTERCHANGES) WITH a. The first sound 
made by a baby is Gd. These changes became dialectical peculiari- 
ties in many words like the Lesbian κρέτος (κράτος, “‘ablaut”’ varia- 
tions), the Boeotian ἅτερος (ἕτερος), Doric ἱαρός (fepds).6 So in the 
vernacular Attic we find ἐρετή (ἀρετή) where a breaks to ε before 
ε (vowel assimilation), as in the Ionic-Attic a sometimes changes 
to « after c and v.? See Kiihner-Blass® for many examples. 


1 Riem. and Goelzer, Gr. Comp. du Grec et du Lat., Phonét., p. 38. 
Cf. also Donaldson, The New Crat., pp. 207 ff.; K.-Bl., Griech. Gr., ΤΊ. I, 
Bd. I, pp. 39 ff.; Earle, Names of the Orig. Letters of the Gk. Alph. (Class- 
Papers, 1912, pp. 257 ff.); Flin.-Pet., Form. of the Gk. Alph. (1912). But 
Sir Arthur Evans gets the Gk. Alph. from Crete. 

2 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 10. 

3 Vergl. Gr., p. 55. His opinion is now considered antiquated. 

4 Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 149 f. 

5 Télfy, Chron. und Topog. ἃ. griech. Ausspr. etc., 1893, p. 39. See also 
Larsfeld, Griech. Epig., 1892, pp. 494 ff.; King and Cookson, Sounds and 
Inflex. in Gk. and Lat., 1888. ΓΚ Bhs) ΠΡ ΡΠ pert tee 

7 Wirt, Handb. der griech. Laut- ἃ. Formenl., pp. 115, 119. Τά is the form 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 183 


aandé. ’Ayyapebw appears as éyyap. in δὰ (Mt. 5:41) and NB 
(Mk. 15: 21).1: The New Ionic εἵνεκεν (more commonly ἕνεκεν) has 
nearly displaced the Attic évexa which Blass? admits only in 
Ac. 26:21. Εἶτεν for εἶτα appears in Mk. 4: 28 as a rare Ionic 
form. Herodotus* had both εἶτα and ἔπειτα. Καθαρίζω in the 
aorist (active and passive) and perfect middle has ε for the second 
a in many of the best MSS. both in LXX and N. T. (cf. Mk. 
1:42; Mt. 8:3 W. H.). Gregory, Prolegomena, p. 82, gives the 
facts. Blass* points out that Πάτερα (Πάταρα) occurs in AC in 
Ac. 21:1. Τεσσεράκοντα is the form given always by W. H. This 
is an Ionic form (vowel assimilation) which is not so common in 
the papyri as in the N. T. MSS.° In modern Greek both σαράντα 
and σεράντα survive. Likewise W. H. always give the preference to 
τέσσερα, though the papyri do not use it till the fourth century A.p.® 
But in the inscriptions τέσσερα is found several times,’ one case in 
the first century A.D. Téooepas, however, does not occur in the 
N. T. MSS., though the papyri have it in the Byzantine age.’ The 
Tonic and the modern Greek have τέσσερες and τέσσερα. The N. T. 
thus differs from the κοινή papyri, but is in harmony with the Ionic 
literature and inscriptions. In some MSS. in both LXX and N. T. 


in Doric and Beeotian, while ye is found in the Ionic, Attic and Cypriote 
(Meister, Griech. Dial., Bd. II, p. 29). 

1 Deiss., B. S., p. 182, gives &yapias in a pap. (iv/A.D.). 

2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 20. Cf. Note in W.-Sch., p. 50; Thack., pp. 82, 135; 
Mays., p. 14. ; 

3 According to Phrynichus (Rutherford, New Phryn., p. 204) both of these 
words are ἐσχάτως βάρβαρα. 

ἐδ ΟΝ ΕΠ (τ Ὁ 20, 5 Moulton, Prol., p. 46. 

7 ®§ Tb. For assimilation between a and ¢ in modern Gk. dialects see Dieterich, 
Unters. etc., pp. 272, 274. In mod. Gk. vernacular a frequently displaces 
initial « or o. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 14. 

7 Dieterich, Unters. zur Gesch. der griech. Spr., p. 4; also Schweizer, Gr. 
d. perg. Inschr., p. 163. 

8 Nachm., Laute und Formen d. magn. Inschr., p. 146. 

9 Moulton, Prol., p. 46. For further evidence see Crénert, Mem. Graeca 
Hercul., 1903, p. 199. In the Apostolic Fathers and the N. T. Apoc. τέσσερα 
‘and τεσσεράκοντα are common as well as ἐκαθερίσθη (Reinhold, De Grecitate 
Patr. Apostol. etc., p. 38 f. On the whole subject of a and ¢ in the papyri see 
careful discussion of Mayser, Gr., pp. 54-60, where he mentions ἐκούω, éyyapebw, 
ἐπελεύσασθαι (for similar confusion of aorist and fut. inf. see ἐκφεύξασθαι, 2 Mace. 
9:22 V). Τέσσερα and τεσσεράκοντα are very common also in the LXX MSS. 
Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. LXX, p. 5; Thack., Gr., p. 62f. This spelling occurs as 
early as iv/B.c. in Pergamum (Schweizer, Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 163 f.). In 
Egypt it hardly appears before i/a.p. and is not common till ii/A.p. (Thack., 
Gr., p. 62). The uncials give the later spelling. See “Additional Notes.” 


184 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


τέσσαρες iS accusative as well as nominative, like the Achzean dia- 
lect, but this is another story. δὲ in Rev. 3:16 has xNepds. The 
common (Ionic and Northwest Greek) use of —éw instead of —dw 
with verbs as in ἐρωτέω will be discussed in the chapter on Verbs. 

Conversely ε is sometimes changed toa. ᾿Αμφιάζει is accepted 
by W. H. in Lu. 12 : 28 rather than either the late ἀμφιέζει or the 
early ἀμφιέννυσι. The form ἐραυνάω instead of ἐρευνάω W. H. have 
everywhere received into the text, and so with éfepavvaw and ἀνεξε- 
pabyntos. SB always read it so, sometimes AC. It is supported 
by the papyri. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 118; Helbing, Gr. d. LXX, 
p. 7, for similar phenomena in the LXX. 

Initial ε often becomes a in modern Greek vernacular, as ἀλα- 
φρός (ἐλαφρός), ἄντερα (ἔντερα), etc. Cf. Thumb, Handbook, Ὁ. 14. 
So the Doric πιάζω is used in the N. T. everywhere save in Lu. 
6 : 38, where, however, πεπιεσμένος has the original idea (‘pressed 
down,’ not ‘seized’). Both occur in the LXX. The Attic forms 
φιάλη, ὕαλος are retained in the N. T. (as in LXX) rather than the 
Ionic and vernacular κοινή forms in e, a mark of the influence of 
the literary? κοινή. 

Some verbs in —éw also use —aw forms, like ἐλεάω, ἐλλογάω, Evpaw. 
See the chapter on Verbs. 

Changes in a take place in a few Hebrew proper names. Kazep- 
vaovp is the Syrian reading for Καφαρναούμ (W. H.). So W. H. read 
Μαλελεήλ in Lu. 3:37, not Med.(Tisch.),and Ναθαναήλ. Σελαθιήλ in- 
stead of Lad.) appears in B. Thumb? remarks that these changes 
between a and ε occur to-day in the Kappadocian dialect. 

a and ἡ. The Doric forms ὁδα γός, 65474 are found in the κοινή, 
though Schweizer’ calls it hardly a Dorism. So in N. T. MSS. 
we have προσαχέω in B (Ac. 27: 27) and pacow in D (Mk. 9 : 18). 
The Ptolemaic papyri regularly have ἀνηλίσκειν till 1i/A.D. (May- 
ser, Gr., p. 345). For a and q see ἡ and 7 under (ὦ. 

aando. The changes* between these two vowels are seen in 
the Lesbian ὑπά (ὑπό), Arcadian τριακάσιοι, Doric εἴκατι (εἴκοσι), etc. 
W. ΗΠ. give βατταλογέω in Mt. 6:7 (cf. βατταρίζω) instead of βατ- 
τολογέω. ABK and twice δὰ and many cursives have πρὸς Κολασσαεῖς: 

1 Dieterich Unters. etc., p. 70. Cf. Thack., Gr., vol. I, p. 75 f. So Δαλματία 
in 2 Tim. 4: 10, though C has Δελμ. as Lat. has both. Blass, Gr. of Ν. T. Gk., 
p. 21. Both forms are in the pap., Deiss., B. S., p. 182. 

2 Hellen. (Griech. Spr.), p. 76. See also Radermacher, N. T. Gr., pp. 34 ff. 

3 Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 49. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 62, χρᾶσθαι for χρῆσθαι. 
So A in 2 Mace. 6 : 21. 


4 K.-BL, Tl. I, Bd. I, p. 117 f. Cf. Meisterh., Gr. etc., p. 117, where Attic 
inser. are shown to have NeozoNirns. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 185 


as the title, while in Col. 1:2 nearly all MSS. read ἐν Κολοσσαῖς. 
Blass finds the title in o also in accordance with the coins and the 
profane writers; Xen., Anab. I, 2. 6, has a variant reading in Κολασ- 
σαί. In Mk. 18:35 B has μεσανύκτιον and D in Lu. 11 : 5 instead 
of μεσονύκτιον. In 1 Tim. 1:9 W. H. give μητρολῴαις and πατρο- 
λῴαις (instead of —adoiats) on the authority of NADFGL. Blass? 
compares πατρο-κτόνος. 

α απὸ ὦ. ᾿Ανάγαιον is read by the most and the best MSS. in 
Mk. 14:15; Lu. 22 : 12. ᾿Ανώγεον, ἀνώγαιον, ἀνώγεων, ἀνάγεον have 
only “trifling authority.”’* Ταῖος is Doric and ΤΙΟηΪο. 

aandat. The papyri*t sometimes have the Epic and Ionic αἰεί, 
though the N. T. only reads ἀεί. The early dropped out between 
the vowels. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 103. B has αἰεί in 1 Esd. 1:30. 
The N. T., like the LXX, has καίω and κλαίω, though the Ptole- 
maic papyri rarely have κάω and κλάω. 

aandav. In Lu. 2:1 NCA have ᾿Αγούστου instead of Αὐγούστου. 
This spelling of ἃ for av is found in Pergamum by Schweizer® 
in the reflexive pronoun ἑατόν, while Meisterhans® gives examples 
of it as early as 74 8.6. in the Attic inscriptions. Moulton?’ is 
probably correct in saying that we need not assume the existence 
of this spelling in the N. T. autographs, though it is not impos- 
sible. He indorses Mayor’s suggestion (Hap., VI, x, 289) “that 
ἀκαταπάστους in 2 Pet. 2:14 AB may be thus explained: he com- 
pares ἀχμηρῷ 1:19 A.” This dropping of v between vowels ex- 
tended to the dropping of v before consonants. In the modern 
Greek we have αὐτός (aftos) and ἀτός (in Pontus), whence comes 
τό (not the article). The examples of ’Ayotdoros and ἀτός (ἀτογεν- 
νητόν once) in the papyri are very common.? Thackeray (Gr., 
p. 79) finds no instances in the LXX. 


1 Hort (Notes on Orth., p. 152) compares μέσαβον, and Blass (Gr., p. 21) 
μεσαστύλιον. Μετοξύ (μεταξύ) is in 1 Clem. and Barn. (Reinhold, De Graec., 
p. 40. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 60f., ὄλλοι for ἅλλοι. Illiterate scribes confused 
a and o, a and ε in the LXX (as μετοξύ) and in the pap. (Thack., Gr., p. 77). 

BoCareoreN.t, Gk.,p. 21. 

3 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 151. W.-Sch., p. 51, compare κατα-φαγᾶς and 
κατω-φαγᾶς as parallel. Cf. Meisterh., Gr., p. 17. 

4 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 31, 1904, p. 107. 5 Gr. etc., p. 91 f. 

6 Gr. etc., p. 61. Cf. also Dieterich, Unters. etc., p. 78. ΡΤ ἢ: 

8 Moulton, Exp., 1904, p. 363. So also in the Rom. period occasionally 
éuarod, éarod. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 35; Wack., Kuhn’s Zeitschr., 
XXxxili, pp. 2 ff. 

9 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 33; 1904, p. 107. He quotes Laurent (B.C.H., 
1903, p. 356) as saying that this phenomenon was very common in the latter 
half of i/B.c. 


186 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


αι απὰ εξ. a was written ae in early Boeotian and Attic inscrip- 
tions (cf. Latin transliteration) and so gradually was pronounced 
as ε (Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 28). By 100 a.p. in the κοινή a 
was the mere equivalent of «. The Egyptian papyri show abun- 
dant illustrations of it. Especially do the LX X MSS. exhibit it 
(Thackeray, Gr., p. 78). The modern Greek pronounces both these 
vowel-sounds alike, as indeed did the Boeotian dialect long before 
the xown. Numerous examples of this interchange of spelling exist 
in the Pompeian wall-inscriptions and in the vernacular κοινή from 
100 a.p. on.! Indeed in the N. T. MSS. it is very common to 
find --σθαι and —oe used indiscriminately, probably representing the 
common later pronunciation which was already developing in the 
first century A.D. Hort? compares this “shortening of an identical 
sound” to the late στύλος for στῦλος and κρίμα for κρῖμα. So com- 
mon did this blending become that Blass* places little confidence 
in the N. T. MSS. on this point. Such readings occur as ἐτεῖσθε 
for αἰτεῖσθε and γυνέκαις for γυναῖκες. Sometimes only the con- 
text‘? can decide between e and a where different forms result, as 
in ἀνάπεσε or -αι (Lu. 14:10), ἔγειρε or —ar (Mt. 9:5), ἐπάναγκες 
(Ac. 15: 28),5 ἔρχεσθε or --σθαι in NADL (Lu. 14:17), ἑτέροις or 
ἑταίροις (Mt. 11:16 Syrian reading), παρένεγκε or -αἱ (Mk. 14: 36), 
ete. In Gal.4:18 both & and B read ζηλοῦσθε for ζηλοῦσθαι. B 
reads Αἰλαμῖται in Ac. 2:9, from 55», the rest "EX. The author- 
ity according to Hort® is “usually preponderant” for ἐξέφνης and 
ἐφνίδιος instead of aid. So xepéa for κεραία is accepted’ in Mt. 5: 18; 
Lu. 16:17, and xperadn for κραιπάλη in Lu. 21:34. Likewise 
W. ΗΠ. receive Aacéa for Aacaia in Ac. 27:8. NAC in 2 Pet. 2:17 
read λέλαπος, but λαῖλαψ is the undoubted reading in Matthew, 
Luke. The uncials all have ῥέδη, not ῥαίδη, in Rev. 18:13. So 
all the early uncials but A have Συκομορέα (not —aia) in Lu. 19: 4. 
Hort® accepts also φελόνης for φαιλόνης (2 Tim. 4:18), though 
Moulton? doubts, because of the Latin paenula. 


1 W.-Sch., p. 47. 

2 Notes on Orth., p. 150. Cf. on a and e, Mayser, Gr., p. 107. 

δ᾽ Ge ofc Nal. Gk. p. 9. 4 °W.-Sch., p. 47. 

5 Ἔπ᾽ ἀνάγκαις “Alexandrian only” according to Hort, Notes on Orth., 
p. 151. 

6 Tb. 


7 1b. Cf. the Western καινοφωνίας for κενοφωνίας in 1 Tim. 6:20. In 1 
Th. 3:3 instead of σαίνεσθαι FG read σιένεσθαι. Nestle (Neut.-Zeit., 1906, 
p. 361) finds parallels in the forms σιαινομένων and σιανθείς. 

8 Notes on Orth., p. 151. 

9 Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 107. The pap. give φαινόλιον. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 187 


(0) THe Cuanees wit ε. The interchanges of ε and a have 
already been discussed under (a), but others took place with 7, 1, o. 

ε and et. In the Boeotian these were freely interchanged! and 
the same interchange occurs in the Doric, New Ionic and Attic 
as πλέων or πλείων. The Attic inscriptions? show this common 
phenomenon. The before a vowel easily and early loses its force 
and drops out. Before the adoption of the scholastic orthography 
at Athens (s.c. 403) ε stood for ε, ἡ, ει. Sooner or later εἰ became 
everywhere a monophthong (Buck, Greek Dialects, p. 28). But 
the κοινή usually wrote εἰ before vowels rather than ε (Thackeray, 
Gr., p. 81). The LXX MSS. reveal the same traits as the N. T. 
᾿Αρεοπαγίτης is in Acts 17:34, but “Apes occurs (Ac. 17:19, 22). 
᾿Αχρεῖος is uniform in the N. T., but in Ro. 3:12 we have ἠχρεώ- 
Gracie wai) seine lo 02213 15> Ac. 15:28) W:. H. 
print πλέον (Attic has even πλέονος), but elsewhere the N. T. has 
forms in εἰ. The derivatives all have ε like πλεονεκτέω. But the 
N. T. has only τέλειος, τελειόω, though Herodotus always and the 
Attic usually used τελεόω. De has τελεῶσαι in Heb. 10:1.4 Of 
words with ε and εἰ before consonants one may note that ἀπο- 
στείλω in Ac. 7: 34 is aorist subjunctive. (Cf. Ex. 3:10.) Both 
ἕνεκεν and εἵνεκεν occur in the N. T. (both Ionic and Attic). The 
N. T. never has és, but always eis. However, ἔσω is the uniform 
reading in the N. T. Homer used either εἴσω or ἔσω. 

e and ἡ. Numerous examples of long ε occur in the inscriptions 
like μέτε (μήτε). ὃ These changes are probably all analogical and 
not phonetic. But in the N. T. we have only the shortening of 
n, back to short € in some words like ἀνάθεμα, though this particular 
word (‘curse’) came to be distinct from ἀνάθημα (‘votive offering’). 
᾿Ανάθημα occurs only once in the N. T. (Lu. 21:5), and even here 
NADX, etc., have ἀνάθεμα. Tisch. quotes Moeris as saying ἀνά- 
θημα ἀττικῶς, ἀνάθεμα ἑλληνικῶς. But the use of ἀνάθεμα as ‘curse’ 


1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 28, as θειός Ξεθεός; Thumb, Handb., p. 220. 

2 Meisterh., Gr., p. 20 f. Cf. Schweizer, Gr. etc., p. 44f. The change 
in ε and e was very common in vi/ili B.c. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 37. 

3 But even the Arcadian dial. has πλέονα, πλεόνων (Solmsen, Inscr. Graec., p. 
4). Πλέον is common in the N.T. Apoc. (Reinhold, De Graec. Patr. Apost. etc., 
p. 40). Cf. Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 40f. On the whole subject of ε 
and εἰ in the pap. see Mayser, Gr., pp. 67-73. They are very numerous indeed, 
these changes in the pap., both ways. 4 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 22. 

δ Solmsen, Inscr. Graecae etc., p. 1. Arcadian dial. Cf. also Meisterh., 
Gr., p. 3. In the Pontic dial. to-day there is a wide-spread use of ¢ instead of 
ἢ, a8 in σέπομαι (Thumb, Hellen. [Griech. Spr., referred to hereafter usually as 
Hellen.], p. 149). 


188 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


“is not an innovation of biblical Greek”? (Moulton, Prolegomena, 
p. 46). In Ac. 11:11 NABD® read ἦμεν, not ἤμην. Perhaps this 
exchange between ε and ἡ bears on the use of στήκετε with ἵνα 
in Mk. 11:25; 1 Th. 3:8, and of MS. evidence for θαυμάζετε in 
Jo. 5:20 and ἐξομολογήσεται in Ph. 2:11. Cf. also ὄψησθε and 
ὄψεσθε in Lu. 18:28. So in 13:25. Mayser (Gr., p. 64) thinks 
that sometimes ε represents an original open 7 as in παρεστεκότες. 
The κοινή shows quite a preference for words in —eva rather than 
—nua (Mayser, Gr., p. 65 f.), and the LX X has new words in —eua, 
though some words have both forms (Thackeray, Gr., p. 80). 

In the papyri this shortening (as in the LX X) appears in words 
like ἐπίθεμα, πρόσθεμα, etc.1 The interchanges between ἡ and ει, ηι 
and εἰ will be discussed under ἡ (c). Mayser (Gr., p. 63 1.) thus 
(η for ε) explains πλήρης as an indeclinable neuter form. 

e and vu. Dieterich? mentions as one of the marks of the Attic 
and Egyptian κοινή the fact that « and e interchange when used 
with ἃ and ν. Cf. the modern Greek, and the Lesbian Greek used 
τέρτος for τρίτος, and the Thessalian θιός for θεός. It is a Doric 
characteristic. This variation appears in the inscriptions? and in 
the papyri,‘ especially in the case of λεγιών, which is also λεγεών and 
even λεγειών, not to mention a genitive Aeydvws (o and w having 
the same sound). λεγιών is the reading of the best N. T. MSS. 
(NBDL; cf. Latin legio), as in the papyri. Especially in the case 
of the Latin short 7 does the κοινή have ε. ᾿Λλεεῖς, not ἁλιεῖς, is the 
reading in the N. T. according to the best MSS. (Mk. 1: 16, ete.).5 
This is a natural assimilation after a liquid. The frequency of e 
for ein the Egyptian papyri may be due in part to the Coptic, 
which has no short ἢ (Steindorff, Kopt. Gr., p. 13). Note a 
soldier’s use of xépayv for χεῖρα(ν), B.G.U. 423 (ii/a.p.). λέντιον 
(Jo. 13:4, Latin lintewm) is a change in the other direction, 
Latin 7 to Greek «. Blass® says that λέντεον would have looked 


1 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 108. Cf. also Moulton, Prol., p. 46, and 
Schweizer, Gr. d. perg. Inschr., pp. 47 ff., has good discussion of this short- 
ening of 7 to ε and also w too. “E and ἡ interchange times without number 
from v/8.c. down to ix/a.p.” (Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 36). Reinhold (De 
Graec. Patr. etc., p. 101 f.) shows how the confusion between ἡ and ε led to 
forms like ἐὰν ἀγάγετε. Cf. the mod. Gk. στέκω (στήκω) and θέτω (θήτω). 

2 Unters. etc., p. 136. 8 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 48 f. 

4 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, pp. 33, 484; 1904, p. 107. Cf. Mayser, Gr., 
p. 80 f. 

6 «Αλιεῖς occurs in pap. also. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 307; Thackeray, 
p. 84. 

6 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 22. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 189 


unnatural to a Greek. Νηφάλιος also is alone well-attested,! not 
νηφάλεος (1 Tim. 3: 2, etc.). Ποτίολοι in Ac. 28:13 represents the 
Latin Puteoli, using « for e (cf. Dittenberger, p. 145). Σιμικίνθιον 
(not —eov) is the N. T. reading (Ac. 19 : 12) for Latin semicinctium. 
So Τιβέριος (not Τεβέριος) is the N. T. rendition of Tiberius in Lu. 
3:1, though the later Greek writers used Τεβέριος, Δομέτριος, etc.” 
It is really surprising that more examples of this exchange of ε 
and «do not appear. The interchanges between εἰ and ¢ are dis- 
cussed under (d), those between ev and v under (f). 

€ando. The Lesbian Aolic had στρόφω for the Doric στράφω. 
The Ionic-Attic made it στρέφω. Meisterhans’ gives numerous ex- 
amples of this change in ε and ο: ὀβολός for ὀβελός as early as the 
middle of the fourth century B.c. Dieterich* mentions the assimi- 
lation of ε and o as one of the marks of the Egyptian κοινή. In Ac. 
18: 24 & 15. 180. Cop. arm. and in 19:1 & 180. read ᾿Απελλῆς for 
᾿Απολλώς, though D has ᾿Απολλώνιος in 18: 24. The Doric and the 
Attic inscriptions’ had ᾿Απέλλων, ᾿Απελλώνιος, ᾿Απέλλιος, ete. In 
1 Cor. and Titus we have only ᾿Απολλώς. Indeed Blass® suggests 
that ᾿Λπελλῆς is the reading of the a text in Acts and that ᾿Απολλώς 
is an interpolation from 1 Cor. It is more likely to think that 
the two old forms of the name were still in use, though ’Azo)- 
dws is the correct text in Acts also. The MSS. of the N. T., even 
good uncials, have ὀλοθρεύω, ἐξολοθρεύω, ὀλοθρευτής as well as the 
usual ὀλεθρεύω, etc. (cf. ὀβολός for ὀβελός by assimilation), and 
Hort’ accepts the ε form only in Ac. 3:23. The Syrian class 
has the o form. Blass,’ who usually cares little for such points, 
properly insists on the documentary evidence. In Heb. 11:28 
only ADE have the e form, while in 1 Cor. 10:10 DFG read e. 


1 Notes on Orth., p. 151. 

2 Blass, Gr. of Ν. T. Gk., p. 21. But always Tiros. Cf. Nachm., Magn. 
Inschr., p. 22, in discussion of ¢ for Lat.z. Both λεγιών and λέντιον are read in 
Magn. inscr. (Thieme, Die Inschr. von Magn. etc., p. 8). Cf. also Schweizer, 
Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 46. For assimilation between ε and ε in mod. Gk. see 
Dieterich, Unters. etc., p. 272 f. 

3 Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 22. Cf. also K.-Bl., Tl. I, Bd. I, p. 118. 

4 Unters. etc., p. 1385 f. Cf. Hirt, Handb. d. Griech. etc., p. 115. 

5 K.-BL., Tl. I, Bd. I, p. 118, and Hirt, op. cit., p. 115. 

6 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 21. Cf. Mayser (Gr., pp. 94-97) for a discussion of 
the pap. situation. 

7 Notes on Orth., p. 152. 

8 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 21. He quotes Buresch, Rhein. Mus., p. 216 f., as 
in favour of ¢ in the N. T. as well as the LXX. ᾿᾽Ὀλεθ. appears in the Apost. 
᾿ Fathers (Goodspeed, Index) and ὀλοθ. in N. T. Apoc. (Reinhold, p. 40). For 
assimilation between ε and o in mod. Gk. see Dieterich, Unters. etc., p. 274. 


190 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


The LXX according to NAB reads e, though the modern Greek 
has ξολοθρεύω. But ὄλεθρος is the uniform spelling in the N. T. 
and is the rule in the LXX (Thackeray, Gr., p. 88). 

In Mk. 8: 14 B has ἐπελάθεντο as is common in the LXX 
(Thackeray, Gr., p. 89). Cf. also dédero (Heb. 12:16, LXX), 
ἐξέδετο (Mk. 12:1), διεδίδετο (Ac. 4: 35), παρεδίδετο (1 Cor. 11: 23), 
and éfexpéuero (Lu. 19:48 NB). Hort (Appendix, p. 167 f.) ex- 
plains these changes as “‘euphonic,” but it is a change of the root- 
vowel of 60, a confusion of thematic and athematic conjugations. 

ἐάν and ἄν. See also 1 (d) under Papyri. This is as good a 
place as any to say a word further on the interchange of these 
two forms, not strictly vowel-changes, however. We have also 
εἰάν (really εἰ-Ἐ ἄν) as in P Eleph. 1 (B.c. 311). See also αἰάν for ἐάν, 
B.G.U. 530 (i/a.p.). The use of éa4v=modal ἄν in relative sentences, 
so common in the LX X, N. T. and papyri of 1.11 Α.Ὁ., is not an ex- 
change of vowels, but possibly a slurring over of the e before a. 
_ "Av=édy survives from the ancient Greek in a few instances, as Jo. 
5:19 (NB); 12:32 (B and accepted by W. H.); 13:20 DEFG, 
etc., have ἐάν, but NBC ἄν and accepted by W.H.); 16: 23 (BACD, 
accepted by W. H.); 20 : 23 (twice and accepted by W. H., though 
AD have first ἐάν and NAD second). In Ac. 9:2 only NE have ἄν 
and W. H. read ἐάν. Blass! thinks that as ἐάν made encroachment 
into the province of ἄν “a kind of interchange of meaning between 
the two words” grew up. The modern Greek vernacular uses ἄν for 
‘if.’ Hort? considers the whole subject of the interchange between 
ἐάν and ἄν after relatives “ peculiarly irregular and perplexing. 
Predominantly ἄν is found after consonants, and ἐάν after vowels, 
but there are many exceptions.” Cf. ἐάν in Mt. 20:4 and ἄν in 


. Mt. 20:26 ἢ. Moulton? has shown that ἐάν-ε ἄν is scarce in the 


papyri save from 100 B.c. to 200 a.p. In the Magnesian inscrip- 
tions’ only ἐάν appears, not ἄν nor ἤν, as ἤνΞε ἐάν is not in the 
N.T. But in the Herculaneum papyri these particles interchange 
freely. The Attic inscriptions uniformly have ἄν with relatives.® 


1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 60. Omitted by Debrunner in ed. 4. 

2 Notes on Orth., p. 173. Hort has a curious error here, for the references 
under ἄν and ἐάν should be exactly reversed. ὕὰν Ξξ ἐάν (‘if’) is rarely found 
in the pap. also. Moulton (Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 434) gives ἂν μὴ ἀποδῶι (AP 48, 
ii/B.c.). Cf. also Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 82; Mayser, Gr., p. 152f. Mayser gives 
exx. of ἐάν -- ἄν and of ἄν Ξε ἐάν. $ Prol., p. 43; Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 32, ete. 

4 Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 68. See Gregory, Prol. (Nov. Test. Gr.), p. 
96, for the facts about the N. T. MSS. and ἐάν. 

5 Crénert, Mem. Graeca Here., p. 130. 

6 Dieterich, Unters. etc., p. 326. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 191 


Indeed Attic often contracts this particle ἐάντε ἤν. But év= 
modal ἄν is found in Xen. Mem., ᾧ ἐὰν ἁρμόττῃ, in Lysias, ots ἐὰν 
βουληθῶσιν, etc. (see Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 421). This use 
of ἐὰν occurs over sixty times in the N. T. Examples occur in 
late Greek of ei — éav as well as ef — ἄν, instead of ἐάν. Cf. Rein- 
hold, De Graecitate Patrum Apost. etc., p. 35; Moulton, Classical 
Review, 1901, p. 82. Thackeray (Gr., pp. 65 ff.) finds that in the » 
ii/B.c. the papyri nearly always have és ἄν, while in the i/a.p. they 
nearly always have ὃς ἐάν. In the books of Exodus and Leviticus 
he notes that in the first half of each book both forms occur 
while in the second part ὃς ἐάν almost vanishes. Each book may 
have been written on two rolls. 

(c) THE CHANGES WITH ἢ. The changes between ἡ and a, ἡ and 
« have already been discussed. 

yn and. As already stated, originally H was merely the rough 
breathing, but the Ionic psilosis left a symbol useless, and héta was 
called δία.Σ Thus the new letter took the old long é value in Ionic 
and Attic and also largely supplanted the long a where ἃ became δ. 
The Sanskrit used long ὦ, the Greek ἡ and the Latin either δ or 7. 
This new (in spelling) ἡ (v/B.c.) gradually turned more to the t 
sound in harmony with the growing itacism of the language, though 
there was some etacism on the other hand.’ As early as 150 B.c. 
the Egyptian papyri show evidence of the use of . for 7.4. By the 
middle of the second century A.D. the confusion between ἡ and 1, 
n and ει, ηι and εἰ is very general. By the Byzantine times it is 
complete and the itacism is triumphant in the modern Greek.® 
Reinhold® thinks that the exchange between ἡ and ὁ was natural 
in view of the relation between ἡ and ε and the interchange be- 
tween ε and vt. As early as the fifth century B.c. the change 
between ἡ and ε is seen on vases and inscriptions. But the Ptole- 
maic papyri show little of it and it is rare in the LXX MSS. NAB 
(Thackeray, Gr., p. 85). In the N. T. times the interchanges 
between ἡ and ει, ἡ and ει, ηι and εἰ are not many. In 1 Cor. 4:11 
W. H. read γυμνιτεύω, though L and most of the cursives have 7. 


1 Thumb, Hellen., p. 92. 

2 Hirt, Handb. d. Griech. etc., p. 63. 

8 Thumb, Hellen., p. 98 f. 

4 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 29. Cf. also Thumb, Hellen., p. 138. In Beeotia 
also 7 and ε interchange in ii/B.c. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 46. Mayser (Gr., p. 82) 
cites from a Hom. pap. of i/B.c. xe for ἔθηκε, and per contra (p. 84) ἀφήκετο. 

6 Schweizer, Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 47. He gives ἐπή for ἐπί from a Byz. 
inscr. 

6 De Graec. Patr. etc., p. 41. Cf. also Meisterh., Gr. ἃ. att. Inschr., p. 34 f. 


192 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


The N. T. always has δηνάριον, though δινάριον appears very early.! 
For κάμηλος in Mt. 19: 24 and Lu. 18: 25 a few late cursive MSS. 
substitute κάμιλος (‘rope’), a word found only in Suidas and a 
scholium on Arist. But “it is certainly wrong,”’? a mere effort to 
explain away the difficulty in the text, an effort as old as Cyril 
of Alexandria on Luke. For Κυρήνιος B* it. vg. sah. have Kupivos, , 
while Β has Kupetvos and A has Κηρύνιος, -a striking example of 
itacism, ἡ, +, εἰ, v having the same sound in these MSS. The 
N. T. MSS. give σιμικίνθιον in Acts 19 : 12, but Liddell and Thayer 
both suggest ony. as an alternative spelling like the Latin semi- 
cinctium. So also the best MSS. in Rev. 18: 12 read σιρικός, though 
some cursives have σηρικός (like Jos. and others), and still others 
συρικόςϑ Indeed in 1 Pet. 2:3 for χρηστός L and many cursives 
have Χριστός. The heathen misunderstood the word Χριστός and 
confounded it with the familiar χρηστός, pronounced much alike. 
Suetonius (Claudius 25) probably confused Christus with Chres- 
tus. In Ac. 11:26 & 61 have Xpnortavois, while B has Χρειστ. 
So in Ac. 26:28 δὲ has Χρηστιανόν for Χριστ., while B has again εἰ. 
The same thing occurs in 1 Pet. 4 : 16. 

ἡ and ει. The Boeotian and the Thessalian dialects early 
changed * ῃ for εἰ, τίθειμι--: τίθημι. Schweizer® gives παράδησος for 
παράδεισος (Byzantine inscription). In Lu. 14:13 (21) we have 
ἀνάπειρος (ABDEL), ἀνάπηρος (GHK, ete.), and --πιρ-- (NR). This 
itacism is condemned by Phrynichus the Atticist as vulgar.6 In 
the LXX WN has ἀνάπειρος in Tob. 14:2 and AV show it in 2 
Mace. 8 : 24 (Thackeray, Gr., p. 83). In Heb. 6:14 W. H. 
follow NABD in reading εἶ μήν rather than ἢ μήν. This form 
occurs in the LXX and in the papyri. Moulton’ has shown that 
several times in the papyri it is obviously for. ἢ μήν by mere ita- 
cism, and so is not due to a confusion between the Hebraistic 
use of εἰ μήτε 5 18, thus correcting Hort. The uncials and the 


1 Blass, Ausspr. d. Griech., pp. 37, 94. 

* Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 151. 

3 Ib., refers to σιρικοποιός in Neap. inser. (C. I. G. 5834). In the mod. 
Gk. »=c in pronunciation. Cf. Thumb, Handb. d. neugr. Vélkerspr., p. 2. 
W.-Sch. (p. 46) mention θήβην, θίβην, θείβην in Ex. 2: 3-6. 

ΟὟ Blass ΠΣ ΤΙ Τ ΒΟ pea 

5 Perg. Inschr., p. 47. Cf. also p. 56. See numerous exx. of this change in 
Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 47 f. 

6 Cf. Bekker, Anec., I, pp. 9, 22. It is found also in 2 Macc. 8:24. Hort 
(Notes on Orth., p. 15) shows that ἄπειρος (not ἄπηρος) is read in Herod. 
1. one 

1 Prol., p. 46; Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 33. See also Thackeray, p. 83. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 193 


papyri here agree. Deissmann! calls attention to the use of εἰ 
μάν in a Doric inscription of the first century B.c. Blass (Gr. 
of N. T. Gk., p. 306) observes that a papyrus reads κηρία for κειρία 
(cf. Jo. 11:44, κειρ--, κηρ--, Kup—iats). 

ἣν απὰ ει. In the old Attic there was no m in writing, only εἰ, 
since ἡ was not used asa vowel. As early as 400 B.c. the Attic used 
ne and εἰ interchangeably, κλήω becoming κλείω, κλῇς ΞΞ- κλείς, λῃτουρ- 
vos = Necroupyos, etc.? This usage was not very common in Perga- 
mum? nor in Magnesia. Crénert finds this interchange in the 
Herculaneum papyri only in the papyri copies of Epicurus and 
Polystratus.® In the N. T. λειτουργός, —ia, --εἶν, --ικός are taken over 
from the Attic, but they occur also in Pergamum® and Magne- 
sia.” The Attic indeed carried the fondness for e so far that it 
was used always in writing in the second singular indicative middle 
everywhere, the other dialects using ῃ save the Ionic. The κοινή has 
n save in βούλει, οἴει, ὄψει. In the N. T. 7 is universal according to 
W. H. save in Lu. 22 : 42 where βούλει is genuine, though some 
MSS. have εἰ in other passages. Blass® observes that this is a 
‘literary touch in Luke for the colloquial θέλεις. Hatzidakis® notes 
how difficult this process made it to tell the difference between 
ποιήσῃς and ποιήσεις, for instance, because of this Attic intermix- 
ture of the diphthongs. Blass! will not hear of this as a possible 
explanation in any cases, but one must remark how well this 
vowel-blending harmonized with the kinship in meaning between 
the aorist subjunctive and the future indicative (cf. δώσῃ in 
some MSS. for δώσει in Jo. 17:2) and made it easy for the 
later so-called future subjunctive (cf. Latin) to develop. Winer- 
Schmiedel indeed accept as possible this vowel confusion in sev- 
eral instances." In Mk. 8: 35 (Lu. 17: 38) és ἂν ἀπολέσει, Lu. 12:8 
ὃς ἂν ὁμολογήσει, 2 Cor. 12:21 μὴ ταπεινώσει, Ro. 3:4 (Ps. 51 : 6) 


1 B.S., pp. 205-8. Cf. Dittenb., Syll., No. 388, p. 570. See also Mayser, 
Gr., pp. 74-79, for careful discussion. 

2 Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., pp. 36 ff. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 39 
and 49. See also Mayser, Gr., pp. 79 f., 126-131. 

3 Schweizer, Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 60 f. 

4 Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 50 f. 6 Schweizer, op. cit., p. 60. 

δ Mem. Graeca Hercul., p. 37. 7 Nachm., op. cit., p. 51. 

8 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 8. βούλει, οἴει, ὄψει in Ap. Fathers (Goodspeed, Index). 

9 Hinl. in d. neugr. Gr., p. 306. He gives exx. from the N. T. Apoc. 

ΟΝ ἢ tak:, p. 8. 

1 W.-Sch., p. 47. Moulton (Prol., p. 168) would take indifferently ὑπάγει 
or ὑπάγῃ in Rev. 14:4. For many similar exx. in the inscr. see Dittenb., 
ὅπως ἂν ὑπάρχει (117. 17), εἱρέθησαν (352. 66), ete. 


194 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


νικήσεις (cf. δικαιωθῇς), Ac.5:15 ἵνα ἐπισκιάσει, 8:31 ἐὰν ὁδηγήσει. 
Winer-Schmiedel would find the aorist subjunctive and not the 
future indicative. This is possible but by no means certain, since 
the future indicative was undoubtedly used both with ἐάν and 
ἵνα (ὅπως). W.H. read ᾿Ιωάνει instead of ῃ in Mt. 11:4; Lu. 7:18. 
Τῷ διοικητεῖ occurs in papyri Brit. Mus. I, Nr. 2. 135. In 2 Cor. 
2:9 AB 109 have 7 where εἰ is probably correct. 

y andy. Irrational Iota. ‘The iota subscript was iota adscript 
till the twelfth century a.D., but as early as the third century B.c. 
it was not pronounced.t When εἰ was practically equal to ἡ in 
sound, it was natural that 7 (mn) should be. Ther was then dropped 
in sound long before it was subscript.” Gradually it was felt to 
be a matter of indifference in some words whether this iota was 
written or not. Examples of ἡ instead of 7 occur in the inscrip- 
tions of Pergamum® as ἐν 7 as well as in the Attic. Moulton 
finds irrational « adscript (ἔχωι, for instance) abundant in the 
Ptolemaic Tebt. Papyri (Classical Review, 1904, p. 106). Cf. 
Mayser (Gr., pp. 122-126) who gives many examples. In the 
N. T. « has dropped from θνήσκω. Indeed since the second cen- - 
tury B.c. c adscript in the diphthongs a, y, w had become mute. 
Hort,°> however, argues for the retention of « in ζῇν and infinitives 
in -ἂν instead of the Doric-Attic form, as well as in ἀθῷος, εἰκῇ, 
ζῷον, Ἡρῴδης, κρυφῇ, λάθρᾳ, πανταχῇ, πάντῃ, Tpwpa, σῴζω, ὑπερῷον, 
ζῷον, though he hesitated to put σῴζω in the text. It is just as 
well to finish the discussion of the iota subscript here, though 
some of these examples go beyond the range of y. The best edi- 
tors print also δημοσίᾳ, ἰδίᾳ, μητρολῴαις, πατρολῴαις, πατρῷος, πεζῇ, 
Σαμοθρᾷκη, Tpwas, though μιμνήσκω and πρᾶος: W. H. have forms 
in --οὖν also, as κατασκηνοῖν (Mt. 13:32). Moulton’ gives a curious 
example of the loss of the irrational c in the case of the subjunctive 
ἦ which sometimes in the papyri appears as ἦν, having lost the , 
and taken on irrational ν. As a matter of fact iota adscript (iota 


1 Blass, Pronun., etc., p. 50. 2 Hirt, Handb. d. Griech., p. 114. 

3 Schweizer, Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 65. 

4 Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 64. In the iv/sB.c. the Attic often 
wrote εἰ for m, but not for 7. In the Thess., AXol. and Ionic inscriptions 
the « with a, 7, ὦ is freely omitted or wrongly inserted (irrational ι), as in 
Th πόλει, τὰ Opn, as early as vi/B.c. Cf. K.-Bl., Tl. 1, Bd. I, p.183f. Strabo 
(14. 41) says that many regularly dropped the ¢ in spurious diphthongs. πολ- 
Aol yap χωρὶς τοῦ t γράφουσι τὰς δοτικάς, καὶ ἐκβάλλουσι δὲ τὸ ἔθος φυσικὴν αἰτίαν 
οὐκ ἔχον. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 291. Schweizer (Perg. Inschr., p. 47) 
cites τὴιν εὔνοιαν. 5 Introd. to. N..T. Gk:, p. 314: 

6 Mayser, Gr., p. 121, finds noc. with ἂν ἴῃ the pap. 7 Prol., pp. 49, 168, 187. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 195 


subscript not yet, of course) does not appear in the great uncials 
save ἤιδισαν in D (Mk. 1:34) and ξύλωι in K (Lu. 23:31).1 Forms 
with and without the mute iota appear in the Herculaneum pa- 
pyri,? as εἰκῆι or εἰκῆ. Blass* would also restore c to ἀντιπέρα(ᾳ). 
He doubts if « was written in such new optative forms as δώην 
(δοίην Attic) though it should be put in the text. 

yn and v. Since these two vowels came to be pronounced alike 
as in modern Greek,‘ it was to be expected that some interchange 
would come, though any early examples are wanting. However, 
by the second century A.D. the inscriptions give many instances 
such as θήρα (θύρα), μηστήριον (μυστ.), σκῦπτρον (σκῆπτρον), ete” It 
is already in the Egyptian κοινή according to Thumb.* Hence 
we are not surprised to see the Ν. T. MSS. get mixed over ἡμεῖς 
and ὑμεῖς. Especially in 1 Peter does this itacism lead to a mixing 
of the historical’ standpoint as in 1:12, where ὑμῖν is read by 
NABCL, etc., ἡμῖν by K and most cursives Syr**? Cop. In 1 Pet. 
5:10 the MSS. similarly support ὑμᾶς and ἡμᾶς. In 2 Cor. the 
personal relations of Paul and his converts are involved in this 
piece of orthography as in 8:7 ἐξ ὑμῶν ἐν ἡμῖν (NCDHE, ete.) or 
ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐν ὑμῖν ( 90, 31, 37, etc.). See especially καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς in Ac. 
17: 28 (Β 33 Cop., etc.) which reading would make Paul identify 
himself with the Greeks on this occasion. 

(d) THe CHANGES witH t. For and ε see under (6); for « and 
n see under (c); for iota subscript (adscript), mute or irrational ε, 
see under (c). For irrational iota see also Infinitive under Verb. 
The papyri show it in queer forms like ἀληθῆι, λέγωι, P. Oxy. 37 
(A.D. 49). | 

uand ει. The interchange between these vowel-symbols began 
very early (certainly by the sixth century B.c.°) and has been very 
persistent to the present day. The inscriptions give numerous 
examples ® in the fifth century B.c., such as ἀποκτίνη, ᾿Επαφρόδειτος. 
This was apparently the beginning” of itacism which was extended 
to v,7, and then to ῃ, οι, vw. Jannaris! thinks that the introduc- 


1 Gregory, Prol. (New Test. Gr.), p. 109. 

2 Cronert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., pp. 41 ff. 

8. Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 7. The LXX phenomena are similar. Cf. Helbing, 
Griech. d. LXX, pp. 3 ff. 

4 Hatz., Einl. in neugr. Gr., p. 304. 

§ Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 48. 6 Hellen., p. 171. 

7 Hort, Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 310. On the subject of 7 and v see Mayser, 
Gr., p. 85f. He denies (p. 86) that the itacising pronunciation of ἡ prevailed 
in the Ptolemaic period. 

8 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 47. alee 10 Ib. 1. Ib., p. 41. 


196 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


tion and rapid spread of ἡ contributed to this confusion as by 
that time εἰ was pronounced like cv, and ἡ was taken by many, not 
as long e, but equal tov. The confusion apparently began in the 
Boeotian dialect! and in postclassical times, but swept the field 
in all the dialects till every εἰ (closed and open) was pronounced 
as τ. By 100 s.c. the Attic inscriptions show a general inter- 
change between εἰ and tv, and in the second century A.D.” the con- 
fusion exists between εἰ and τ. Dieterich® thinks that this itacism 
had its widest development in Egypt. The Ptolemaic papyri of 
ii/B.c. show itacism very frequently. It is only the more illit- 
erate scribes that use εἰ for 1, though B has ὄρειον (Thackeray, 
Gr., p. 86f.). Thumb‘ considers the interchange between « and 
ec in the κοινή on a par with that between o and w. In Pergamum® 
the change from ¢ to εἰ is much more common than that from εἰ 
to ει, though forms in —ia for --εἰα occur, as ἀμελία. The same thing 
is true in Magnesia, where ἡμεῖν (ἡμῖν) is common.’ The Hercu- 
laneum papyri tell the same story,’ while it is so common in the 
Egyptian papyri that Moulton® is unable to set much store by 
the minutiz gathered by W. H. from the great uncials, “for even 
W. ΗΠ. admit that their paramount witness, B, ‘has little authority 
on behalf of εἰ as against v.’”’ Clearly the partiality of & for « and 
of B for εἰ throw them both out of court as decisive witnesses on 
this point.® So it is not merely itacism that we have to deal with 
in the numerous N. T. examples of exchange between ¢ and ει, 
but “genuine peculiarities of original orthography” 8150. What- 
ever Dr. Hort meant, all that is true is that different scribes 
merely preferred one or the other method of representing τ. The 
whole matter therefore remains in doubt and one is prepared for 
all sorts of variations in the N. T. MSS., because the κοινή ΠΟ 


1 K.-BL, p. 131. Mayser (Gr., pp. 87--94) has a full discussion of the prob- 
lem in the pap. of the first three centuries B.c. and finds that in Egypt the 
pronunciation of εἰ closely approached that of ε. 

2 Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 49. In the succeeding pages he gives 
numerous exx. in chron. order of the various interchanges between « and ει, 
many of them identical with the N. T. exx. 8. Unters. etc., p. 45. 

4 Hellen., p. 172. The next most common interchange of vowels in the ~ 
N. T. MSS. are ac and ε, ἡ and ε or εἰ, o and v (Warfield, Text. Crit. of the 
ΝΡ Loo), 5 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 53 f. 

6 Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 35f. Cf. Egyp. pap. also. 

7 Cronert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., pp. 27 ff. 

8 Prol., Ὁ. 47. For the LXX see Helbing, Gr. d. LXX, pp. 7 ff. . Thack. 
(Gr., p. 86 f.) thinks that the orthography in this point is older than that of 
Nand A. 9 Warfield, Text. Crit. of the N. T., p. 108. 

10 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 152. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 197 


longer insisted in the vernacular on the distinction between long 
or short ὁ and εἰ. The examples here presented will give a fair 
idea of the situation. For the textual evidence see careful dis- 
cussion by Gregory. Where εἰ is written for c it is to be pro- 
nounced like v. Ez is shortened tov in some abstract substantives, 
—ia instead of —eia, as? ’ArraXia, ayvia (possibly), perhaps ἀκριβία, 
ἀλαζονία, avadia, ἀρεσκία, perhaps ἀπειθία, ἐθελοθρησκία (but θρησκεία), 
εἰδωλολατρία (but λατρεία), εἰλικρινία, perhaps ἐκτενία, ἐπιεικία, ἐριθία, 
ἑρμηνία, ἱερατία, ἹΚαισαρία, κακοηθία, κακοπαθία, κολακία, κυβία, Λαοδικία, 
μαγία, μεθοδία, ὀφθαλμοδουλία (δουλία doubtful), possibly παιδία (cf. 
Ps. δῶ : δ), πολιτία, πορία, πτωχία, πραγματία, πραὐπαθία, probably 
Σαμαρία, Σελευκία, perhaps στρατία, φαρμακία, Φιλαδελφία, ὠφελία. 
Deissmann?’ shows that it is λογεία, not λογία in the papyri and 
so in 1 Cor. 16:1f. Some MSS. have ἐπάρχεια (for -1a), εὐτραπέλεια 
(for -ta), late MSS. κολωνεία. 

The endings —eov and —evos appear sometimes as —tov, --ἰίος. So 
αἴγιος, “Aptos (IIayos), ἄστιος, δάνιον (cf. δανίζω, δανιστής), εἰδώλιον, 
᾿Επικούριος, ἐπιτήδιος, μεγάλια (cf. μεγαλιότης), πανδοκίον, στοιχίον. 
Strong testimony exists for all these. So also --ινός for —evds 
appears in ὀρινός, σκοτινός, φωτινός. 

Further examples of « for εἰ are found as in the MSS. in ἀδιά- 
λιπτος, ἀνέκλιπτος, ἀλίφω, ἀπιθέω, ἀπιθής, aria, ἀποδεδιγμένος, "Δρεοπα- 
γίτης, δίγμα, ἐξαλίφω, καταλελιμμένος (Ac. 25: 14), even κρίσσων, λίμμα, 
λιτουργός, μαργαρίτης (cf. πολίτης, τεχνίτης), μεσίτης, οἰκτίρω, παρα- 
διγματίζω, πιθός, ὑπόλιμμα, φιλόνικος, φιλονικία, χρεοφιλέτης. This is 
not to mention the verb-forms ἴδον, ἴδαν, ἴδεν which W. H. count 
alternate forms in Revelation, but which are pure examples of 
itacism. In the case of Ἰκόνιον (Ac. 13:51; 14:1) the inscriptions 
give both ’Ix. and Eix.* 

The use of εἰ for t is seen in several ways also in N. T. MSS. 
In Mt. 28:3 W. H. give eidéa, not ἰδέα. Τείνομαι and γεινώσκω are 
very common in the best MSS. Ἡμεῖν and ὑμεῖν are rarely seen, — 
however. ’Aéetvn, Γαλειλαία, ᾿Ελαμείτης, Aeveirns, Λευειτικός, λείαν, 
Νινευείτης, Πειλᾶτος, Σαμαρείτης all are found, as well as τραπεζείτης, 
Papewaio. Τάχειον appears in John and Hebrews. In the Pas- 
‘toral Epistles, Hort® finds --λειπ-- for —Auzw—- forms. Kepiass is 
correct in Jo. 11:44. Hort® also prefers πανοικεί, but παμπληθεί 
is undisputed. Such verb-forms occur as μείγνυμι, τειμάω, τείσω. 


1 Prol., pp. 83-90. 

2 According to Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 153. 

7 B.S., pp. 142 f., 219 f. 5 Notes on Orth., p. 155. 
4 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 8. 6 Ib., p. 154. 


198 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Semitic proper names in ’ have εἰ as ’Addel, ’Apvel, ᾿Εσλεί, 
"Hye, Μελχεί, Νηρεί. Cf. alsot ᾿Αδμείν, ᾿Αχείμ, Βενιαμείν, Δαυείδ, 
᾿Ελιακείμ, ᾿Ιωρείμ, Keis, Λευείς, Νεφθαλείμ, Σαλείμ, Σεμεείν, χερουβείν, 
Χοραζείν. So also ᾿Ελεισαβέτ, ᾿Ηλείας, Θυάτειρα, ᾿Ιάειρος, ᾿Ιερειχώ, 
Ἰωσείς, ᾿Οζείας, Σάπφειρα, Ταβειθά. Cf. also ἠλεί, ῥαββεί, ῥαββουνεῖ, 
σαβαχθανεί. But? appears asc in ᾿Αμιναδάβ, Μελχισεδέκ, Σινά, Σιών. 
Likewise the MSS. usually read ’Avavias, Βαραχίας, ’Efextas, Zaxa- 
pias, ᾿Ιερεμίας, ᾿Ιεχονίας, Μαθθίας, Ματταθίας, Οὐρίας. 

In many of these examples of changes in « and εἰ the testimony 
is greatly divided and one must not stickle too much for either 
spelling. The papyri and the inscriptions have nearly all of 
them. See 1 (c) for remarks on the difficulty of relying on the 
uncials in the matter of orthography. It is impossible to be dog- 
matic on the subject. 

tando. It is a peculiar change, as Blass? observes, that we 
have in ὀμειρόμενοι for ἱμειρόμενοι (1 Th. 2: 8). It appears in the 
LXX (some MSS. for Job 3 :21 and Symm. at Ps. 62:2). The 
only example so far brought to light is ὑπερομείρεσθαι in Iren. 60. 
Winer-Schmiedel? sees no comparison in καταντροκύ for καταντικρύ. 
Meisterhans‘ gives ἀπαντροκὺ for ἀπαντικρύ. 

tand ov. Jannaris® defends the exchange of ὁ and οἱ possibly as 
early as the fifth century B.c. Certainly in the first century B.c. 
Αὐγουστοῖνος occurs in the inscriptions.6 Ov was exchanged with 
εἰ and y as well as with e. In the N. T. the only example is in 
Mk. 11:8 where ACSVXT Or. have στοιβάς for the usual στιβάς 
(from oreiBw). N and a few other MSS. read στυβάς. Zonar. 
illustrates this also by using στοιβάς. Cf. also στοιβή, στοιβάζω, 
etc. This word thus illustrates well the common itacistic ten- 
dency, showing forms in -1, τοι, τὺ and —e (in the verb). The 
LXX has only στίχος and στιχίζω, not στοιχ. (Thackeray, Gr., 
p. 92). 

tu and v. These two vowels sometimes have the force of the 
consonants’ 7 (y) and v (cf. Latin). Cf. av— (af) and e-— (ef) in 
modern Greek, and ε in πόλεως. In modern Greek “every 2- or 
e-sound which collides in the middle of a word with a succeeding 


1 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 155. 

2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 22. But it is quite possible (see 7) that this is a case 
of prothetic o. 

8 W.-Sch., p. 52. 4 Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 81. 

5 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 53. Cf. on the other side K.-BI., I, 3, p. 53. 

6 Jann., ib., p. 52. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 112. 

7 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 27, 55, etc. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 199 


vowel, loses its syllabic value and becomes consonanted”’ (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 10). So ayws=ayos. The τ is the last of the five 
original vowel-sounds in this order: a, 0, v, ε, . This relative value 
has persisted in modern Greek (Thumb’s Handbook, p. 12 f.). 
Jannaris! gives ἀπωθούμενοι as an illustration of this gradation in 
sound. But as a matter of fact the interchange between c and v 
is not frequent. Meisterhans? finds only five examples in the 
Attic inscriptions, two of which, βυβλίον and Μιτυληναῖος, are found 
in N. T. MSS. (assimilation). Examples occur in the κοινή of Asia 
Minor, though Thumb?’ agrees with Kretschmer in calling it a 
“barbarism.”’ Still the old distinction in sound between ὁ and v 
slowly broke down till in modern Greek the two vowels have the 
same sound. Βήρυλλος in Rev. 21: 20 is spelled also in MSS. βή- 
ριλλος, BUptAdos, βιρύλλιος, a fine illustration of itacism. D reads 
Πύλος for βίβλος in Mk. 12:26 and Lu. 20:42. In Ac. 20:14 
Μιτυλήνη is the correct text for the old Mur., but AK have Murv- 
λίνη and 1, Μυτυλίνη. For the Τρωγίλιον of Strabo and the By- 
zantine writers the Textus Receptus addition to Ac. 20:15 has 
Tpwyvria, other MSS. Τρωγύλλιον, Τρωγύλιον The LXX shows 
also ἥμυσυ in Θ Dan. 7:25 (B). The Ptolemaic papyri vary in 
this word (Thackeray, Gr., p. 95). In Lu. 19:8 D has ἥμυσσοι. 

(ὁ THE CHANGES WITH 0. For changes with a see under (a), 
for o and e under (0), for o and ¢ under (d). 

oandov. The old Attic used Διόσκορος, which Phrynichus® pre- 
fers, though Thucyd. and Plato have the form in —ovpos also (Epic 
or Ionic). In Ac. 28 : 11 only some of the cursives have the form 
in —-opos. Both forms appear in the inscriptions. This exchange 
is rather common in the Ptolemaic papyri (Mayser, Gr., pp. 10 f., 
116f.). In the LXX §& shows sometimes 6x for οὐκ (Thackeray, 
Gr., p. 91). The modern Greek dialects have much diversity of 
usage on this point. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 8. 


1 Tb., p. 84. 2 Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 28 f. 

3 Hellen., pp. 139, 193 ff. Cf. Kretschmer, Hinl. in d. Gesch. d. griech. 
Spr., p. 225f. Croénert (Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 21 1.) gives exx. in Hercul. 
pap. Cf. Mayser, Gr., pp. 100-108, for exx. like βύβλος, βυβλίον, etc.,in the pap. 

4 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 22. In Athens before 403 B.c. o stood for 
o, ὦ, ov (Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 24). 

5 Lobeck, p. 235; The New. Phryn., p. 310. Cf. K.-BL, I, p. 140 f., for this 
change in Old Attic and New Ionic. The N. T. Apoc. (Reinhold, De Graec. 
etc., p. 41) has exx. like ἐβολόμην as the mod. Gk. vernac. (Thumb, Neugr. 

_Volksspr., p. 6). Cf. Buresch, Phil. li, 89. Most common bet. vi/ill B.c. acc. 
to Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 37. 
6 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 66 f. 


200 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


o and v. The MSS. vary between! πρᾶος (Syrian) and zpais in 
Mt. 11:29; 1 Pet. 3:4, as well as between πραότης and zpairns in 
Pauline Epistles. W.H. adopt the form in —-v. Von Soden varies 
between these forms, giving no reasons. It is the old distinction 
surviving in the κοινή. The LXX has the v form. The papyri 
have other illustrations (Mayser, Gr., p. 97). Cf. Ποτίολοι in Ac. 
28:13 for the Latin Puteolr. 

oandw. Originally o represented both the short and long sounds, 
so that it was easy with careless pronunciation for more or less con- 
fusion to exist after ὦ came into use. The Boeotian Pindar, for 
instance, has Διώνυσος instead of Avdvucos.2 The New Ionic ζόη 
(parox.) appears in lieu of ζωή. However, the introduction of the 
Ionic alphabet in 403 B.c. kept the two vowels pretty distinct 
in Attic till the Roman time, though the change began in the 
third century B.c.2 After the second century B.c. the exchange 
of these two vowels was indiscriminate in the more illiterate 
vernacular.’ The confusion was earliest in Egypt, but the Attic 
inscriptions kept the distinction well till 100 a.p. The early un- 
cials for the LX X and the N.T. show little evidence of the inter- 
change (Thackeray, Gr., p. 89). Jannaris finds it common. The 
modern Greek makes no difference in sound between o and w ex- 
cept medial o as in not. “In the early papyri the instances of 
confusion between o and ὦ are innumerable.”’® The inscriptions 
tell the same story about the κοινή in Magnesia® and Pergamum.? 
In some instances,’ like δόμα for δῶμα and πρόδομα, an w is shortened 
to o after the analogy of ε from ἡ in θέμα. In the N. T. MSS. 
“probably the commonest permutation is that of o and w, chiefly 
exemplified in the endings —ovev and —wyev.”’® It is useless to fol- 
low the MSS. through their variations on this point. In Ro. 
5 :1 ἔχωμεν is supported by all the best documents and gives a 
difficult sense at first, though a better one on reflection than 
ἔχομεν. In 1 Cor. 15:49 the evidence is so nearly balanced that 


1 Gregory, Prol., p. 82. 2 K.-BL, I, p. 141. 

3 Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 24 f., gives numerous exx. of the exchange 
in inser. of various dates. 

4 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 357. Jann. quotes a Louvre pap. (165 B.c.) which 
has τὸ αὐτὸ τρόπωι. Mayser(Gr., pp. 97 ff.) finds only two exx. of this confusion 
of o and w in the Ptol. pap. of 1i/B.c., but seventy in the next two. 

δ Ib. Cf. Crénert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 19 f. 

6 Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 64. 

7 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 95. Cf. Thumb, Hellen., pp. 148, 172. 

8 Reinhold, De Graec. Patr., p. 41, and Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 108. 

® Hort, intr) to: Gea Neel pe 30d: 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 201 


W.H. cannot decide between φορέσωμεν and φορέσομεν (the latter 
in the margin). Von Soden gives -σω--. This difficulty of dis- 
tinguishing between o and w in the indicative and subjunctive 
increased in later κοινή times.1 Several further N. T. examples of 
interest are ἀγοράσωμεν (Lu. 9:13), ἵνα dvaranoovra (Rev. 14: 18), 
iva ἀναπαύσονται (Rev. 6:11), ἐὰν ἀποθνήσκομεν as read by Lachmann 
(Ro. 14:8), ἵνα γινώσκομεν (1 Jo. 5: 20), ἵνα διώκονται according to 
Tisch. (Gal. 6 : 12), ἵνα διέρχομαι according to Treg. (Jo. 4 : 15), 
δώσωμεν according to Treg. and Tisch., and preceded by ἀγορά- 
σωμεν (Mk. 6: 37), ἰάσομαι (Mt. 18:15; cf. 15. 6 : 10), ἵνα καυθήσωμαι 
or καυχήσωμαι (1 Cor. 18:3), ἵνα ξυρήσονται (Ac. 21:24). In all 
these instances syntactical questions enter also besides the mere 
question of vowel interchange.? 

The o appears instead of w in πόμα (1 Cor. 10 : 4; Heb. 9 : 10), 
πρόϊμος (Jas. 5:7), Στοϊκός (Ac. 17: 18),3 συκομορέα, not --μωρέα (Lu. 
19 : 4), χρεοφιλέτης according to W. H. and not χρεοφειλέτης (Soden) 
nor χρεωφειλέτης according to LU, etc. (Lu. 7:41; 16:5). Butwis 
correct apparently in ἀγαθωσύνη, ἁγιωσύνη, ἐνδώμησις (Rev. 21: 18, 
Soden —ddu-), ἱερωσύνη, μεγαλωσύνη, πρωϊνός. So also the LXX, but 
πρόϊμος (‘Thack., Gr., p. 90). Codex B shows others in the LXX 
(2b.). In Lu. 18:5 and 1 Cor. 9:27 the MSS. vary between 
ὑπωπιάζω (from ὑπ-ὠπιον) and ὑποπιάζω (--πιέζω old form), though 
the best MSS. read ὑπωπ. In Ro. 13:3 τῷ ἀγαθῷ ἔργῳ may 
possibly be τῷ ayaloepyd. So in 2 Pet. 3:6 δι᾿ ὧν may be? for 
δι’ dv. In Rev. 4:7 f. ἔχων, not ἔχον (Soden), is read by the best 
MSS., though the substantive is ζῷον. Now second century B.c. 
papyri have ὑπόμνημα ἔχων where w and o are exchanged.® 

( THe CHANGES witH v. For the changes with v and c see 
under (d), v and o under (e). 

v and ev. Only one example of this exchange appears in the 
N. T., that of πρεσβύτης in Phil. 9. Here the sense seems to 
demand πρεσβευτής. Bentley suggested it long ago and Lightfoot 
(comm. in loco) collected a number of instances of the omission 


1 Cf. Reinhold, De Graec. Patr., p. 102; Hatz., Hinl. ete., p. 306. 

2 W.-Sch., p. 48. 

3 Hort thinks so “perhaps.” The Doric had orod. Blass (Gr. N. T. Gk., 
p. 22) prefers the correct Στωϊκός, Von Soden Στοϊκός. 

4 Acc. to W.-Sch. (p. 48 f.) this is not orthographical at all, but etymolog- 
ical. Why not both? 

5 Ibs, p. 48. 

6 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 37. Doubtless other vowel-exchanges in Rev. 
may have a similar explanation and so do not violate concord of gender. 


202 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


of e from ev in single MSS. Hort! thinks it due to a scribe and 
not to Paul, since the earlier Greek shows no examples of this 
interchange. However, Wood? has found πρεσβεύτερος for πρεσβύ- 
repos in an Ephesian inscription (analogy: in modern Greek 
ev=ef). Thackeray (Gr., p. 97) finds this “natural error” in the 
LXX MSS. 

v and ov. This has always been a rare exchange in the Greek, 
the Boeotian dialect having retained the original v sound of υ 
after the Attic gave it up.2 The Zaconian preserves it in the 
modern Greek.t The κοινή has sometimes χρουσός for χρυσός.“ But 
ov was rather frequent in the κοινή to represent the Latin wu as 
Δροῦσος. In Rev. 38:18 the MSS. have κολλούριον, κολλύριον, Kovd- 
λούριον, etc. (Latin collyriwm). W. H. prefer κολλούριον, though 
NBC read --ριον (so Soden). Blass’ observes that we have long 
Ὁ in -ύριον. B in the LXX shows the same variations (Thack., 
Gr., p. 92). The Ptolemaic papyri have few instances. Cf. change 
of v and ov (Mayser, Gr., p. 118). Thumb (Hellen., Ὁ. 198 f.) thinks 
that v in the κοινή was pronounced like German ὦ, 2 and also τ. 
In Rev. 1:5 the distinction between λύσαντι (NAC) and λούσαντι 
(BP) is more than mere orthography, though the confusion was 
rendered easy. TI is always so written in the N. T. uncial MSS.,® 
though the iota was sometimes dropped in the inscriptions. 

(g) THE CHANGES WITH ὦ. For changes with ὦ and a see under 
(a), for w and o under (e). | 

wo and ov. The Thessalian dialect® changed w to ov as in τοῦ 
κοινοῦ for τῶ κοινῶς This change reappears in Rhodes and the 
AXolic-Doric.!? Buresch" finds the change between ὦ and ov 
common in the Egyptian vernacular, as in the Sahidiec dialect oo 
is often used for w." It is, of course, possible, according to the 
view of Winer-Schmiedel,® that some indicatives in ov may really 


1 Notes on Sel. Read., p. 136. 2 Disc. at Ephesus, App., p. 24. 
§ Thumb, Hellen., p. 31. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., 4th ed., p. 32 f. 
4 Hatz., Einl. etc., p. 103. 5 Thumb, Hellen., p. 85. 


6 Cf. Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 62. Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 71 f. 

7 Gr. of N, T. Gk., p, 22. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 118. 

§ Cf. Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 46 f.; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 9 f., ob- 
serves that B occasionally divides thus t/iés at end of a line and so practically 
A and D. 

9. K.-BL, I, p. 135. Common in mod. Gk. (Thumb, Handb., p. 8). 

10 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 70 ἢ. 

1 Jahrb. f. klass. Philol., 1891, p.434. 13 Tattam’s Egyp. Gr., p. 5. 

15 P. 52. Reinhold (De Graec. Patr. Apost., p. 41) gives similar exx. Συνκυ- 
pvra appears in Egyp. pap. (B. M., vol. II, cliv). Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 99 f. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 203 


be subjunctive as a result of this vowel-interchange. The con- 
tract form for the present participle τῷ νικοῦντι is read by AC in 
Rev. 2:17 and A in 2:7, a change more likely due to confu- 
sion of —aw and —éw verbs. So with ἵνα ζηλοῦτε (Gal. 4:17) and 
ἵνα φυσιοῦσθε (1 Cor. 4 : 6), but the present indicative can be used 
with iva, and one is slow to credit this form to a mere vowel- 
exchange. The same remark applies to iva τρέφουσιν (W. H. marg. 
Rev. 12:6) as well as ἵνα γινώσκουσιν (Tisch. and Treg., Jo. 17:3) 
and ἵνα σωφρονίζουσιν (Tisch. and Treg., Tit. 2:4). The future 
indicative with ἵνα as xatadovAwoovow (Gal. 2 : 4), προσκυνήσουσιν 
(Rev. 9:20), cravpwoovow (Tisch., Treg., Lach., Mk. 15: 20), 
σφάξουσι (Rev. 6:4) has rival readings with w, aorist subjunctive. 
It is hardly mere vocal similarity. Similar instances are μήποτε 
καταπατήσουσιν (Mt. 7:6), ἐὰν μετανοήσουσιν (Rev. 2: 22), ᾧ ἐὰν dov- 
λεύσουσιν (Ac. 7:7). In these and similar examples where the 
MSS. vary between w and ov it is probable that, as with ἡ and e, o 
and w, the difference in mode may have been blurred by the ten- 
dency to exchange these vowels. But the syntactical question is 
not essentially altered by this incidental orthographical problem. 

ω and wv. Lachmann, Tregelles, W. H. all write wv in Μωυσῆς, 
but Thayer urges that the word is a trisyllable Mwio7js (Fritzsche, 
Gesenius, Tisch., Soden). The Ionic ἑωυτοῦ is a trisyllable. Cf. 
Mayser, Gr., p. 188. Blass! indeed says that the diphthong wu 
is non-existent in the N. T. as in the Attic. The Text. Rec. 
reads Μωσῆς, following Strabo and Josephus in the Antiquities, 
though in the LXX and Josephus elsewhere we have Mwiofs. 

(h) CONTRACTION AND SyNcoPE. In general the κοινή uses 
contraction of vowels from the standpoint of the Attic,” though a 
strong Ionic infusion® is present also as in forms like χειλέων, ὀρέων, 
etc. The N. T. examples of unusual contraction find illustration ἡ 
in the xown. In the N. T. contraction is rarely neglected, as 
Winer® saw, though ἐδέετο (NC for Lu. 8:38, though BL 33 read 
ἐδεῖτο), vot (1 Cor. 1:10, etc.), ὀστέα. (Lu. 24:39), ὀστέων (Mt. 
23:27, etc.), ὀρέων (Rev. 6:15, Attic as well as Ionic), χειλέων 
(Heb. 13:15), χρυσέων (Rev. 2:1, Lach., Treg.) show that the 
N. T. in this respect was like the κοινή and not the literary Attic. 
Blass® observes that the N. T. Greek did not go quite as far in 


ΣΟΥ ΟΝ: 1: Gi» 10: 2 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 100. 

_ 8 Thumb, Hellen., p. 237. Cf. also ib., p. 68. For the mod. Gk. contrac- 
tion see p. 249. Cf. K.-Bl., Bd. I, pp. 201-218. 

4 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., pp. 100 ff.; Nachm., Magn. Inschr., pp. 68 ff. 

5 W.-Th., p. 46; W.-M., p. 51. SPC POL NGL wks ea Moll: 


204 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


contracting vowels as the Attic did. In illustration can be men- 
tioned ἀγαθοεργεῖν (1 Tim. 6:18), though ἀγαθουργῶν is the cor- 
rect text in Ac. 14:17. But we have ἀμπελουργός, ἱερουργεῖν, 
κακοῦργος, οἰκουργός, πανοῦργος, not to mention the conjectural read- 
ing ἀγαθοεργός for Ro. 13:3 on the other hand. In Col. 2 : 16 
veounvia for the Attic νουμηνία is read by W. H., though supported 
only by BFG 121fgvg. So the LXX (Thack., Gr., p. 98). In 
the case of ἐλεινός W. H. have the regular form in Rev. 3 : 17, but 
ἐλεεινός in 1 Cor. 15:19. Blass! reminds us, however, that even 
ἐλεινός may represent ἐλεῖδός. The N. T. likewise has νοσσός in Lu. 
2: 24 (like the LX X) and νοσσία (or νοσσιά) in Lu. 13:34; Mt. 23: 
37. Phrynichus? condemned this dropping of € in veooods. Καμμύω 
(Mt. 13:15; Ac. 28: 27, both from Is. 6: 10) comes from the Epic 
and the old vernacular. Kar was an old form parallel with κατά. 

There are several noteworthy points about +. The c is retained 
in ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος (1 Pet. 4:15). The same thing is true with 
ἡμίωρον (Rev. 8. : 1), like ἡμιώβολον in the Attic inscriptions. The 
form ἔσθων in Mk. 1:6 (already in Homer) is a twin rather than 
a syncopated form of ἐσθίων (Mt. 11:19).4 In the N. T. the ι 
is not dropped in such forms as βιώσεσθε, ἐνύπνιον, σιωπιᾶν, υἱός. 
Blass® calls the contraction of ve=i=t “an entirely new kind,” 
though it appears in the κοινή, as in ἐπεικῶς, ταμεῖον, ὑγεῖα, etc.® 
When εἰ came to be equal to ει, the two sounds naturally blended 
into one. Cf. the Ionic dative πόλι for πόλιι. So in the N. T. we 
find πεῖν (BCD), even πῖν (NAL) for πιεῖν in Jo. 4:9, and else- 
where in the N. T. In Mt. 6 : 6, etc., ταμεῖον is read for rapetov.’ 
On the other hand in Rev. 21:20 A reads σαρδιόνυξ for σαρδόνυξ. 
W. H. read τετρααρχέω, τετραάρχης rather than τετραρχέω, etc. The 
use of γλωσσόκομον instead of the earlier γλωσσοκόμειον (--ἰον) should 
be noticed also. For the use of é4v=modal ἄν see under (c). 

(Ὁ) DipptHoncs AND Dtaresis. The Bceotians monoph- 
thongized the diphthongs αἱ, εἰ, οἱ, ov in the fourth and fifth 


τ OPEN cane 05. 

2 Rutherford, New Phryn., p. 287. For other syncopated forms in the 
LXX see Thack., Gr., p. 99. 

ὁ Meisterh., Gr. etc., p. 23. 4 Hort., Notes on Orth., p. 145. 

* Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 28. Omitted by Debrunner. : 

6 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 101. Cf. Dittenb., Or. Graec. Inscr. Sel., 
ἐπεικῶς (565. 19), ταμεῖον (515. 26 ff.), ὑγείας (618. 2). For the same phenomena 
in the LXX see Helbing, Gr. d. LXX, p. 10f. 

7 See Deiss., B. 8., p. 183, for pap. illustrations of πεῖν, πῖν, ταμεῖον. Moul- 
ton, Prol., p. 45, calls this coalescence of two successive « sounds “a universal 
law of Hellenistic phonology.” Cf. for the LXX Thack., Gr., pp. 22, 63 f., 98. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 205 


centuries Β.6.1 The Boeotians pronounced yaipe=chért as the 
vernacular κοινή did. Thumb (Hellentsmus, p. 228) objects to “this 
emphasizing of Bosotian”’ by Kretschmer (Die griech. Vasenin- 
schriften; Einleit. in d. Gesch.). Moulton (Prolegomena, p. 33 f.) 
allows this Boeotian influence on the κοινή with a “perhaps.” The 
itacising process still further developed this use of the diphthongs 
as monophthongs. Indeed Jannaris? insists that the term δίφθογ- 
γος aS applied to συλλαβή concerned the eye rather than the ear 
and meant more biliteral than bivocal. The spurious diphthongs 
show the process in a state of completion. The papyri, unlike the 
inscriptions, do not dissect a diphthong at the close of a line.’ 
Where two vowels do not blend into one syllable, it is necessary 
to indicate it.. Hence from very early times marks of dizresis 
were used to show that each vowel has its own sound. The mark 
is put over the « or v which might otherwise be considered to 
unite with the preceding vowel. These marks are found in the 
oldest N. T. MSS. with such words as ἁλληλούϊα (Rev. 19:1; 
but in the case of proper names transliterated from the Hebrew 
or Aramaic W. H. follow the Hebrew or Aramaic spelling. 
Cf. Hort, Jntr., p. 313. So in other examples below), ᾿Αχαΐα, 
᾿Αχαϊκός (1 Cor. 16 : 17), Βηθσαϊδά, Γάϊος (also Γαῖος in Ac. 20:4, 
etc., but cf. Allen, Harvard Studies in Class. Philol., ii, 1891, pp. 
71 ff.), διυλίζειν (Mt. 23:24), ᾿Εβραϊστί, ἔλωξ (Mk. 15:34), ’E¢- 
pain, however, or ᾿Εφρέμ (NL in Jo. 11 : 54), Ἤσαΐας, though B usu- 
ally without,* ᾿Ιουδαϊκῶς, ἰσχῦι (2 Pet. 2:11), Καϊάφας, Katy (W. H. 
Kaiv), so W. H. Καινάν (not Kaivay nor --ἀμ), Aeveirns and not Aevirns 
in W. H., Λωΐς (W. H. -is), Μωυσῆς in W. H., not Μωὺῦσῆς, Νινευείτης 
and not Nuvevirns, πρόϊμος according to W. H., but πρωί, πρωινός. 
W. H. have Πτολεμαΐδα in Ac. 21:7 and Ῥωμαϊστί in Jo. 19: 20. 
D reads Χοραζαΐν. The Semitic etymology complicates the matter 
with some of these words.’ Many of the MSS. use dizresis at 
the beginning of words as in tva.6 NA regularly write nv, while 
wi is correct also.’ See Giles* on the subject of diphthongs. For 
iota subscript see under (c). 

(7) APHHRESIS AND PROTHETIC Wena Θέλω, Not ἐθέλω, is the 
only form in the N. T., as it is the common form in the κοινή and 
is that used in modern Greek. It is as old as Homer, and since 


1 Hatz., Einl. etc., p. 304. Cf. K.-Bl., Bd. I, pp. 248 ff. 


2 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 29. 3 Ib., p. 43. Cf. Mayser, Gr., Ὁ. 153 f. 
4 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 17. So Ἰεσσαί. 
δ Ib. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 34. ? Blass,,Gr. of N. Τ᾿, Gk., p. 10. 


6 Gregory, Prol. οἷο. p. 108. 8 Comp. Philol., pp. 158 ff. 


206 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


250 8.6. is the only form in the Attic! and Ionic? inscriptions. 
The augment, however, is always ἡ. Crdnert® finds ἐθέλω after 
consonants. The κοινή does not follow the Ionic in the use of 
κεῖνος for ἐκεῖνος. Aphseresis is frequent* in the modern Greek 
vernacular, xe? and ἐκεῖ, dev for οὐδέν, etc. But the N. T. has 
only ἐχθές (so LXX) in the best MSS. (cf. Jo. 4:52 NABCD; 
Ac. 7:28 NBCD; Heb. 13:8 NACD), the usual Attic form, 
though the papyri sometimes have χθές instead of the common 
ἐχθές. The N. T. does not have δύρομαι, κέλλω, μείρομαι, where 
o is dropped. Cf. Kihner-Blass, Tl. I, Bd. 1, p. 186. The form 
μείρομαι (cf. ὀμειρόμενοι in 1 Th. 2:8) occurs in Nicander for 
ἱμείρομαι. It is possible that in ὀ(δ)μείρομαι we have prothetic o 
instead of apheresis. Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 152; Winer- 
Schmiedel, p. 141. See Additional Notes for full list. 

(k) Existon. Besides the use of the movable final ν and s the 
Greeks had two other methods of obviating hiatus (elision, cra- 
sis). The hiatus was distasteful to the finished writers, though 
more freedom was exercised in poetry. The avoidance of hiatus 
was always a more or less artificial matter and hiatus was un- 
avoidable in the most careful Attic writers, as in the case of ὅτι, 
περί, πρό, τί, τι, the article, relative, the small “form-words”’ (καί, 
ei, μή), etc. But the harsher hiatus like ἐδίδοτο αὐτῷ would be 
avoided by the literary κοινή writers as well as by the Atticists. 
The inscriptions and the papyri show far less concern about hia- 
tus than do the literary writers of the κοινή. As might be expected 
the Ν. T. books agree in this matter with the vernacular κοινή 
and the MSS. vary greatly among themselves. Blass® considers 
this situation in harmony with the tendency to greater isolation 
of the words in the later language. Indeed he thinks that only 
one® book in the N. T. (Hebrews) shows the care of an artistic 
writer in the avoidance of hiatus. By omitting the O. T. quota- 
tions and chapter 13 he finds that hiatus where there is a pause 
is a matter of indifference, as also with καί. He finds fifty-two 
other instances of hiatus, whereas Romans goes beyond that num- 


1 Meisterh., Gr., p. 178. 

2 Smyth, Ionic Dial., p. 482. Cf. Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 155. 

3 Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 133 f. 

4 Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 13. 

6 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 18. Cf. on hiatus K.-BI., I, pp. 190 ff. 

6 Ib., p. 296 f. On indifference of later Gk. to hiatus see Bischoff, Neut. 
Wiss., 1906, p. 268; Thieme, ib., p. 265. Moulton (Prol., p. 92) quotes Kaelker 
(Quest., p. 245 f.) as saying that Polyb. uses ὅστις for ὅς merely to avoid 
hiatus. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 160. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 207 


ber as far as ch. 4:18. But even then Blass has to admit cases 
of harsher hiatus in Hebrews, like ἀδελφοὶ ἅγιοι, ἔνοχοι ἦσαν, etc. 

The Attic inscriptions show that the vernacular tongue did not 
care much about hiatus.1. The lighter elisions like 6’ were used or 
not at will, while the heavier ones like δίκαι᾽ ὅπως were rare. The 
same indifference to elision appears in the κοινή inscriptions? and 
in the papyri.> In general in the N. T. elision takes place regu- 
larly before pronouns and particles and before nouns in combina- 
tions of frequent occurrence? like κατ᾽ οἶκον. Blass® has carefully 
worked out the following facts in the N. T. MSS. Te, οὔτε, μήτε, 
ἅμα, ἄρα, γε, ἐμξ, ἔτι, ἵνα, ὥστε, etc., do not undergo elision nor do 
noun- or verb-forms. The verse of Menander quoted in 1 Cor. 
15:33 is properly printed χρηστὰ ὁμιλίαι by W. H.® Even the 
compound words τεσσερακονταετήῆς (Ac. 7:23) and ἑκατονταετῆς 
(Ro. 4:19) do not suffer elision, while rerpa-apxns has no eli- 
sion in NCA (Alexandrian, Hort). Τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι or τουτέστι is the only 
example in the pronouns that we have in the N. T.’ It is in the 
particles then that most N. T. elisions occur, though there are 
comparatively few. ᾿Αλλά, according to Gregory,® has elision in 
215 cases and fails to have it in 130, though the MSS. vary much. 
Hort® observes that in ἀλλά elision is usual before articles, pro- 
nouns and particles, but rare before nouns and verbs. Ro. 6: 
14-8 : 32 has many non-elisions of ἀλλά, and the elision varies be- 
fore the different vowels except that it is constant before v. Aé 
rarely suffers elision outside of ὃς δ᾽ ἄν, but here frequently, while 
W. H. read δὲ αὐτό in Ph. 2:18 after NBP. In 2 Cor. 3:16 
W. H. put ἡνίκα 6’ ἄν in the margin, text ἡν. δὲ ἐάν (So Tisch., 
Nestle). In οὐδέ elision takes place several times, as in οὐδ᾽ ἄν 
(Heb. 8:4), οὐδ᾽ ef (Ac. 19:2, NAB), οὐδ᾽ ἵνα (Heb. 9: 25), οὐδ᾽ 
ὅτι (Ro. 9:7), οὐδ᾽ οὐ (Mt. 24:21; Heb. 13: 5), οὐδ᾽ οὕτως (1 Cor. 
14:21). Blass” further notes that prepositions seldom use elision 

1 Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 69 f. 

2 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 134; Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 71 f. 

3 Crénert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 138 f. Cf. also Thumb, Hellen. etc., 
p. 82. 4 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 146. 

5 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 18. Cf. also Gregory, p. 93 f. 

6 Moulton (Cl. Rev., Feb. 31, 1901) finds that the pap. like the Lat. have 
a vowel not used in the metre. The inscr. concur in this practice. Moulton, 
Prol., p. 45. Cf. also Mayser, Gr., pp. 155-158, 160-162. He shows that in 
the pap. it is largely a matter of indifference. On the scarcity of elision in the 
LXX see Helbing, Gr. d. LXX, p. 12 f.; Thackeray, pp. 22, 136 f. 

7 Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 306) refers to the Oxyrhynchus pap., which 


have τοῦτ᾽ εἰπών in Jo. 20: 22. 8) Prol. p. 93 f. 
9 Notes, p. 146. 10 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 18. 


2908 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


with proper names, since it was thought better, as on the in- 
scriptions, to keep the name distinct and readily discernible, 
though W. H. read δι᾽ ᾿Αβραάμ in Heb. 7:9. Elision is most 
common with διά as δι᾽ ἐσόπτρου (1 Cor. 13:12), “because there 
were already two vowels adjacent to each other” Blass! thinks.’ 
᾿Αντί has elision only in ἀνθ᾽ ὧν (Lu. 1:20, etc.). Elsewhere the 
prepositions show elision with pronouns and in current phrases, 
as in ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, am’ ἄρτι, am’ αὐτοῦ, ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ, ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, κατ᾽ ἐμέ, κατ᾽ 
ἰδίαν (καθ᾽ idtav), κατ᾽ οἶκον, μετ’ ἐμοῦ, παρ᾽ ὧν, ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν᾽ (ὑμῶν), ὑπ’ 
οὐδενός (1 Cor. 2:15).2 So the LXX (Thackeray, Gr., p. 157). 

(ἢ Crasis. The Attic official inscriptions make little use of 
crasis, though it is fairly common in the vase-inscriptions of the 
fifth century B.c.2 In Magnesia Nachmanson finds only a few 
examples of καί and the article.t The same thing is true of Per- 
gamum.® In the N. T. it is confined also to καί and the article. 
And in the case of καί crasis only occurs if the following word is 
a pronoun or a particle. Kai thus often, though not always, 
coalesces with ἐγώ and the oblique cases, as κἀγώ, κἀμοί, κἀμέ. If 
there is a “distinct co-ordination of ἐγώ with another pronoun or 
a substantive,” crasis does not take place. Even the MSS. vary 
greatly.’ Kadxetvos also is found as well as κἀκεῖ and κἀκεῖθεν. Kai 
likewise blends only occasionally with ἐάν in the sense of ‘and if,’ 
as in Mk. 16:18; Lu. 13:9; Jas. 5:15. In the sense of ‘even 
if? the crasis is more common, as in Mt. 26:35; Jo. 8:14. In 
the sense of ‘if it be but’ or ‘if only’ the crasis is uniform as in 
Mk. 5:28; 6:56; 2 Cor. 11:16.8 Cf. κἄν --- καὶ ἐάν (Jo. 8:14, 
16). The article suffers crasis very often in the older Greek, but 
in the N. T. it is seldom so. Hort® declines to accent ταὐτά for 
ταῦτα in 1 Cor. 9:8 or ταὐτά for τὰ αὐτὰ in Lu. 6: 23, 26; 17:30, 
though supported in Luke by some good MSS. He does, how- 
ever, accept τοὔνομα in Mt. 27:57 and τοὐναντίον in 2 Cor. 2:7; 
Gal. 2:7; 1 Pet. 3:9 (“stereotyped as a single word,’ Blass). 
Crasis is quite rare in the LXX (Thackeray, Gr., p. 137). 


1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 18. See Additional Notes. 
2 For more minute details about the prep. see Gregory, Prol., pp. 94 ff. . 


3 Meisterh., Att. Inschr., pp. 70 ff. 4 Magen. Inschr., p. 74. 
5 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 133. Cf. Mayser, Gr., pp. 158 ff., for the 
common pap. exx. like κἀγώ, τἀληθές, etc. 6 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 145. 


7 See Gregory, Prol., p. 96; Von Soden, I, p. 1380. ; 

8 See Blass, Gr. of Ν. T. Gk., p. 18, and W.-Sch., p.38; Von Soden, I, p. 1380. 
Blass gives κἀπεθύμει from D (Lu. 15 : 16). ® Notes on Orth., p. 145. 

10 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 19. For scarcity in LXX see Helbing, Gr. d. LXX, 
p. 13 f. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 209 


III. Consonant-Changes (στοιχεῖα σύμφωνα). The Greek, like 
other Indo-Germanic tongues, wrote out both vowels and con- 
sonants save in the case of iota adscript, which was not always 
used. But, as with the Phoenician and Hebrew, which wrote only 
consonants, the consonants form the backbone of the language. 
Both consonants and vowels are originally pictographic. “Beth” 
(Gf7a) is ‘house,’ “gimul”’ (γάμμα) is ‘camel,’ “daleth” (δέλτα) is 
‘door,’ etc.! The Greek indeed developed the vowels a, ε, ει, o out 
of the Phoenician consonants aleph, he, yod, ayin.? 

(a) ORIGIN AND CHARACTER OF THE CONSONANTS. Though 
the Greek consonants undoubtedly come chiefly from the Phoeni- 
cian symbols, they were not all used at once nor in the same 
places. At first the digraphs KH, TH, ΠΗ were used for the later 
X, 9, ®, and even after these letters won a foothold ΚΣ, Xz, 
ΠΣ, 62 were used in Attic for ἕ, y. It is only since 403 B.c. that 
the Greek alphabet (ἄλφα βῆτα) has had regularly twenty-four 
letters. Jannaris® gives an interesting study of the way the 
Greek letters looked in eighth, sixth, fifth and fourth centuries 
B.c. as shown by the inscriptions. In the inscriptions, however, 
Korma continued to be used (like Latin Q) and Bad or δίγαμμα. 
This last, though called double yauua, perhaps represents the Phee- 
nician vau. On the use of digamma in Homer see Kiihner-Blass.4 
It is a half-vowel in fact, as. and v are partly consonant in force, 
like Latin u (v) and 7 ()).8 The dropping of digamma, affected 
many words, some of which have the rough breathing, though 
Thumb® and Moulton’ think that this is an accident simply, and 
the rough breathing is due to analogy and not to the digamma in 
cases like καθ᾽ éros, etc. But changes in the use of the consonants 
did not cease when the Euclidean spelling reform was instituted 
403 s.c. As the vowels underwent steady development, so it was 
and is with the consonants. B early began occasionally to have 
the force of v, and y sometimes the 7 value of « as in modern Greek, 
and it was even inserted (irrational y).* In general in the κοινή the 


1 Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 21. 2 Ib. Cf. Meisterh., Gr. etc., p. 3. 

3 Ib., p. 24f. On the whole subj. of changes in the pap. see Mayser, Gr., 
pp. 163-248. For general remarks about consonant-changes in LX X MSS. 
see Swete, O. T. in Gk., p. 301. 4 Bd. I, pp. 85-101. 

5 Ib., pp. 77-85, 101-103. The mod. Gk. pronounces airés=aftos. The 
inser. give the form ἀξυτοῦ. Cf. Riem. and Goelzer, Phonét., p. 34. 

6 Hellen., pp. 245 ff. 

7 Prol., p. 44. But Sommer, Gr. Lautstudien, shows that the rough 
breathing is sometimes due to digamma. 

8 Thumb, Hellen., p. 187 f.; cf. p. 194 f. for intervocal y. 


210 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


consonant-changes are much fewer than those of the vowel. Such 
peculiarities as oo, γίνομαι, λήμψομαι are common (Thackeray, ΟἿ᾽" 
p. 100). 

(Ὁ) Tue Insertion oF Consonants. In the older Greek ὃ 
is inserted in dp-d-pés, and so with 6 in peonu-B-pia.! The 
Attic used either form in ἐμπί(μ)πλημι, ἐμπί(μ)πρημιι So in Ac. 
14:17 DEP read ἐμπιμπλῶν (Ὁ ἐν-), and in Ac. 28:6 N°BHLP 
most cursives have πίμπρασθαι. The LXX MSS. show the same 
variation. D in Lu. 2 : 52, ete., has ’Io-r-payd. The retention of 
μ in all the forms (derivatives also) of λαμβάνω (root λαβὴ) 15 in ac- 
cord with the usage of the papyri (“almost invariably’’)? and the 
inscriptions of the κοινή, and is due to the Ionic Aduyouw.? Hence 
λήμψομαι, ἔλήμφθην, etc. In the Ptolemaic age (iii/i B.c.) the 
papyri give both forms. From i/iv a.p. the papyri and uncials 
(LXX and N. T.) give almost wholly wu forms. In the Byzantine 
period (vi/viii 4.0.) the classic λήψομαι reappears. Cf. Thack- 
eray, Gr., p. 108 f.; Mayser, Gr., p. 194 1.; Crénert, Mem., Ὁ. 66. 
In the LXX the uncials give the spelling of their own date, not 
that of the translation. In Mk. 7:32 the extra y in μογ(γ)λιλάλον 
is inserted by the Syrian class only and is not to be accepted. In 
Heb. 11:32 π is added to Layowv (Σαμψών). So also in Ac. 3:7 
(NABC) 6 is added to σφυ(δ)ρόν which is as yet “unexplained.’’4 
In the case of ‘Adpauvytnvd (Ac. 27:2), read by W. H. on author- 
ity of AB 16 Copt. instead of “Δδραμυττηνῷ, a slightly different 
situation exists. ‘Two ways of pronouncing and spelling the 
name of the city existed. 

(c) THE OMISSION OF CONSONANTS. There are not many 
cases where a consonant drops out of a N. T. word. In Rev. 
13:2 the correct reading (all the uncials) is undoubtedly ἄρκου, 
not ἄρκτου. This form is found also in the LXX and in inscrip- 
tions of the first or second century a.p.6 W. H., following B and 
N, also (save in Mk. 3:22) read βεεζεβούλ instead of βεελζεβούλ. 
Τίνομαι and γινώσκω are the exclusive forms in the N. T., though 
some MSS., as in the papyri and inscriptions, have yew—-. Nach- 


1 Blass compares the insertion of consonants in Semitic names like ”Eo-6- 
pas, Μαμ-β-ρῆ. 2 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 34. 

3 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 179 f. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 64, for full references 
concerning the use of » with λαμβάνω. Cf. Gregory (Prol., p. 72) for list and 
references of the various compounds of λαμβάνω and λῆμψις in the N. T., 
ἀνα--, ἀνεπι--, ἀντι--, ἀπο-- , κατα--, μετα--, παρα--,; mpo— προσ-- The LXX MSS. 
have λήμψομαι (Q λήψονται) and ἐλήμφθην. CE. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 22. 

4 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 24; W.-Sch., p. 64. 

δ. ΤΡ Oo. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 211 


manson! states clearly the facts. The Ionic as early as the fifth 
century B.c. used the yw forms, and the Doric shows the same 
situation in the fourth century. Even in Athens the yw forms 
appear, and in the κοινή the yyv forms vanish. Γολγοθά follows 
the Hebrew 17322 rather than the Chaldaic 892323 in having 
only one Δ. According to Winer-Schmiedel? the two forms καῦδα 
and κλαῦδα (Ac. 27:16) represent two different islands near each 
other, which were confused in the MSS. It is hardly worth while 
to remark that σάρδιον (correct text in Rev. 4:3) is a substantive, 
while σάρδινος (Text. Rec.) is an adjective. 

(d) SINGLE oR DovuBLE Consonants. Blass? and Winer- 
Schmiedel*? comment on the obscurity concerning the use of single 
or double consonants in the κοινή. The phenomena in the N. T. 
in general correspond to the situation in the κοινή. In the modern 
Greek vernacular (cf. Thumb, Handbook, p. 27) the double con- 
sonants, except in Southeastern Greek dialects, have the value of 
only one. In the oldest Attic inscriptions in most cases where 
the doubling of consonants was possible the single consonant was 
used. The rule with initial 6 was that when it passed to the 
middle of a word as a result of reduplication or the prefixing of 
a preposition, etc., it was doubled. But ῥεραντισμένος is read by 
NACDP in Heb. 10: 22 as in Ionic and late Greek, ῥεριμμένοι in D 
(Mt. 9: 36), and περιρεραμμένος in δὲ (Rev. 19:18). Blass’ observes 


1 Maen. Inschr., p. 108. Cf. also Hoffmann, Griech. Dial., Bd. III, p. 173; 
Meisterh., p. 128; Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 165; Schmid, Atticismus, Bd. 
IV., p. 579 (for the Atticistic γιγν); Crénert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 91 f.; 
Reinhold, De Graec. Patr. ete., pp. 46-48. In the LXX γίνομαι and γινώσκω 
are uniform. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 21. Thack. (Gr., p. 111 f.) finds 
illustrations of the omission of intervocalic y in the LXX uncials as in the 
pap. (Mayser, Gr., p. 167 f.). 

2 P. 65, where a full discussion of the geographical points is given. 

δι of Ne: Gk. yp. 10. 

4 P. 55; cf. also Riem. and Goelzer, Phonét., pp. 225 ff. 

5 See Thumb, Hellen., pp. 20 ff.; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., pp. 122ff.; 
Nachm., Magn. Inschr.; pp. 88 ff.; Crénert, Mem. Graec. Hercul:, pp. 74 ff. 
Cf. Mayser, Gr., pp. 211-219. For the LXX see Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 
14-16. The MSS. of the LXX are largely the same as those of the N. T. and 
show similar phenomena in orthography. So in Ex. 7:10 B has ἔριψεν, ’App. 
Both ἀρραβών and ἀραβών occur, and it is in the pap. that we can often find the 
true Ptolemaic spelling. A curiously has usually γένημα and B γέννημα. 

6 Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 93. 

7 Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 10, 328. Similar variations in usage as to p or pp 
appear in the inscr. of the κοινή (Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 124, ἀναντιρήτως, 
etc.; Nachm., Magn. etc., p. 91) and even in the Attic inser. (Meisterh., p. 95, 
ἀναρηθέντες, etc.). Cf. Reinhold, De Graec. etc., p.42, for exx. of ἐρύσατο, ete. 


12 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


that the Syriac versions use 8270" for Ῥώμη, though some Attic 
inscriptions use initial pp. In Mt. 9:20 αἱμορροοῦσα is correct 
(NL one p). In Ac. 10:29 BD 61 read ἀναντιρήτως, and in Ac. 
19:36 BL have ἀναντιρήτων. In Ac. 27:43 W. H. follow NC in 
ἀπορίψαντας, and in Lu. 19:35 all but the Syrian class read ém- 
ρίψαντες and NAB have the same formin 1 Pet: 57> Int Mite 9236 
the Neutral (and Alexandrian) class has ἐριμμένοι, the Syrian épp., 
while D has ῥεριμμ-- In Mt. 15:30 NDL read ἔριψαν, while only 
the Syrian class has ἔρριψαν, and so in Ac. 27:19. But ἸΠ ΓΙ ΤΩ 
ἔρριπται is Supported by all MSS. save II and p*. In Jo. 19:23 
ἄραφος is read by W. H., though B has app. In 2 Cor. 12:4 ἄρρητα 
is right as ἄρρωστος in Mk. 6:5, 13, ete. In 2 Cor. 1:22 W. H. 
follow BCD vs. NAL in reading ἀρραβῶνα, a Semitic word which 
in its Semitic form has the doubling of the consonant and the 
metrical prosody -- - -- according to Blass,! who compares also 
the Latin arrha. W. H. have διαρήξας in Mk. 14:63 after BN, 
while in Lu. 8:29 dcapfoowv:is supported by ABCRUA. In Mt. 
26:65 W. H. give διέρηξεν on the authority of only Of according 
to Tisch., though BL read διερήσσετο in Lu. 5:6. But προσέρηξεν 
in Lu. 6:48 is supported by NBDL and in 6:49 by BDL. In 
Ac. 16:22 περιρήξαντες is the reading of all uncials save P, but 
most cursives follow P. But in Ac. 14:14 all MSS. have διαρρή- 
ἕαντες and in Lu. 9 : 42 the same thing is true of ἔρρηξεν. In Mk. 
2:21 ἐπιράπτει is read by all the best MSS. and the Syrian class 
is divided, and the same is true of Mt. 26: 67 ἐράπισαν. In 2 Cor. 
11:25 ἐραβδίσθην is correct, while likewise ἐράντισεν (Heb. 9:19, 
21) has all save late Syrian support. So —pp— in ἐρρέθη (BD ἐρρήθη, 
not W. H., Mt. 5:21, etc.) is the constant reading in the N. T. 
In Eph. 3:17 (18) and Col. 2: 7, all MSS. have ἐρριζωμένοι. W.H. 
follow B alone in 2 Cor. 1:10; 2 Pet. 2 : 7 with ἐρύσατο, while in 
Col. 1: 13 B is joined by FGP. In 2 Tim. 3:11 AD read ἐρύσατο, 
and NAC 387 give ἐρύσθην in 2 Tim. 4:17. All.MSS. have ἔρρωσθε 
(Ac. 15:29). Μύρρα (B) is changed to Μύρα in the Syrian text (Ac. 
2:5; cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 160), but Winer-Schmiedel (p. 58) 
found only Μύρα in the inscriptions. Παραρυῶμεν (Heb. 2: 1) is read 
by all the pre-Syrian classes. Παρρησία, παρρησιάζομαι (from παν- 
ρησία), not παρη--, is the usual reading in the N. T. (see Additional 
Notes), as occasionally in the inscriptions.2 W. H. read πυρρός in 


1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 10. ᾿Αραβών “only Western,” Hort, Notes on Orth., 
p. 148. But the pap. (Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 33; Deiss., B. S., p. 183 f.) 
frequently have ἀραβών, and, as Deissmann remarks, people are not always par- 
ticular to preserve mere etymology. 2 CIGH, 2722. 5. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 56. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 213 


Rev. 6:4 and 12:3, though the evidence is pretty evenly balanced.! 
The Alexandrian class has πυράζει in Mt. 16: 2, but W.H. reject the 
passage. The MSS. all have Χειμάρρου in Jo. 18:1. 

The other instances outside of p are not so numerous. The 
MSS. (all but late Syrian) support βαλλάντιον, not βαλάντιον, as 
do the papyri.2. Blass* argues for it also on metrical grounds. 
Γένημα, because given by no grammarian, was “attributed by 
Fritzsche (on Mark, pp. 619 ff.) to the carelessness of transcribers”’ 
(Thayer), but as sometimes in the LXX (Ezek. 36:30) so in the 
N. T. the best MSS. distinguish between γέννημα (from γεννάω), 
‘living creatures,’ as γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν (Mt. 3:7) and γένημα (from 
γίνομαι), ‘the fruits of the earth,’ as ἐκ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου (Mk. 
14:25). Phrynichus* condemns the use of γέννημαΞε καρπός (Dio- 
dorus, Polybius, etc.). Root of both verbs is γεν. This distinction 
between γένημα and γέννημα appears in the papyri also, though γενη- 
θέντα occurs in the Faytim Papyri (B.U. 110. 14) “undoubtedly 
from yervaw.””®> So N. T. MSS. vary® about γέννημα. The gram- 
marians (Lobeck, ad Phrynichum, Ὁ. 726) reject ἐκχύνω for ἐκχέω, 
but the best MSS. give ἐκχύννω everywhere in the N. T. W. H. 
accept this AZolic form in Mt. 23:35; 26:28; Mk. 14:24; Lu. 
11:50 marg.); Lu. 22: 20 (bracket the passage); Ac. 9 : 22; 22: 20. 
So also συνχύννω (W. H.) in Ac. 9 : 22; 21:31. Cf. ὑπερεκχυννόμε- 
νον in Lu. 6:38: Likewise MSS. support ἀναβαίννω, ὀπτάννομαι, 
while the AXolic ἀποκτέννω is received by W. H. in Rev. 6:11 and 
ἀποκτεννύω in Mk. 12:5, though rejected elsewhere in N. T. on 
divided testimony. "Evaros has been restored throughout the 
N. T. by W. H. instead of ἔννατος of the Text. Rec. The inscrip- 
tions support the N. T. MSS. in this change (Thayer). So W. H. 
give ἐνενήκοντα (Mt. 18:12 ff.; Lu. 15:4, 7) but ἐννέα always. 
’Eveds, not évveds, W. H. give (Ac. 9:7) as the LXX (Is. 56:10), a 
word possibly identical with a@vews (avaos).. W.H. present’ κράβατ- 
tos instead of the κράββατος of the Text. Rec., though κράβατος 
would more nearly represent the Latin grabatus as it appears 
in Etym. M. (154. 34; 376. 36). Κραβάτριος is found also for the 


1 The inscr. show πυρός also (Dittenb., 177. 15; 748. 20). 
2 Cronert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 76. Seats Ol 0 Dr LT. 
4 Rutherford, New Phryn., p. 348. 
5 Deiss., B. S., pp. 109 f., 184. Cf. Thackeray, p. 118. 

6 Gregory, Prol., p. 79. 

7 In Mk. B (5) has κράβατος, but is not followed by W. H. in Jo. and Ac. 
(6). Thumb, Hellen., p. 22, argues for 86 as the correct form from mod. Gk. 
usage. Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 328) cites both κράβαττος and κραβάτιον from 
Arrian’s Diss. Epict. and κράβαττος from the pap. Cf. Moulton’s note in Einl. 


11 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Latin grabatarius (CIGII 2114 ἃ ὃ. δῆ, however, has 10/11 times 
the strange form κράβακτος (-r7— only in Ac. 5:15). Λασέα (Ac. 
27:8) is Λασσαία in some MSS. Μαμωνᾶς, from Aramaic 827DNd, 
is correct. Μασάομαι is the right reading in Rev. 16:10 (NACP). 
Only the Western class has πλημύρης for πλημμύρης in Lu. 6:48. 
W. H. properly have ῥάκος, not ῥάκκος, from ῥήγνυμι (Mt. 9 : 16; 
Mk. 2:21). In the Western interpolation in Ac. 20:15, W. H. 
read Τρωγύλιον, not --λλιον nor --ἰλιον. Some Latin MSS. read 
hysopus for ὕσσωπος in Jo. 19:29 and Heb. 9:19. Φύγελος, not 
—eddos, is read in 2 Tim. 1:15 by all save A and most cursives. 
Cf. Φυγέλιος in CIGH 3027. | 

The Hebrew and Aramaic proper names call for special re- 
mark. “Avvas= 2m (Josephus “Avavos) may be due to the drop- 
ping of a or to the analogy of “Avyva=nin. W. H. (Ac. 1:23; 
15:22) prefer BapoaBBas (from ἈΞ 732, “son of the Sabbath’) to 
BapoaBas (from ἈΞ 72, ‘son of Saba’).! The Text. Rec. has Γενη- 
caper (W. H. Τεννησαρέτ) in Mk. 6: 53, elsewhere —vy-.? Τόμορρα is 
read in LXX and N. T. (Mt. 10:15, ete.), sta». W. H. accept 
’"EXtcatos, not ᾿Ελισσ. (Syrian) in Lu. 4: 27= 9075x. ’Ieacat 
(Lu. 3:32, etc.) comes from °"%7. The Ν. T. and 1 Macc. have 
‘lorrn, but the ancient grammarians and lexicographers pre- 
fer Ἰόπη.)Σ In Lu. 3:27 ᾿Ιωανάν (indeclinable) is the right text. 
ΝΥ. ΠΗ. prefer Iwava (197°) to ᾿Ιωάννα in Lu. 8:3; 24:10. But more 
doubt exists concerning Ἰωάνης, which W. H. read everywhere 
save in Ac. 4:6; 13:5; Rev. 22:8, following B and sometimes 
D. The single ν prevails in D in Luke and Acts, while ’Iwavyys is 
more common in D in Matthew, Mark, John.’ & has the single 
ν in the part written by the scribe of B.6 The inscriptions have 
it both ways. Blass® finds the explanation in the Hebrew termi- 
nation —an, which was treated as a variable inflection in the Greek, 
the LX X MSS. having now Ἰωανάν and now Ιωάνον. This fact 
opposes the derivation of the name ᾿Ιωάννης from ’Iwavdv-ns, leaving 
the —ns unexplained.?7 Μαριάμ (27 ") = Μαριάμμη in Josephus.’ 
Μεσσίας is from the Aramaic ἈΠ τὸ Hebrew W250, but the Syr- 


1 Cf. W,-ochs .p! 57. 

2 Cf. Pliny (Nat. Hist., V, 15. 71 for Ten.) also. In W.-Sch., p. 57, the 
point is made that the unpointed Targums do not distinguish between 10°33 
and 23}, 

3 W.-Sch., p. 56, -- 13) or 12’. Cf. on this subject Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., 
p. 26 f: 4 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 328, quoting E. Lippett. 

5 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 159. 7 W.-Sch., p. 57; Εἰ. Bibl., Ὁ: 2504 f. 

G:.. (OP NOGI Nr ene ΡΝ 11: ΒΥ Blass ΤΥ ΤΟΝ Te Gk pila 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 1 


ian class reads Μεσίας in Jo. 1:41 (42); 4:25. .. Σάρρα, Heb. 
mw (feminine of WZ), is read by MSS. generally in N. T., though 
L has Σάρας in Ro. 4:19 (vulg. Sarae). All the MSS. have wp 
in Σουσάννα (Lu. 8: 3) after the Heb. si (‘a lily’). Χαρράν is 
supported by most MSS., though D and a few cursives have 
Xapav in Ac. 7:2 after the Hebrew }>7. The LXX has Χαρράν 
and the Greek writers (Strabo, etc.) have Kappa, Latin Carrhae. 

Doubling of the Aspirate. As a rule the aspirated mutes (0, x, 
¢) are not doubled in more correct writing either in early or late 
Greek, but N. T. MSS. give examples of 60, xx, ¢¢. In Philemon 
2 D has ᾿Αφφία, while 3 has ’Arzia (so vulg.) and FG, ete., even 
᾿Αμφία. In Mk. 7:34 all MSS. have ἐφφαθά (or ἐφφεθά) save A 
and two Coptic MSS. which have ἐπφαθά. W.H. give Μαθθαῖος -- 
Hebrew πο in the N. T. (Mt. 9:9ff., etc.), and Μαθθάν in Mt. 
1:15. W.H. read Maréar in Lu. 3:24, but Maé@ar in Lu. 3: 29. 
In Ac. 1: 23, 26 W. H. have Μαθθίας, but in Lu. 3: 25 f. they pre- 
fer Ματταθίας to Μαθθαθίας. In Ac. 5:1, W. H. consider Σάφφειρα 
Western and read Σάπφειρα (either Aramaic *175B9, ‘beautiful,’ or 
Hebrew 175d, ‘precious stone’).1. The LXX MSS. show the same 
variations. Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 121. 

(6) ASSIMILATION OF CoNSONANTS. In the early period of the 
Greek language the inscriptions often show assimilation of con- 
sonants between separate words. The words all ran together 
in the writing (scriptura continua) and to some extent in pro- 
nunciation like the modern French vernacular. Usage varied 
very early, but the tendency was constantly towards the dis- 
tinctness of the separate words (dissimilation). However, ἐξ 
came finally to be written ἐκ before consonants, though éy, ἐκκ, ex, 
éyx and even é (cf. Latin) are found in Attic inscriptions,? as éy 
νήσων, etc. Only sporadic examples outside of ἐξ and ἐκ appear 
in the N. T. as ἀνέγλιπτος in D (Lu. 12:38), ἀπεγδύσει in B (Col. 
2:11), ἔγγονα in D (1 Tim. 5:4), eggona, not engona.2 The Attic 
inscriptions even have s assimilated in τοὺλ λίθους. The most 


1 On the whole subject see Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 159, and Blass, Gr. of 
N. T. Gk., p. 11. Cf. also Schweizer, Perg. etc., pp. 110f., 114f. Cf. for 
the pap., Mayser, Gr., pp. 190-224; Soden, I, pp. 1372 ff. 

2 Cf. Meisterh., pp. 105-109. In North Engl. one hears “ith wood’’ for 
“in the wood.” The MSS. of the LXX show the same phenomena as one 
sees in the N. T. MSS. and the pap., like éy γαστρί, ἐμ μέσῳ, συγγράφειν, etc. Cf. 
Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 16 f.; Thack., Gr., pp. 130 ff. 

3 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 12; Ausspr. etc., p. 123. Alexandrian 
writers followed the Attic in this assimilation. Blass compares the guttural 
use of a in ἀὴλί (Mt. 27: 46) in L and in the LXX ’Λερμών, ’Aevdap. 


216 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


common assimilation between separate words is in words ending 
in --ν, especially with the article and ἐν. Examples like τὴμ πόλιν, 
τὸλ λόγον, Top Ῥόδιον, EX Λέσβῳ, ἐσ Σιδῶνι, etc., are very common.! 
Similar phenomena occur in the κοινή inscriptions, though the 
failure to assimilate is far more noticeable. See list of examples 
in Nachmanson.2 As a rule the papyri do not assimilate such 
cases In the N. T., as in the later κοινή generally, only a few 
remnants survive of this assimilation of » between words. Blass,* 
who has used the MSS. to good purpose, finds several, as, for in- 
stance, ἔγ γαστρί in A (Lu. 21: 23), ἔγ Kava in AF (Jo. 2:11), ἐμ 
μέσῳ in AC (Rev. 1:13; 2:1, οἰ), in AP (Heb. 2:12), in LA 
(Mt. 18:2; Lu. 8:7), ἐμ πραύτητι in N (Jas. 1:21), σὺμ Μαριάμ in 
AB, ete. (Lu. 2:5), σὺμ πᾶσιν in EG, ete. (Lu. 24 : 21). The earlier 
papyri (up to 150 B.c.) show a good deal of this assimilation be- 
tween words (Thackeray, Gr., p. 131). This assimilation between 
separate words is common in modern Greek (cf. Thumb, Handb., 
pp. 16 ff.).. So τὸν warépa=tombatéra. But a much more difficult 
matter is presented in the case of ἐν and σύν in composition, 
though in general “assimilation is the rule in compounds of &, 
retention of v in those of σύν.) ὃ But in 1 and 2 Peter assimila- 
tion is the rule (only two clear exceptions) for both σύν and ἐν, 
due possibly® to the absence of uncials. The later papyri as a 
rule do not assimilate σύν, though often ἐν. In the N. T. no ex- 
amples occur of ἐν or σύν before — or ρ.5 Hort® gives a list of what 
he considers “the certain and constant forms” of ἐν and σύν in 
composition. “All other compounds of σύν and ἐν are included in 
the list of alternative readings.’’ Hort thus reads éu— before the 
labials (7, β, ¢) and the liquid μ except ἐνπεριπατήσω (2 Cor. 6: 16), 
possibly ἐνπνέων (Ac. 9:1), and ἔνπροσθεν once (Rev. 4:6) and 
Western class elsewhere. So assimilation takes place before the 
liquid ἃ, as ἐλλογάω. But before the palatals x, y the usage varies, 
though before x we have ἐγχρῖσαι (Rev. 3:18) with δὲ reading ἐν. 


1 Meisterh., p. 110f. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 97. 

2 Magn. Inschr., p. 100f. Cf. also Schweizer, Perg. etc., p. 127; Jann., 
Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 92. 

5. Crénert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 57; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 12. 

ΠΡ 5900 ὅ Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 149. 

6 Ib. In general see Wecklein, Curae Epigr. ad Gr. Graecae ete., 1869, 
p. 47 f. 

7 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 12. Cf. Crénert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 61. 

8 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 149. See for LXX Thackeray, pp. 132 ff. 

9. Ib. For the inser. see Nachm., Magn., p. 104 f. The Coptic shows similar 
variation. For the loss of finaly in mod. Gk. vernac. see Thumb, Handb,, p. 24f. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 217 


We read ἐνγεγραμμένη in 2 Cor. 8:21. (NABCDFG) and ἐνκαί- 
via, ἐνκαινίζω, ἐνκατοικέω, ἐνκαυχῶμαι, ἐνκεντρίζω, ἐνκρίνω, though éy- 
καλέω, ἔγκλημα, etc., and ἐγκαταλείπω except in Acts.) As to σύν 
here is Hort’s decision. Συνπ-- he accepts save in συμπόσια. On the 
other hand Hort has only συνβασιλεύω, συνβιβάζω, elsewhere συμβ-- 
as In συμβαίνω; only σύνφημι, συνφύω, but συμφ-- as in συμφέρω. With 
the palatals Hort reads συνκ-- always, as in συνκάθημαι, only συγγε- 
yns, συγκαλύπτω, but συνχρῶμαι and σύγχυσις. He has both συνλαλέω, 
συνλυποῦμαι and συλλαμβάνω, cvAA yw; συνμαθητής, etc., but συμμορ- 
φίζω, σύμμορφος. Hort has συνζῶ, etc., but σύζυγε; σύνψυχος, but 
has both συνσταυρόω, etc., and συστρέφω, etc. For the detailed 
MS. evidence see Gregory.?. Hort also prefers παλινγενεσία, but 
is doubtful about κενχρεαί, πανπληθεί. 

(f) INTERCHANGE AND CHANGING VALUE OF CoNSONANTS. One 
cannot here go into the discussion of the labial, palatal, dental, 
velar stops, the spirants, liquids, nasals. One can give only the 
special variations in the N. T. The ὃ sound was rare in the older 
Indo-Germanic languages and easily glided into wu or v.2 The Greek 
Baivw is like vento in Latin, Bios is like vivus though different in his- 
tory. In modern Greek 6 has sound of v. In the N. T. as in the 
LXX all the uncials have v in Δαυείδ (W. H.) where the minuscules 
read Δαβίδ. In the case of Bediap (2 Cor. 6:15) it is from 77 D2 
(‘lord of the forest’), while the Text. Rec. βελίαλ is from 5»752 
(‘worthlessness’).6 The variation between po and pp, Moulton® ob- 
serves, runs down to modern Greek. The Attic pp did not displace 
the Ionic and early Attic po entirely in the Attic inscriptions.’ In 
the N. T., like the rest of the κοινή, usage is divided.’ Hort (p. 149) 
prefers ἄρσην except ἄρρην perhaps 4/4 times in Paul. In the Gos- 
pels and Acts θάρσος and the two imperatives θάρσει, θαρσεῖτε are 
uniform,-but in 2 Cor. (5:6, 8; 7:16; 10:1, 2) and Heb. (13:6) 


1 About & in composition see Gregory, Prol. etc., p. 76 f.; Soden, I, 
p. 13888. Ἔν in MSS. appears in composition as ἐν-, éy— and even é-, as 
ἐκκόπην. On ἔνπροσθεν in the pap. see Mayser, Gr., p. 45. 

2 Prol. etc., p. 73 f. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 91-97, for the history of 
this subject during various stages of the language. 

3 Cf. Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., pp. 98, 124 

4 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 66 note. 

5 Cf. ib., p. 58 note, for further discussion. 

6 Prol., p. 45. Cf. also Thumb, Theol. Literaturzeit., X XVIII, p. 422. 

7 Meisterh., Att. Inschr., pp. 99 f. 

8 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 125; Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 94. In the 
pap. ἄρρην “greatly preponderates over ἄρσην᾽᾽ (Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 
33). Cf. also Reinhold, De Graec. etc., p. 44f. Thumb, Hellen., p. 77 f. 


218 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


θαρρεῖν is the correct text. ¢ displaces o in a few words. Voiced 
σ in union with voiced consonants had the sound of z, and ¢ was 
pronounced o6.! "Αζωτος (Ac. 8:40) T170x, Ashdod. Lagarde’s 
LXX has ᾿Ασεδδώδ in Josh. 11:22 (A has ᾿Ασηδώδ, B ’Aceddw). 
sary is rendered also “Efpas or "Εσδρας. But in the N. T. period 
¢ is changing from the ds sound to z. ‘Apydfw, not the Attic 
ἁρμόττω, is the N. T. form.? Lachmann has μαΐζός for μαστός in 
Rev. 1:13. In 1 Th. 5:19 BDFG (Western class) read ¢Bevvure,? 
simply phonetic spelling. Hort* considers Zuipya as Western 
only in Rev. 1:11; 2:8, but the papyri and inscriptions both 
give it.» The most noticeable feature of all is, however, that 
the Attic and Boeotian 77 did not hold against the Ionic oo 
(though even Thucydides and the Tragic poets used oc). Papyri, 
inscriptions and N. T. MSS. all unite in using oo as the rule, 
though all occasionally have rr. It does not seem possible to 
reduce the usage to an intelligent rule.6 ᾿Εκπληττόμενος is ac- 
cepted by W. H. in Ac. 18:12, elsewhere oo. Both ἐλάσσων 
(Jo: 2:10; Roie9.: 12) and “ἐλάττων (lim τ 9; seb en eare 
found, but only the “literary” (so Blass) words ἐλαττόω (Jo. 3: 
30; Heb. 2:7, 9) and ἐλαττονέω (2 Cor. 8:15). Similar diversity 
exists between ἧσσον (1 Cor. 11:17; 2 Cor. 12:15) and ἡσσώθητε 
(2 Cor. 12:18) on the one hand and #rrnua (1 Cor. 6:7; Ro. 
11:12) and ἡττᾶσθαι (2 Pet. 2:19 f.) on the other. In Heb. 6:9; 
10:34 W. H. read κρείσσονα, elsewhere κρείττονα (Heb. 1:4; 7:7, 
19, 22; 8:6; 9:23; 11:16, 35, 40; 12:24), and Hebrews has 
some literary influence, an argument for Blass’ idea above. Paul 
has κρεῖττον only in 1 Cor. 7:9, while κρεῖσσον is found in 1 Cor. 
7:38; 11:17; Ph. 1:23. Hort accepts xpetrrov in 1 Pet. 3:17 


1 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., pp. 113, 115. On the whole subject of the 
exchange of consonants in the pap. see Mayser, Gr., pp. 169-188, 219-224. 
For the LXX exx. (οὐδέν, οὐθέν; γλῶσσα, γλῶττα; φυλάσσω, φυλάττω; ἐλάσσων, 
ἐλάττων; ἄρρην, θαρρῶ, etc.) see Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 17-20; Thack., Gr., 
pp. 100-124. 

2 Cf. Rutherford, New Phyrn., p. 14. 

3 Cf. ἄζξβεστος in N (Mk. 9: 48), ἐγνωζμένος, etc., in pap. (W.-Sch., p. 59). 

4 Notes on Orth., p. 148. 

5 Deiss., B. S., p. 185. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 45; Dittenb., 458. 41, & 
Zpipvp. 

6 Cf. Thumb, Hellen., pp. 53, 78 ff.; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 125; 
Nachm., Magn. etc., p. 95f.; Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 32; Prol., p. 45; 
Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 23; Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 148; Reinhold, De 
Graec. ete., p. 43 f. Giles (Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 115) thinks that the oo 
in Athens was a literary mannerism and pronounced just like rr. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 219 


and 2 Pet. 2:21 (doubtful). Cf. σήμερον for the Attic τήμερον. 
"Ορνιξ (Lu. 13:34) is called Western by Hort, though Moulton! 
observes that it has some papyrus support and is like the modern 
Greek (Cappadocian) épvix. 

(g) ASPIRATION OF CONSONANTS. There is besides some fluc- 
‘tuation in the aspiration of consonants. See under (d) for the 
double aspirates like ’A¢d¢ia, etc. This uncertainty of aspiration is 
very old and very common in the inscriptions and papyri,? though 
the N. T. has only a few specimens. W. H. read ‘Axeddauay in 
Ac. 1:19, 823 Spm. So ῥακὰ (Mt. 5:22), xp, but σαβαχθανεί 
(B has -x7r-) in Mt. 27:46. ΓΤεννησαρέτ is correct; the Syrian 
class has -ἐθ in Mt. 14:34. W. H. have uniformly Καφαρναούμ, 
and read Ναζαρέτ save in four passages, Ναζαρέθ in Mt. 21 : 11; 
Ac. 10:38, and Nafapa in Mt. 4:18; Lu. 4:16. In Lu. 11:27; 
23 : 29 DFG have μασθοί for μαστοί, ikewise Nin Rev. 1:13. ᾿Εθύθη 
is read by cursives, Clem., Or., etc., in 1 Cor. 5:7. In οὐθείς and 
undeis after elision of ε the 6 has blended with the εἷς as if it were 
τ and become @. It is first found in an inscr. 378 B.c. and is the 
usual form in the pap. in ii/B.c. and first half of 1i/B.c.. By i/a.p. 
the ὃ forms are supreme again (Thack., Gr., pp. 58 ff). Blass? finds 
οὐθενός in Lu. 22:35 (ABQT); 2 Cor. 11:8 (RBMP); οὐθέν in Lu. 
23 :14(NBT); Ac. 15:9 (BHLP); 19:27 (NABHP); 26: 26 (NB); 
1 Cor. 18:2 (NABCL); μηθὲν in Ac. 27:33 (NAB). But ἐξουθενέω 
in the LXX and the Ν. T. prevails, though W. H. (after BD) read 
ἐξουδενηθῇ in Mk. 9:12. δὲ and ND read the Attic πανδοκεῖον, —ebs 
in Lu. 10:34 f., but W. H. accept πανδοχεῖον, --εὐς (from δέχομαι). 
Σάρεπτα in Lu. 4:26 is the LXX rendering of nD. Tporodopéw 
and τροφοφορέω are two distinct words, though the MSS. differ 
widely in Ac. 13 : 18, the Neutral and Western supporting τροτ--. 
Hort considers σφυρίς for σπυρίς right (Mt. 15:37, etce.). It is 
well attested by the papyri.t W. H. read φόβηθρον, not φόβητρον, 
ieee Lal 

(h) VARIABLE FINAL CoNSONANTS. The use of ν ἐφελκυστικόν 
(paragogic v) cannot be reduced to any clear rule. The desire to 
avoid hiatus extended this usage, though it probably originally had 
a meaning and was extended by analogy to cases where it had none. 
Cf. English articles a, an (Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 208). 


1 Prol., p. 45. Cf. Thumb, Hellen., p. 90. 2 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 59. 

3 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 24; W.-Sch., p. 61. Cf. Meisterh., p. 48, for this 
interaspiration in the old Attic inser. Cf. Mayser, pp. 180 ff. 

4 Moulton, Prol., p. 45. The Ptol. pap. have both spellings, Deiss., B.S., 
p. 185. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 173. 


220 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


The same thing is true of movable final s. In the old Attic before 
403 B.c. this movable ν was seldom used. It is more frequent in the 
new Attic up to 336 B.c., and most common in the κοινή, vanishing 
again in the modern Greek, as v easily disappears in pronuncia- 
tion. Meisterhans! has an interesting table on the subject, show- 
ing the relative frequency in different centuries. This table 
proves that in the κοινή it came to be the rule to use the movable 
v both before consonants and vowels. This is shown also by the 
inscriptions? and the Ptolemaic papyri. Per contra note the dis- 
appearance of final ν in modern Greek vernacular, when not pro- 
nounced (Thumb, Handb., pp. 24 ff.). However, as a rule, this 
movable final ν occurs only with the same classes of words as in 
the Attic as after --σι, ἐστί and ε in verbs (8d sing. past tenses). 
The irrational ν mentioned as common later by Hatzidakis? is 
rare. The older N. T. MSS. (NABC) are in harmony with the 
κοινή and have the movable ν and s both before consonants and 
vowels with a few exceptions. The later N. T. MSS. seem to 
feel the tendency to drop these variable consonants. Moulton4 
mentions μείζων (Jo. 5:36) as a good example of the irrational ν 
in N. T. MSS. (ABEGMA). Cf. also the irrational ν with the 
subjunctive in the papyri. So ἐὰν ἣν ἄρσενον P. Oxy. 744 (1/B.c.) for 
ἧ. see Moulton, Prol., pp. 168, 187, for further examples. The 
failure to use this vy was originally most common in pause, some- 
times even before vowels.> Blass® observes that it was only the 
Byzantine grammarians who made the rule that this ν should be 
used before vowels and not before consonants, a rule of which 
their predecessors did not have the benefit, a thing true of many 
other grammatical rules. We moderns can teach the ancients 
much Greek! Since the N. T. MSS.’ show no knowledge of this 
later grammatical “rule,” W. H. follow a mechanical one indeed, 


1 Att. Inschr., p. 114. 

2 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 137, whose table confirms that of Meisterh. 
Cf. also Thieme, Inschr. von Magn., p. 8; Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 110, 
with similar table. The pap. agree, Crénert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 137, and 
Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 236 ff. In the LXX ν ἐφελκ. occurs before ¢on- 
sonants also. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 22 ff.; Thack., Gr., pp. 134 ff. 
So as to movable s. Cf. μέχρι ὑμῶν and μέχρις οὗ in LXX. 

8 Einl. ete., p. 111, like ἱστορήθην ὁ ναός. Cf. Schweiz., Perg. Inschr., p. 137. 

4 Prol., p. 49. Cf. also Reinhold, De Graec., p. 37. 

5 W.-Sch., p. 62. σα of ON. Ty Ghai pie: 

7 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 147 f.; Gregory, Prol., p. 97f. In simple truth 
ν movable was not so uniform in the earlier Gk. (esp. Thuc.) as the grammars 
imply. Cf. Maasson, De littera ν Graec. parag., 1881, pp. 47, 61. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS FPA 


but the only practical guide under the circumstances. They go 
by the testimony of the oldest uncials. Hort gives a considerable 
list of examples where the v is wanting in one or more of the older 
uncials, but where W. H. have ν, as in ἀροῦσιν (Mt. 4:6), πᾶσιν 
(Mt. 5:15), etc. But in Lu. 1:3 ἔδοξε is read by NBCD. In Ac. 
24:27 κατέλιπε is supported by NB. There are about a dozen 
more instances in Hort’s long list of alternative readings where 
W. ΗΠ. prefer the form without v, rather more frequently after σι, 
than after «| W. H., however, have εἴκοσι everywhere, as was 
usually the case in the Attic inscriptions and always in the Ptole- 
maic papyri and the LXX MSS. both before vowels and con- 
sonants.2 So ἔμπροσθεν, ἔξωθεν, ὄπισθεν in the N. T. Likewise 
πέρυσι 1S correct in 2 Cor. 8:10; 9: 2.3 

The variable s calls for afew words more. All good MSS. give 
ἄντικρυς Χίου in Ac. 20:15.4 But as in Attic, the N. T. MSS. 
usually have ἄχρι and μέχρι even before vowels. λχρι (always 
before consonants) thus precedes vowels some fifteen times, and 
once only do we certainly® have ἄχρις (Gal. 3:19), though it is 
uncertain whether it is followed by ἄν or od. Μέχρι is always used 
in the N. T. before a consonant and once before a vowel, μέχρι 
"Iwavov (Lu. 16:16). The early N. T. editors used to print οὕτω 
before consonants and οὕτως before vowels, but W. H. print οὕτως 
196 times before consonants and vowels and only ten times οὕτω 
(all before consonants). These ten instances are Mk. 2:7; Mt. 
ΠΑ ton 1} πη ΡΟ. 19: Phis3 2173) Heb: 
ἘΔ. ον 16.318. 

(1) METATHESIS. Φαιλόνης (2 Tim. 4:13), Latin paenula. See 
Additional Notes. 

IV. Breathings. 

(a) ORIGIN OF THE ASPIRATE. As is well known, in the mod- 
ern Greek no distinction is made in pronunciation between spiri- 
tus asper and spiritus lenis, or πνεῦμα δασύ and πνεῦμα ψιλόν. That 


1 See Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 19; Gregory, Prol., p. 97. 

2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 828, and references there given. Cf. Thack., 
CraeDitloo. 

3 Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 19) quotes Attic usage for πέρυσιν before vowels. 

4 For the Hom. ἄντικρυ and further items see W.-Sch., p. 63 and note. 
"Avrixpus (καταντικρύ) in Attic is ‘downright,’ not ‘over against’ (Blass, Gr. of 
N. T. Gk., p. 20). Cf. for the pap. Mayser, Gr., pp. 242 ff. 

5 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 148. But W. H. read ἄχρις οὗ in Heb. 3 : 13, else- 
where ἄχρι οὗ. For further discussions of ἄχρι and μέχρι see W.-Sch., p. 63 note. 

6 For illustrations from the κοινή inscr. see Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 112. 
Cf. Reinhold, p. 37 f. 


222 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


is to say, the “rough” breathing is only a conventional sign used 
in writing. This sign is indeed a comparatively modern device, 
‘and ’, in use in the MSS. generally since the eleventh century 
A.D.A. This form was an evolution from H (Phoenician H, he), 
then Ε and 4, then L and 4.2. This breathing (rough or smooth) 
did not find a place in the Greek alphabet, and so is not found in 
the early uncial MSS. It becomes therefore a difficult question 
to tell whether the modern ignoring of the rough breathing was 
the rule in the first century A.D. The MSS., as Hort? points out, 
are practically worthless on this point. The original use of H as 
equal to h or the rough breathing was general in the old Attic 
and the Doric, not the Atjolic and Ionic. And even in the Attic 
inscriptions the usage is very irregular and uncertain. Numerous 
examples like HEKATON occur, but some like HEN also, so that 
even H was not always rough.*’ The modern English cockneys 
have no monopoly of trouble with h’s. In French h is silent as 
Vhomme. The Greeks always found the matter a knotty prob- 
lem. The use of H=7 in the Ionic and Attic (after 403 B.c.) 
left the Greeks without a literary sign for h. The inscriptions 
show that in the vernacular H continued to be so used for some 
time. 

(b) INCREASING DE-ASPIRATION (Psilosis). But there was a 
steady decrease in the use of the h sound. The Ionic, like the 
AKolic, was distinguished by psilosis, and the κοινή largely® fol- 
lowed the Ionic in this respect. More certain is the use of the 
aspirated consonants x, 6, ¢, which succeeded the older KH, TH, 
IIH. But certainly the rough breathing was in early use as the 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 63. The marking of the rough breathing was 
general in the earlier forms in vii/A.D., ib., Ὁ. 65. 

2 Cf. Bekker, Anec., II. 692, and Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 63. 

3 Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 310. Cf. also Sitterley, Praxis in MSS. of the Gk. 
Test., 1898, p. 32. See Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 25 f., for remarks on breath- 
ings in the LXX MSS., where Afolic and Ionic psilosis occur in ἐπ᾽ ὁδοῦ 
κατ᾽ ἕνα as well as exx. of aspirated consonants like καθ᾽ ὀφθαλμούς, καθ᾽ ἐνιαυτόν, 
ἐφ᾽ εἶδεν, not to mention οὐκ ἑωράκασιν and οὐχ ἰδού. For further remarks on 
breathings in the LXX see Swete, O. T. in Gk., p. 302. 

4 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., pp. 81, 91. The stop for the opening of the 
glottis (lenis) easily becomes breathed (rough). Cf. also Thumb, Unters. 
tiber ἃ. Spir. Asper. im Griech., 1888, p. 63. 

5. Cf. Thumb., p. 73 f. The Laconic Gk. used H in interaspiration as well 
as at the beginning (ib., p. 8). Dawes (Pronun. of the Gk. Aspirates, 1894, 
p. 103) is not able to reach a final decision as to whether the Gk. aspirates are 
genuine aspirates like the Sans. according to Brugmann, Curtius, etc. 

6 Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 91. On the whole subject of the aspirated 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS pars 


inscriptions show, though not with much consistency.! Some- 
times the rough breathing may be due to the disappearance of a 
digamma, though sometimes a smooth breathing displaces it, as 
ἔργον from F épyov? (cf. English ‘work’). Then again the disap- 
pearance of o has the same result, as ἰσαρός = ἱερός.) It is not strange 
therefore that usage in the κοινή is not uniform. Examples like 
ὑπ᾽ αὑτοῦ, ὑφ᾽ αὐτοῦ, οὐκ ἑωρῶμεν, etc., appear in the Pergamum in- 
scriptions, not to mention καθ᾽ éros, καθ᾽ ἱδίαν, etc.t The same 
story of uncertainty is told elsewhere in the κοινή as in Magnesia,° 
Herculaneum.’ Some of this variation is probably due to anal- 
ogy,’ so that though “de-aspiration was the prevailing tendency,”’ ® 
yet the N. T. shows several examples in the opposite direction. 
(c) VARIATIONS IN THE MSS. (Aspiration and Psilosis). The 
aspiration of the consonants x, 7, τ in case of elision is therefore 
a matter of documentary evidence ὃ and occurs in the case of ἀντί, 
ἐπί, κατά, μετά, οὐκ, ὑπό. The N. T. MSS. vary considerably among 
themselves as in the LXX, though some like D in the Gospels 
and Acts are wholly untrustworthy about aspiration.!? In gencral 
Attic literary usage cannot be assumed to be the κοινή vernacular. 
Hort" prefers ᾿Αδραμυντηνός (Ac. 27: 2) like Hadrumetum. ’Adodw 
(1 Cor. 9:9 f.; 1 Tim. 5:18) is connected with ἅλως or ἀλωή and 
may be compared with ἀπηλιώτης (ἥλιος). Hort (p. 144) prefers 
ἅλυσις (Mk. 5:3), but εἰλικρινήῆς and εἰλικρινία, though εἷλ. has 
ancient authority. ᾿Αφελπίζοντες 18 read by DP in Lu. 6:35 
and the LXX has several similar instances," not to mention one 


consonants see Riem. and Goelzer, Phonét., pp. 194 ff., and for the dialects and 
interaspiration see K.-Bl., Bd. I, pp. 107-114. 

1 Cecil Bendall, Jour. of Philol., 1904, pp. 199 ff. 

2 R. Weiss, De Dig. etc., 1889, p. 47. Cf. also Paues, De Dig. Hesiodes 
Quest., 1887, p. 48. 

3 Cf. Sommer, Griech. Lautstudien, 1905, p. 2. On metathesis in aspiration, 
as éxw (ἔχω), see Meisterh., p. 102, exx. of ἔχω in Attic inser. v/B.c. See also 
article by Pernot in Rev. des Et. Grq., 1906, pp. 10-23, on La Métathése 
dans les Dial. de Chio. 

4 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr. etc., pp. 116 ff. The Attic had only ἴδιος, but 
ἑορτή (Meisterh., p. 87). 5 Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 83. 

6 Crénert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 152.f. 

7 Thumb, Hellen. etc., p. 64. 

8 Moulton, Prol., p.44. Cf. also for the inser., Dittenb., ἐφ᾽ éros (458. 71), 
καθ᾽ idiay (233. 49), and for the pap., Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901 (pp. 33, 434) and 
1904 (p. 106). Cf. also Hort, Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 312. 

91 Tb; p. 311. 1 Blasse Gr oteN. 1 ΟἿ p. 15. 

1 Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 313; App., p. 160. 

12 ‘W.-Sch., p. 40. 18 Gregory, Prol., p. 91; Thack., p. 125. 


224 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


in Hermas and in the Attic’ In Ro. 8: 20 W. H. accept ἐφ᾽ 
ἐλπίδι, while various MSS. support it in Ac. 2:26; 1 Cor. 9:10; 
Ro. 4:18; 5:2; Tit. 1:2, and FG have καθ᾿ ἐλπίδα in Tit. 3:7. 
Hort? thinks this is due to digamma dropped as well as in the case 
of adidw (Ph. 2: 23), but analogy to ἀφορᾶν may be the explana- 
tion "Edie is read by a few MSS. in Ac. 4:29 as ἐφῖδεν in 
Lu. 1:25. Gregory‘ gives many examples of a¢-, ἐφ--, καθ-- with 
ἐλπίζω and εἶδον in the LXX. W. H. offer οὐχ ἱδού as an alternative 
reading in Ac. 2:7, while B reads οὐχ ἱδόντες in 1 Pet. 1: 8 and οὐχ 
εἶδον in’ Gal. 1:19. A has οὐχ ὅψεσθε in Lu. 17:22. W. Η.ὅ put 
οὐχ Ἱουδαϊκῶς in the margin in Gal. 2:14. Kaé’ idiav appears in & 
once, in B eight times, in D three times, in A once (Mt. 14: 23; 17: 
1,19; 20:17; 24:3; Mk. 4:34; 6:31; 9:28; 13:3). But W. H. no- 
where accept it, not even when B combines with δὰ or D. NB have 
it in Mt. 24:3. The form καθ᾽ ἱδίαν is common in the κοινή inscrip- 
tions and the papyri. Kadeiéwdov is read by M in Ac. 17: 16. On the 
other hand καθ᾽ éros, so common in the κοινή (cf. Latin vetus), is 
not found in the N. T., all MSS. in Lu. 2:41 reading κατ᾽ ἔτος. 
Hort® considers οὐκ ἔστηκεν (Jo. 8:44) to be merely the imperfect 
indicative of στήκω. So also as to ἔστηκεν in Rev. 12:4. N& has 
ἐφιορκήσεις in Mt. 5:33, a form common in the Doric inscrip- 
tions.’ DP have édiopxos in 1 Tim. 1:10. In Rev. 12:11 A 
reads οὐχ ἡγάπησεν, while οὐχ ὁλίγος is read in the LXX and pa- 
pyri as well as a number of times in Ac. (12:18 by NA, 14: 28 
by ΝΜ, 17:4 by B, 19:28 by NAD, 19:24 by &, 27:20 by A). 
In Ac. 5:28 D has ἐφαγαγεῖν. W.H. print on the other hand 
ἀποκατιστάνει in Mk. 9:12 rather than ἀποκαταστάνει though with 
hesitation.’ So likewise W. H. give ἐπίσταται instead of ἐφίσταται 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 16. Cf. Thumb, Unters. d. Spir. Asper, p. 65. 

2 Notes on Orth., p. 143. 

3 Moulton, Prol., p. 44; Thumb, Spir. Asper, p. 71. Moulton (Cl. Rev., 
Mar., 1910, p. 53) now says: “I am quite willing to be convinced that the 
long-lost digamma was an accessory here if no better explanation turns up.” 
Thumb (Spir. Asper, pp. 11, 71) admits the possibility of the digamma ex- 
planation in some cases. Se Proll au Ls 

5 Cf. Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 313 f., where Hort really favours οὐχ ‘Iovs. and 
the rough breathing for all the forms of ’Iovéas, ᾿Ιουδαῖος, etc. For the varia- 
tions in the LXX MSS. see Thack., p. 125. 

* Intr. to ΝΥ Deole. 

7 Rutherford, New Phryn., p. 363. For this transfer of aspiration cf. 
Curtius, Gk. Verb, II, 109. Nestle (Am. Jour. of Theol., July, 1909, p. 448) 
urges that, since the Gk. of the Bible is an “east-west language,” attention 
must be paid to oriental tongues. He notes that the Coptic has aspiration in 
helpis, hisos, for ἐλπίς, ἴσος. 8 Notes on Orth., p. 168. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 225 


in 1 Th. 5:3 (like B in Sap. 6 : 8), a wholly unusual! absence of 
aspiration in compounds of tornuw. For the LXX phenomena 
see Thackeray, Gr.,.p. 127.1. It is wholly doubtful whether ὀμεί- 
ρομαι OF ὁμείρομαι is right (1 Th. 2:8). Οὐκ edpov in some MSS. 
in Lu. 24:3, and οὐκ ἔνεκεν in 2 Cor. 7: 12, Blass? considers as cler- 
ical errors, though they are common in the LX X and_in the in- 
scriptions. N.T. MSS. (late cursives) even have airéw, ὁστεών, 
ὅχλος, etc. For μηθείς, οὐθείς see this chapter πὶ (f), the Inter- 
change of Consonants and chapter on Pronouns. 

(d) TRANSLITERATED SEmMiITIC Worps. The aspirate in the 
case of transliterated Semitic words (chiefly proper names) causes 
some difficulty. Blass‘ calls it “insoluble,” though he accepts 
Hort’s practice as rational,® expressing N and ¥ by the smooth 
breathing and 7} and ff by the rough breathing. The MSS. dis- 
agree and are not consistent, but Blass calls the result of this 
procedure “strange.”’ Hence Hort, argues for “ABed (7), ᾿Αβραάμ 
(N), "AvaBos (3), “Avap (77), ᾿Ακελδαμάχ (FF), ἁλληλούϊα (77), ᾿Αλφαῖος 
(ft), ‘Avavias (71), “Ἄννα (FR), ‘Apéras ([Π} ᾿Αριμαθαία (77), “Ap Μαγεδών 
(77), EBép (Y), Ἑβραῖος (Jf), ᾿Εβραΐς (Y), ᾿Εβραϊστί (J),°’Edicatos (JY), 
᾿Ελμαδάμ (δ), wt (SN), Ἑμμώρ ([Π), “Evox (A, but Eves, &), Ἑρρώμ 
(Ft, but ᾿Εσλεί, &), Eva (FI), ἠλεί (N), but Ἡλεί (77), Ἠλείας (N), “He 
(Y), ὕσσωπος (N),7 ὡσαννά (Ff), ‘Qoné (71). Hort® gives, moreover, 
the smooth breathing to all names beginning with 5 as ᾿Ησαίας. 
Besides he considers it a “false association”’® to connect Ἰερεμίας, 
ἸΙερειχώ, ᾿Ιεροσόλυμα (--μείτης), ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ with ἱερός, though Blass 
retains Ἱεροσόλυμα rather inconsistently. 

(ec) Tue Use or BREATHINGS WITH p AND pp. W. H. follow 
Tischendorf and Lachmann in dropping the breathings in pp as in 
ἄρρητα (2 Cor. 12:4), though retaining the rough breathing with 
initial p as in ῥήματα (vb.). Winer" argued that the Romans 
heard an aspiration with pp, since they used Pyrrhus, Tyrrhenus, 
etc. W. H. seem justified in using the smooth breathing with the 
first p in the word ῥεραντισμένοι (Heb. 10 : 22) by old Greek cus- 


1 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 144. 3 W.-Sch., p. 39. 

Petar Ol Nw Lh. GK DelG, “ΟΡ Nels Gis palo: 

5 Hort, Intr. to N. T. Gk., p. 313.. Cf. also Gregory, Prol., p. 106 f., for 
list of these words. 

6 Strange as it may seem, “ Hebrew” rather than “Ebrew” is modern (Hort, 
Thirst Ν 1s, pucla): 

7 Hort (Notes, etc., p. 144), however, merely follows custom and prints ioc. 

δ Intr. to N. T. Gk., p. 313. PT ΡΝ 

10 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 16. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 30 f. 

1 W.-M., p. 53. 


226 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


tom.1 The MSS., of course, give no help in the matter. The 
breathing with p is not written in the modern Greek vernacular 
text as in Pallis or Thumb. 

(f) THe Question or Avtod. This is somewhat knotty. It 
seems clear that as a rule αὐτοῦ and not αὑτοῦ is to be printed in 
the N. T. A number of reasons converge? on this point. The 
older Greek often used αὑτοῦ rather than ἑαυτοῦ as shown by the 
aspiration of the prepositions like ἀφ᾽ αὑτοῦ, etc. In the N. T. 
there is not a single case of such aspiration after elision save in a 
few single MSS. Add to this the fact that the N. T. uses the re- 
flexive pronoun much less than the earlier Greek, “with unusual 
parsimony” (Hort). Besides the personal pronouns of the first 
and second persons are frequently employed (Buttmann) where 
the reflexive might have been used. Buttmann urges also the 
point that in the N. T. we always have σεαυτοῦ, not σαυτοῦ. The 
earliest uncial MSS. of the N. T. and the LXX that use the dia- 
critical marks belong to the eighth century, but they all have 
αὐτοῦ, not αὑτοῦ. Even in the early times it was largely a matter 
of individual taste as to whether the personal or the reflexive pro- 
noun was used. Blass (p. 35) indeed decides absolutely against 
αὑτοῦ. But the matter is not quite so easy, for the κοινή inscrip- 
tions give examples of ὑφ᾽ αὑτοῦ in first century B.c. and a.p.3 
Mayser* also gives a number of papyri examples like καθ᾽ αὑτοῦ, 
μεθ᾽ αὑτοῦ, ὑφ᾽ αὑτῶν, where the matter is beyond dispute. Hort 
agrees with Winer in thinking that sometimes αὑτοῦ must be read 
unless one insists on undue harshness in the Greek idiom. He in- 
stances Jo. 2:24, αὐτὸς δὲ ᾿Ιησοῦς οὐκ ἐπίστευσεν αὑτὸν αὐτοῖς, and 
Lu. 23:12, προὐπῆρχον γὰρ ἐν ἔχθρᾳ ὄντες πρὸς αὑτούς. There are 
other examples where a different meaning will result from the 
smooth and the rough breathing as in 1 Jo. 5 : 10 (αὑτῷ), 18 (ai- 
τόν, αὐτοῦ), Eph. 1:5 (αὐτόν), 10 (αὐτῷ), Col. 1:20 (αὐτόν), 2:15 
(αὐτῷ). W.H. print αὑτοῦ about twenty times. Winer leaves the 
matter “to the cautious judgment of the editors.” 

V. Accent. 

(a) THe Acr or GREEK AccENT. The MSS. are worth as lit- 
tle for accent as for breathings. The systematic application of 
accent in the MSS., like the regular use of the spiritus lenis, dates 


1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 40f. 

? On the whole matter see Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 144 f.; W.-M., p. 188 i 
Buttmann, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 111; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 35. 

ὁ Nachm., Magn. Inschr., pp. 84, 144; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 161. 

4 Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 306. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS Ὁ 


from the seventh century a.p.1_ Hort? caustically remarks that 
most modern grammarians have merely worked out “a consistent 
system of accentuation on paper”? and have not recovered the 
Greek intonations of voice, though he has little to offer on the 
subject. Chandler* indeed laments that modern scholars scatter 
their Greek accents about rather recklessly, but he adds: “In Eng- 
land, at all events, every man will accent his Greek properly who 
wishes to stand well with the world.” It is a comfort to find one’s 
accents irreproachable, and Chandler rightly urges that the only 
way to use the accents properly is to pronounce according to the 
accent. The ancients were interested in Greek accent. Herodian 
in his Καθολικὴ προσῳδία investigated the accent of 60,000 words, 
but the bulk of his twenty books is lost. Chandler‘ found most 
help from Gottling, though others have written at length on the 
subject.° There are no accent-marks in the early inscriptions and 
papyri; in fact tradition ascribes the invention of these signs as a 
system to Aristophanes of Byzantium in the third century B.c., 
though the beginnings appear in the preceding century. He and 
his disciple, Aristarchus, made the rules at any ταύ. The Alex- 
andrian grammarians developed these rules, which have shown a 
marvellous tenacity even to the present day in the modern Greek, 
though, of course, some words would naturally vary in accent 
with the centuries.2 There is the Harris papyrus of Homer in 
the first century A.D. which has accents, and clearly the word had 
the accent in pronunciation like English long before it was writ- 
ten out. After the fourth century a.p. the use of accentual 
rhythm in Greek in place of quantitative rhythm had a tendency 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 66. Cf. also pp. 507 ff. on the Origin and History 
of Accent. 

2. 7π|τ tO GK.Nw 1 Dool4. 

3 Gk. Accentuation (1881), p. xxiii. 4 Ib., p. xvil. 

5 Cf. Meister, Bemerk. zur dorischen Accentuation (1883); Hadley, On the 
Nat. and Theory of the Gk. Accent. (Ess. Phil. and Crit., pp. 110 ff.); Wheeler, 
Die griech. Nominalaccente (1885); Bloomfield, Study of Gk. Accent (Am. Jour. 
of Philol., 1883); Wack., Beitr. zur Lehre vom griech. Akzent; Brugmann, 
Griech. Gr. (1900), pp. 150 ff.; K.-Bl., I, pp. 317 ff.; for further lit. see Brug- 
mann above. On accent changes in mod. Gk. see Hatz., Einl., pp. 418-440; 
Thumb, Handb., p. 28f. For the accent in the LXX see Helbing, Gr. d. 
Sept., p. 24. Here the same MSS. present the same problems that we have 
in the N. T. 

oJann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 62. 7 Riem. and Goelzer, Phonét., p. 77. 

8 Krumb., Beitr. zu einer Gesch. der griech. Spr., Kuhn’s Zeitschr. fiir 
Sprachl., 1885, p. 521. Cf. also Hatz., Einl. ete., p. 418; Chandler, Gk. Accen- 
tuation, p. v; Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 150. 


228 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


to make the accent rather more stable.t “Of all the phonetic 
peculiarities of a language accent is the most important.”? ‘The 
earlier use of accents and breathings was probably “for the text 
of poetry written in dialect’’* (cf. our reading-books for children). 
They were not written out “in ordinary prose till the times of 
minuscule writing,” though Euthalius (a.p. 396) made use of 
them in his edition of the N. T.4. The Christian hymns early 
show signs of changing from tone (pitch) to stress as is the rule in 
modern Greek. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 6. 

(b) SIGNIFICANCE OF ACCENT IN THE Kou. In Greek it is 
pitch, not stress, that is expressed by the accent, though in mod- 
ern Greek the accents indicate stress. “In the ancient Sanskrit 
and the ancient Greek the rise and fall in musical tone was very 
marked.’’> In English we are familiar with stress-accent. ‘“ Had- 
ley has ably argued that the compass of tone used by the Greeks 
was a musical fifth, 1.6. from C=do to G=sol, involving also the 
intermediate third or E=me.’’® It was not a stronger current of 
breath,’ but a higher musical note that we have. It was in a 
word “das musikalische Moment.’ Hadley (“‘ Nature and Theory 
of Gk. Accent,” Hssays Philol. and Crit., p. 111 f.) points out that 
προσῳδία comes from a root meaning ‘to sing’ (like the Latin ac- 
centus) and so ὀξύς and βαρύς answer to our high and low pitch. 
Giles® thinks that in the original Indo-Germanic language pitch 
and stress-accent were more evenly balanced. The accent singles 
out one syllable sharply and raises it higher than the rest, though 
as a matter of fact each syllable in a word has an accent or pitch 
lower down in the scale. Cf. the secondary accent in the English 
“incompatibility.” The Harris papyrus of Homer even accents 
every syllable in each word.” Then again “the accent of a sen- 
tence is as much under the influence of a law of some kind as the 
accent of the word.’”!! Language without accent or musical va- 


1 Sophocles, Lex. of Rom. and Byz. Period, p. 48. 

2 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 91. ’ Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 14. 

4 Ib. Cf. Gregory, Prol., p. 114, for specimen from Euthalius. 

5 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 92. 

6 Harris, MS. Notes on Gk. Gr. Cf. Riem. and Goelzer, Phonét., p. 77 f., 
for a discussion of the musical aspect of the matter. 

7 Arnold and Conway, The Restored Pronun. of Gk. and Tate 1895, p. 18. 

8 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 129. 9. Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 94. 

10 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 65. 

11 Bloomfield, Study of Gk. Accent, Am. Jour. of Philol., 1883, p. 22. Cf. 
Plato, Crat., 399 A-B. Hirt (Der Indoger. Akzent, 1895, p. 17) contends for 
the two-tone principle. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS. 229 


riety in tone would be hopelessly monotonous and ineffective. 
An instance of the importance of accent and breathings is seen in 
ov ov, Ac. 19: 40. 

(c) Stans oF Accent. In practical usage (in our school gram- 
mars) there is only one distinction, the accented syllable and the 
unaccented syllables. The Greeks themselves distinguished the 
pronunciation of the acute and the circumflex. The differ- 
ence is well illustrated by εἶμι and εἰμί. The three signs (acute 
or ὀξεῖα, grave or βαρεῖα, circumflex or περισπωμένη) come to 
symbolize the highér pitch of the accented syllable! Originally 
the accented syllable was marked by the acute and all the unac- 
cented syllables by the grave (merely the absence of the acute), 
but by and by this use of the grave accent was felt to be useless 
and was dropped.2 Then the grave accentual mark of falling in- 
flection was used for the acute when an oxytone word comes before 
another word (not enclitic), though this “grave” accent has the 
pitch of the unaccented syllable. Similarly in contraction of two 
syllables with acute and grave (‘*‘) arose the circumflex, the grave 
and the acute making acute still. The actual use in pronunciation 
of both acute and grave in the contracted syllable disappeared, so 
that the circumflex in pitch differed little, if any, from the acute. 
The difference, for instance, between the acute in δηλώσαι and the 
circumflex in δηλῶσαι was not perceptible in sound.2 The Greek 
and the Latin agree in having the accent only on one of the three 
last syllables and thus differ from English and French for instance. 
It is not necessary here to go into the rules (not wholly arbitrary) 
which the Greeks developed for the accent of words. In the use 
of unaccented words (proclitics or enclitics) Greek does not differ 
radically from English. If the Greek has ἐν οἴκῳ, the English has 
“at-home.” If the Greek has εἰπέ μοι, the English has “tell-me.’’4 

(δ LATER DEVELOPMENTS IN AccENT. There was not in- 
deed uniformity among the dialects in the use of accent. They 
agreed only in the one point of not accenting further back than 
the third syllable from the end. “In other respects the Greek 
dialects show the widest divergencies in their accentuation. The 
two antipodes are Atolic and Doric, which are so closely allied 
phonetically: AXolic throws the accent as far back as possible in 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 66. ἈΠ ΣΡ 65, 68. 

3 Hadley, Uber Wesen und Theorie der griech. Beton., 1872, pp. 409, 415. 

4 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 96. Giles thinks that words like ἐφερόμεθα 
originally had the accent further back. Cf. Riem. and Goelzer, Phonét., 
p. 80, for Plato’s word of 17 syllables and Aristophanes’ word of 78. 


230 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


all words, e.g. βασίλευς Ξε βασιλεύς, . . .; Doric, on the contrary, 
faithfully preserves the original oxytone accent. Between these 
two dialects lie Ionic and Attic, which, however, are much nearer 
to Doric than to Afolic. But all the dialects, including Dorie, 
observe the rule that, in those forms of the verb which are capa- 
ble of being conjugated, the accent goes back as far as possible.’’! 
AXolic, for instance, has # on where the Attic has ἡ σή. But all 
the dialects? have éyw, ἔγωγε. On this point in general see 
Kihner-Blass, I, pp. 323 ff. The Dorians even had ἀνθρώποι, 
ἐλύσαν, etc. Perfect uniformity was no more possible in Greek 
than in English. The modern Greek preserves the three-syllable 
accent rule. Examples like ἔπιασε, ἐβράδυασε are not exceptions, 
since the ει and v count as consonants. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 28. 
French follows tone like the ancient Greek. Pécheur is ‘fisher,’ 
while pécheur is ‘sinner,’ for example, a difference only in quality, 
not in accent. 

(e) N. T. Pecutiaritres. Where so much is in doubt, ex- 
cessive refinement is certainly not desirable. But the follow- 
ing points call for remark, and Gregory’ can be consulted for the 
actual evidence (very slight) from the N. T. MSS. on the subject 
of accent. D alone among the older uncials has the accent (and 
that the occasional circumflex) save by the hand of a corrector. 

1. Shortening Stem-Vowels. There is quite a tendency in the 
κοινή towards shortening some of the stem-vowels, especially in 
words in —ua. Hence W. H. do not follow the Attic accent here, 
but that of the κοινή, and give us κλίμα, κρίμα, μίγμα (cf. ἕλιγμα), 
πόμα, χρίσμα, though as to χρίσμα Blass* suggests that χρῖσμα is 
correct because of xpicrds and because B (1 Jo. 2:20, 27) has 
χρεῖσμα. Analogy plays havoe with rules. Herodian® says that 
c and v were usually shortened before & So W. H. give us κῆρυξ, 
κηρύξαι, στηρίξαι (Ro. 16:25), probably φοῖνιξ, χοῖνιξ. Accord- 
ing to Winer-Schmiedel® this rule applies to y also, but W. H. 
and Blass’? do not agree. So W. H. have θλίψις, ῥίψαν (Lu. 


1 Henry, Comp. Gr. of Gk. and Lat., Elliott’s transl., 1890, p. 93f. Cf. 
Meister, Bemerk. zur dorischen Accentuation, p. 1. 
2 Cf. Wheeler, Griech. Nom. ete., p. 11, and Wack., Beitr., p. 19. 


*Prolaip.0904- 
4 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 15. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 67, for further parallels. Also 
W.-M., p. 57. ᾿ Blass,.Gre of Na 15 oO; 


7 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 15. Blass urges that B has θλεῖψις, but W. H. refuse 
to follow B in matters of orthography. But the Herculaneum rolls here rein- 
force B with εἰ before y. On the whole subject see Lipsius, Gr. Unters., pp. 
31 ff.; Lobeck, Parall., pp. 400 ff.; Cobet, N. T. Vatic., pp. xlix ff. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 231 


4:35). By parity of reasoning W. H. reject the circumflex ac- 
cent in ἑλκύσαι, λίνον, μύρον, σπίλος, στύλος, συντετρίφθαι (Mk. 5:4), 
though συντρῖβον (Lu. 9:39) and σκῦλα (Lu. 11:22). Cf. μῦθος, 
μαργαρῖται, νῖκος, σῖτος, σῦκον, etc. W. H. read ψύχος also. The 
length of v in κύπτω is uncertain; ἀνακύψαι and παρακύψαι usually 
appear in the N. T. W. H. have, however, κρᾶζον in Gal. 4:6 
and λαῖλαψ in Mk. 4:37. But ἑστάναι (Ac. 12: 14) is right, though 
dpat (Mt. 24:17), θυμιᾶσαι (Lu. 1:9) because of long ἃ. Cf. also 
ἐπᾶραι (Lu. 18:13), ἐπιφᾶναι (Lu. 1:79), πρᾶξαι (Ac. 26:9), but 
πιάσαι (Jo. 7:30). So καταλῦσαι (Mt. 5:17), κατευθῦναι (Lu. 1 : 79) 
and κωλῦσαι (Ac. 10: 47). 

2. Separate Words. 'These are not so easily classified. W. H. 
read ἀγοραῖοι, not ἀγόραιοι; ἄντικρυς, ποὺ ἀντικρύ; ἀντίπερα, not ἀντι- 
πέρα(ν); ἀπόδεκτος, ποὺ ἀποδεκτός but ἐκλεκτός, εὐλογητός, μισθωτός; 
ἀρεσκία (from ἀρεσκεύω), with which compare ἐριθία (from ἐριθεύω) ; 
ἀχρεῖος (Attic ἄχρειος), as also ἔρημος (Attic ἐρῆμος), ἕτοιμος (Attic 
ἑτοῖμος), μωρός (Attic μῶρος), ὅμοιος (Attic ὁμοῖος), χλωρός (Attic χλῶ- 
pos); βραδυτής (3d decl.), but ἁδρότης (8d decl.); γαζοφυλάκιον, not 
—efov and εἰδώλιον, with which compare τελώνιον, γλωσσόκομον being 
for the earlier γλωσσοκόμιον; δέσμη, not δεσμή; duerns (Mt. 2: 16), 
not dverns (Attic), and so with other compounds of —erys, like 
ἑκατονταετής, etc., but ἑκατονταρχῶν (Ac. 23:17) is from —dpyns, not 
—apxos; εἰπόν is the imperative (Mt. 18:17), for εἶπον is only 
Attic, and Charax calls εἰπόν Syracusan,! with which one may 
compare ide (ἰδὲ only Attic according to the Alexandrian gram- 
marians, though Bornemann urged ἰδὲ when verb and ἴδε when 
exclamation) and λάβε (λαβέ only Attic); θρησκός (Jas. 1: 26), not 
θρῆσκος; ἱδρώς (Lu. 22:44), not ἱδρῶς; ἱμάντα (Mk. 1:7), not the 
Attic ἱμᾶντα; ἴσος, not the Epic @cos?; ἰχθύς (Mt. 7:10), not ἰχθῦς; 
ὀσφύς (Mt. 3:4), not ὀσφῦς; ἰσχύς, not ἰσχῦς; κλείς In Nominative 
singular (Rev. 9:1), though κλεῖς (1: 18) and κλεῖδας (Mt. 16: 19) 
in accusative plural, etc., with which compare πούς (Mk. 9:45), 
not ποῦς, and ons (Mt. 6:19), not σῆς; κτίστης (1 Pet. 4:19), 
not κτιστής, AS γνώστης, etc.; κρύπτη, not κρυπτή (Lu. 11 : 358); μογι- 
λάλος (ΜΚ. 7:32), not —Addos; μυλών (Mt. 24:41) is read only by 
DHM and most of the cursives, μύλος being correct; μυριάδων (—as) 
as in Lu. 12:1; Rev. 5:11, not the Attic μυριαδῶν, and so as to 
χιλιάδων; ὀργυιά (Ac. 27:28), not dpyua; ota (Mk. 15:29), not 
ova; ποίμνιον (Lu. 12:32), not ποιμνίον, and τρύβλιον in Mk. 14: 20 


1 Cf. W.-M., p. 58. 
2 As shown in W.-M. (p. 60), the N. T. MSS. have ἔσω, not εἴσω, though εἰς, 
not és. 


2oL A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(called no diminutive by some),! but τεκνίον always; πλήμμυρα (Lu. 
6:48) is preferred by Winer-Schmiedel? as nominative to πλημ- 
μύρης rather than --μύρα; πονηρός always, not πόνηρος in the physical 
sense (Rev. 16:2) and πονηρός in the moral (Gal. 1:4)*; πρῷρα 
(Ac. 27:41), not mpwpa; σπεῖρα (Mk. 15:16), not σπείρα; φλύαρος 
(1 Tim. 5:13), not ¢dAvapos. The compound adverbs ἐπέκεινα, ὑπερ- 
éxeva have thrown back. the accent. 

3. Difference in Sense. With some words the accent makes a 
difference in the sense and is quite important. We have, for in- 
stance, “Ayia, not ἁγία, in Heb. 9:2. W.H. read ἀλλά, not ἄλλα, 
in Jo. 6:23. In Jas. 1:15 W. H. have ἀποκυεῖ (from —éw), not 
ἀποκύει (from --κύω). So W. H. print apa (interrog.) in Gal. 2: 17, 
not dpa (illative). Αὐτή and αὕτη are easily confused, but W. H. 
prefer αὕτη to αὐτή in Mt. 22:39 (αὐτῇ in margin); Ro. 7:10; 
1 Cor. 7:12; and αὐτῇ to atrn in Lu. 2:37; 7:12; 8:42; Ro: 
16:2. In Rey. 2:24 the adjective βαθέα is correct, not the sub- 
stantive βάθεα (uncontracted from βάθος). Δεξιολάβος or δεξιόλα- 
Bos is possible in Ac. 23:23 (cf. Winer-Schmiedel, p. 69). So 
W. ΗΠ. give us ἐγχρῖσαι (infinitive) in Rev. 3:18, not ἔγχρισαι 
(imperative). Cf. also ἐπιτιμήσαι (Jude 9), optative, not infinitive 
—joa. Note the difference between φοβηθῆτε (subjunctive) and 
φοβήθητε (imperative) in Lu. 12:5. In Jo. 7:34, 36, W. H. prefer 
εἰμί rather than εἶμι (not elsewhere used in the N. T. save in com- 
position with prepositions ἀπό, εἰς, ἐξ, ἐπί, σύν). In Mk. 13:28 
and Mt. 24:32 W. H. have ἐκφύῃ (present active subjunctive), 
not ἐκφυῇ (second aorist passive subjunctive). In Lu. 19:29; 
21:37 W. H. prefer ᾿Ελαιῶν, not ᾿Ελαιών (the correct text in Ac. 
1:12, and possibly in Luke also according to the papyri, though 
᾿Ελαιῶνα would.be the form expected).4 In Mk. 4:8, 20, W. H. put 
ἐν in the text and ἕν in the margin. “Ev, not évi, occurs with οὐκ 
several times, once (1 Cor. 6:5) οὐκ ἔνι ἐν. In Lu. 9:38, W. H. 
read ἐπιβλέψαι (infinitive), not ἐπίβλεψαι (imperative). In 1 Cor. 
5:11 W: H. read ἢ (subjunctive), not # (conjunction as Rec.). In 
Ro. 1:30 W. H. follow most editors in giving θεοστυγεῖς (pas- 
sive), not θεοστύγεις (active sense of the adjective). In Mk. 5:29 
all editors have the perfect tara, not the present ἰᾶται. In Lu. 
22:30 W. H. read καθῆσθε (subjunctive), not κάθησθε (indicative) 
nor καθήσεσθε (future, margin). In 1 Cor. 9:21 W. H. prefer 
xepdav® (future indicative) to κερδάνω (aorist subjunctive), and in 

1 Cf. W.-S., p.-73. 2 Ib., p. 72. 8 Ib., p 69. 


* Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 69. On accent of the vernac. see Apostolides, 
Γλωσσικαὶ Μελέται (1906). 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS Zea 


1 Cor. 6:2 κρινοῦσιν (future) to κρίνουσιν (present indicative in 
marg.). In Mk. 12:40 we have μακρά, not μακρᾷ. In 1 Cor. 3: 14 
W.H. prefer weve? (future) to μένει (present), and in Jo. 14: 17 they 
have μένει. In 1 Cor. 4:15 (14:19) and Mt. 18: 24 no distinction 
can be made in the accent of μυρίοι (‘innumerable’) and μύριοι 
(‘ten thousand’) because of the cases. Dr. E. J. Goodspeed, of Chi- 
cago University (Hxpository Times, July, 1909, p. 471 f.), suggests 
ὠφελήθης in Mk. 7: 11 instead of ὠφεληθῇς. It is entirely possible. 
In 1 Cor. 14:7 ὅμως is correct, not ὁμῶς Ξεὁμοίως. In Jo. 18:37 
W. ΗΠ. give οὐκοῦν, not οὔκουν, in Pilate’s question. In Ac. 28:6 
W. H. print πίμπρασθαι (μι verb), not πιμπρᾶσθαι (w verb). In 
Rev. 17:5 πορνῶν (feminine) is probably right, not πόρνων (mas- 
culine). _ IIpwréroxos (Col. 1:15), not πρωτοτόκος, is manifestly 
right. The difference between the interrogative ris and the in- 
definite ris calls for frequent attention. In Heb. 5:12 W. H. 
have τινά, not τίνα, but in Heb. 3:16 τίνες, not τινές, and in 3:17 
τίσιν, not τισίν, while in Mt. 24:41, 1 Th. 4:6, 1 Cor. 15:8 and 
16:16 the article τῷ is to be read, not the indefinite tw, which 
form does not occur in the N. T. In 1 Cor. 10:19 τί ἐστιν (twice) 
is not interrogative, but the enclitic indefinite with the accent of 
ἐστιν. In Jas. 3:6 τροχός (‘wheel’) is properly read, not τρόχος 
(‘course’). In Mk. 4:12 W. H. read συνίωσιν, not συνιῶσιν, as 
συνίουσιν in Mt. 13:13. Winer! considers the suggestion of φωτῶν 
for φώτων in Jas. 1:17 “altogether absurd.” 

4. Enclitics (and Proclitics). Proclitics are regular in the N. T. 
The accent of enclitics calls for comment. Asa rule W. H. do not 
accent them. So we have αὐτόν τινας (Mk. 12:18), εἶναί τινα (Ac. 
δ: 36), ἰδού τινες (Mt. 28:11), ὁδόν εἰσιν (Lu. 8:12), dovveroi ἐστε 
(Mk. 7:18), yap ἐστε (Mk. 13:11), καὶ “φησὶ (Ac. 10:31; 25: 24). 
However, plenty of cases call for accent on the enclitic, as, for 
example, in εὑρεῖν τινάς (Ac. 19:1) for emphasis, yap, φησίν (Heb. 8:5 
and cf, Mt. 14:8; Ac..25: 5, 22; 26:25; 1 Cor. 6:16; 2 Cor. 10: 10) 
for clearness in punctuation, καὶ εἰσίν (Mt. 19: 12 and οἵ. Ac. 5: 25) 
for emphasis, θεοῦ ἐσμέν (1 Jo. 3: 2), ὑπὸ τινῶν (Lu. 9:8) likewise, 
οὐκ εἰμί (Jo. 1:21). In ὅπου εἰμί (Jo. 7: 34, 36) the accent is regular, 
though some critics wrongly prefer εἶμι. 

The use of ἐστίν and ἔστιν demands special comment. When 
unemphatic, not at the beginning of a sentence, not preceded by 
ἀλλ᾽, εἰ, Kal, οὐκ, ὅτι, τοῦτ᾽, Or a paroxytone syllable, as, for example, 
in ᾿Ιουδαίων ἐστίν (Jo. 4:22), we have unaccented ἐστιν as in ἀγρός 
ἐστιν (Mt. 13:37, 39), καθώς ἐστιν (1 Jo. 3:2), etc. In some ex- 

1 'W.-M., p. 62. 


234 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


amples of mild emphasis W. H. have ἐστίν, as in νῦν ἐστίν (Jo. 
4:23; 5:25), ποῦ ἐστίν (Mt. 2:2; Mk. 14:14). But the cases 
are numerous where ἔστιν is correct, as when it is emphatic, and 
expresses existence or possibility, as in εἶδες ἔστιν (Rev. 17 : 18), 
αὐτοῦ ἔστιν (Ac. 2 : 29), ἅγιον ἔστιν (Ac. 19 : 2), ὁ εἷς ἔστιν (Rev. 
17:10), οὐδεὶς ἔστιν (Lu. 1:61; 7:28; 18:29). Ἔστιν is also the 
accent at the beginning of sentences, as in Jo. 21:25; 1 Cor. 15: 44; 
1 Jo. 5:16f.; Heb. 11:1. Cf. ἐστὶν in Col. 1:15 and é7w in 
1:17. Then again we have, according to the usual rule, ἔστιν 
after ἀλλ᾽ (Jo. 138 : 10), ef (1 Cor. 15 : 44), καὶ (Mk. 12 : 11; 2 Cor. 
A.:3); ὅτε (2 Thi 2.45 Mki* 64/555" ΠΟ ΠΝ ΟΠ oruecartr 
(Ac. 23 : 5) when the idea of existence is not stressed, οὐκ (1 Cor. 
11: 20: Ro. 8: 9;:ete:) τοῦ ΜΙ 2 ORO) eer ie 
only ἐστίν after ποῦ (Jo. 9:12; 11:57; Mk. 14: 14). 

Sometimes two enclitics come together. Here the critics differ 
and W. H.! do not make clear the reasons for their practice. In 
Ac. 13:15 W. H. have εἴ τις ἔστιν, and in Gal. 6:15 περιτομή τι 
ἔστιν, because they take ἔστιν to be emphatic in both instances. In 
Jo. 6:51 W. H. have σάρξ μου ἐστίν. But in many examples the 
first enclitic is accented and the second unaccented as in Lu. ὃ : 46 
ἥψατό pov tis, 10:29 τίς ἐστίν μου, Jo. 5:14 χεῖρόν σοί τι, 8: 31 
μαθηταί mov ἐστε, 12 : 47 ἐάν τίς μου, 14: 28 μείζων μού ἐστιν, Ac. 2: 25 
δεξιῶν μού ἐστιν, 25:5 εἴ τί ἐστιν, 25 : 14 ἀνήρ τίς ἐστιν, 1 Cor. 10:19 
εἰδωλόθυτόν τί ἐστιν and εἴδωλόν τί ἐστιν, 11 : 24 τοῦτό μού ἐστιν, 
2 Cor. 11:16 μή τίς we, Ro. 3:8 καθώς φασὶν τινές, Heb. 1:10 
χειρῶν cov εἰσιν, 2:6 δέ πού τις, Tit. 1:6 & τίς ἐστιν. Modern Greek 
only has a second accent when the accent is in the third syllable 
as in τ᾽ ἅρματά μας (Thumb, Handbook, p. 29). 

The personal pronouns now have the accent in W. H. and 
now are without it, as ὀφθαλμῷ σοῦ and ὀφθαλμοῦ σου (both in 
Mt. 7:4). Cf. also ἐγώ ce (Jo. 17:4), ob we (17:8), but ri eyol 
καὶ σοί (Lu. ὃ : 28). With prepositions generally the enclitics are 
accented, as ἐν σοί (Jo. 17: 21), though ἔμπροσθέν μου and ὀπίσω μου 
(Jo. 1:30 both, and so continually with these two prepositions). 
᾿Ενώπιον ἐμοῦ (Lu. 4:7) and ἐνώπιόν μου (Ac. 2 : 25) both appear. 
With the prepositions usually ἐμοῦ, not μου, occurs as ἕνεκα ἐμοῦ 
(Mt. 5:11). It is only with πρός that we have much trouble. 
The N. T. editors have generally printed πρός ce, but W. H. have 
that only in Mt. 25:39, elsewhere πρὸς σέ as in Mt. 26:18. 
Usually we have, according to W. H., πρός με as in Mt. 25: 36; 
Jo. 6:65; 7:37, etc., and where the “me” is emphatic in sense, 

1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 77. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 235 


as Mt. 3:14; 11: 28, in the first of which Tisch. and Griesbach 
have πρὸς μέ, a usage not followed by W. H., though kept in the 
LXX text of B, as in Is. 48 : 16, etc.1 W.H. a few times prefer 
πρὸς ἐμέ (not enclitic) as in Lu. 1:48; Jo. 6:35, 37 (both ways 
here), 44 (marg.), 45; Ac. 22:8, 18; 23:22; 24:19. Occasionally 
the enclitic τινὲς is found at the beginning of a sentence, as in Mt. 
ieee a aoe 7015 5:5 29. Ph 115] 9.24: 

5. Proper Names cannot always be brought under rules, for in 
Greek, as in English, men claim the right to accent their own 
names as they will. On the accent of the abbreviated proper 
names see chapter V, v. It is difficult to make a clear line of 
distinction as to why ᾿Αντίπας (Rev. 2 : 18) is proper, but ’Apreuds 
(Tit. 3:12), save that in ᾿Αρτεμίδωρος the accent was already 
after uw. But cf. Κλεόπας (Lu. 24:18) and Κλωπᾶς (Jo. 19: 25).? 
In general one may say that proper names (geographical and 
personal) throw the accent back, if the original adjectives or sub- 
stantives were oxytone. This is for the sake of distinction. ᾿Αλεξαν- 
dpwos (Ac. 27:6; 28:11) is the adjective. "άσσος (Ac. 20 : 18 f.) 
is doubtless correct, though Pape gives ᾿Ασσός also.’ In ᾿Αχαϊκός 
(1 Cor. 16 : 17) the accent is not thrown back nor is it in ᾿Απολλώς 
(1 Cor. 16 : 12). ᾿Ασύνκριτος (Ro. 16 : 14) retains the accent of 
the adjective, like Tpddiuos (Ac 20:4) and Ὑμέναιος (1 Tim. 1 : 
20). But we have Βλάστος (Ac. 12 : 20), Διοτρέφης (3 Jo. 9), ᾿Επαί- 
veros (Ro. 16:5), "Epacros (16:23), ‘Eppoyerns (2 Tim. 1: 15), 
Εὔτυχος (Ac. 20:9), Κάρπος (2 Tim. 4 : 19), probably ’Ovncidopos 
(2 Tim. 1:16; 4:19), Πάταρα (Ac. 21:1), Πύρρος (Ac. 20:4), 
Luvtbxyn (Ph. 4:2), Σῶσθένης (1 Cor. 1:2), Τίμων. (Ac. 6:5), Τύ- 
χικος (Ac. 20:4) Φίλητος (2 Tim. 2:17). But Χριστός always re- 
tains the oxytone accent whether proper name (1 Tim. 1:1) or 
verbal adjective (Mt. 16:16). In 2 Tim. 4:21 Λίνος, not Atvos, 
is read. So Tiros (2 Cor. 2: 13, etc.). In Ac. 27:17 Σύρτις is read 
by W. H. But Φῆλιξ in Ac. 24 : 22, ete. 

6. Foreign Words. ‘These always give occasion for diversity 
of usage in transliterating them into another tongue. Blass4 
lets the quantity of the vowel in Latin determine the accent in 
the Greek equivalent for Latin words. So Mdrcus, Μᾶρκος, etc., 
but W. H. do not accept this easy principle and give us Μάρκος 
in Ac. 12 : 25, etc., Κρίσπος (1 Cor. 1:14), etc. W. H. likewise 


1 Cf. Lipsius, Gr. Unters., p. 61. Cf. also W.-Sch., p. 78. 

2 In W.-Sch., p. 74 f., see remarks on the subject. 

3 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 73. This word is, of course, not to be confounded with 
ἄσσον (Ac. 27:13) as Text. Rec. did. ἘΠ ΟΝ Let Gree Dolo, 


236 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


throw the accent back on Latin names like Kotapros (Ro. 16:23), 
Πρίσκιλλα (Ac. 18:2), Σέκουνδος (Ac. 20:4), Τέρτυλλος (24:2), but 
we have on the other hand Iatos (Ro. 16 : 23), not Γάϊος, Ovp- 
Bavés (Ro. 16:9), Σιλουανός (2 Cor. 1:19), Σκευᾶς (Ac. 19: 14).? 

But not even Blass attempts to bring the Semitic words under 
regular rules. Still, it is true, as Winer? shows, that indeclinable 
Semitic words: (especially proper names) have the accent, as a 
rule, on the last syllable, though the usage of Josephus is the con- 
trary, because he generally inflects the words that in the LXX 
and the N. T. are indeclinable. So ᾿Λαρών, ᾿Αβαδδών, ᾿Αβιά, ᾿Αβιούδ, 
᾿Αβραάμ, to take only the first two pages of Thayer’s Lexicon, 
though even here we find on the other side “ABeA and ᾿Αβιάθαρ. 
If you turn over you meet "Ayap, ’ Addu, ᾿ Αδδεί, ᾿Αδμείν, ᾿Αζώρ, ete. 
It is not necessary here to give a full list of these proper names, 
but reference can be made to Lu. 3: 23-38 for a good sample. 
In this list some indeclinable words have the accent on the penult, 
as ᾿Ελιέζερ (29), Ζοροβάβελ (27), Λάμεχ (36), Φάλεκ (35).2 The in- 
flected Semitic words often throw the accent back, as "Αζωτος, 
᾿Ιάκωβος, Λάζαρος. Many of the Aramaic words accent the ultima, 
as ᾿Αββά, Τολγοθά, KopBav, ’EXwi, σαβαχθανεί, ete. For further re- 
marks on the subject see Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 26-31. The 
difficulties of the LXX translators are well illustrated here by 
Helbing. 

VI. Pronunciation in the Kotvy. This is indeed a knotty 
problem and has been the occasion of fierce controversy. When 
the Byzantine scholars revived the study of Greek in Italy, they 
introduced, of course, their own pronunciation as well as their 
own spelling. But English-speaking people know that spelling is 
not a safe guide in pronunciation, for the pronunciation may 
change very much when the spelling remains the same. Writing 
is originally an effort to represent the sound and is more or less 
successful, but the comparison of Homer with modern Greek is a 
fruitful subject.4 Roger Bacon, as Reuchlin two centuries later, 
adopted the Byzantine pronunciation. Reuchlin, who intro- 
duced Greek to the further West, studied in Italy and passed on 
the Byzantine pronunciation. Erasmus is indirectly responsible 
for the current pronunciation of ancient Greek, for the Byzan- 


1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 75. 2 W.-M., p. 59. 

ὃ Cf. also Gregory, Prol., p. 102f.; W.-Sch., p.75; Westcott, Notes on 
Orth., pp. 155, 159; Thackeray, pp. 150 ff. 

4 Blass, Ausspr. des Griech., 1888, p. 7. 

5 Nolan, The Gk. Gr. of Roger Bacon, p. xx. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS Zot 


tine scholars pronounced ancient and modern alike. Jannaris! 
quotes the story of Voss, a Dutch scholar (1577-1649), as to how 
Krasmus heard some learned Greeks pronounce Greek in a very 
different way from the Byzantine custom. Erasmus published a 
discussion between a lion and a bear entitled De Recta Latini 
Graecique sermonis pronuntiatione, which made such an impres- 
sion that those who accepted the ideas advanced in this book were 
called EKrasmians and the rest Reuchlinians. As a matter of fact, 
however, Engel has shown that Erasmus merely wrote a literary 
squib to “take off” the new non-Byzantine pronunciation, though 
he was taken seriously by many. Dr. Caspar René Gregory 
writes me (May 6, 1912): “The philologians were of course down 
on Engel and sided gladly with Blass. It was much easier to go 
on with the totally impossible pronunciation that they used than 
to change it.” Cf. Engel, Die Aussprachen des Griechischen, 
1887. In 1542 Stephen Gardiner, Chancellor of the University 
of Cambridge, “issued an edict for his university, in which, e.g. 
it was categorically forbidden to distinguish a: from e, εἰ and ot 
from ὁ in pronunciation, under penalty of expulsion from the 
Senate, exclusion from the attainment of a degree, rustication 
for students, and domestic chastisement for boys.’’? Hence 
though the continental pronunciation of Greek and Latin was 
“THrasmian,”’ at Cambridge and Oxford the Reuchlinian influence 
prevailed, though with local modifications. Geldart,? however, 
complains that at Eton, Rugby and Harrow so little attention 
is paid to pronouncing according to accent that most Greek 
scholars handle the accents loosely. The Classical Review (April, 
1906, p. 146 f.) has the scheme approved by the Philological So- 
cieties of Cambridge and Oxford for “The Restored Pronuncia- 
tion of Latin,” which is the virtual adoption of the Continental 
principle. The modern Greeks themselves rather vehemently in- 
sist that ancient Greek should be pronounced as modern Greek 
is. Miiller,t for instance, calls the “Erasmian”’ pronunciation 
“false” because it treats Greek “as dead.’ Geldart (Modern 
Gk. Language in Its Relation to Ancient Gr., Ὁ. vii) says: “ Mod- 
ern Greek is nothing but ancient Greek made easy.” It is not 


1 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 81 f. Cf. Mayser, Gr., pp. 188-151. 

2 Blass, Pronun. of Anc. Gk., Purton’s transl., p. 3. 

8 Guide to Mod. Gk., p. x. 

4 Hist. Gr. der hell. Spr. (pp. 26, 36). In pp. 35-40 he states the case 
against the squib of Erasmus. Cf. Engel (Die Ausspr. des Griech., 1887) who 
defends the mod. Gk. method, as already stated. 


238 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


quite as simple as that. Foy! properly distinguishes between the 
old Greek vocal sounds and the modern Greek and refers to the 
development of Latin into the several Romance languages. There 
is this difference in the Greek, however, that it has only one 
modern representative (with dialectical variations) of the ancient 
tongue. One must not make the mistake of comparing the pro- 
nunciation of the modern Greek vernacular with the probable 
pronunciation of the literary Attic of the fifth century B.c. Then, 
as now, there was the literary and the vernacular pronunciation. 
The changes in pronunciation that have come in the modern 
Greek have come through the Byzantine Greek from the κοινή, 
and thus represent a common stream with many rills. The vari- 
ous dialects have made contributions to the pronunciation of the 
κοινή and so of the modern Greek. In cultivated Athens at its 
best there was a closer approximation between the people and the 
educated classes. “Demosthenes, in his oration περὶ στεφάνου, 
called A’schines a μισθωτόν, but had accented the word erroneously, 
namely, μίσθωτον, whereupon the audience corrected him by cry- 
ing pobwrov.”’? Like the modern Italian, the ancient Greek had a 
musical cadence that set it above all other European tongues.’ 
We can indeed appeal to the old Greek inscriptions for the popu- 
lar pronunciation on many points. According to this evidence 
in the first century B.c. in Attica ac=ae, a=, 7=t, v=L, νιξευ, o1=t, 
8 =v (English v).° Clearly then in the κοινή the process of ztacism 
was already at work before the N. T. was written. What was 
true of the κοινή vernacular then does not of course argue conclu- 
sively for the pronunciation of cultivated Athenians in the time 
of Socrates. In versatile Athens “a stranger, if introduced on the 
stage, is always represented as talking the language or dialect of 
the people to which he belongs.”® Blass’ indeed thinks that in 
Tarsus the school-teacher taught Paul Atticistic Greek! “ Ἴσμεν, 


1 Lautsystem der griech. Vulgarspr., 1879, p. 83 f. 

2 Achilles Rose, Chris. Greece and Living Gk., 1898, p. 61. 

3 Cf. Mure, A Crit. Hist. of the Lang. and Lit. of Anc. Greece, I, p. 99; 
Bolland, Die althell. Wortbet. im Lichte der Gesch., 1897, p. 6. Cf. Pronun. 
of Gk. as deduced from Graeco-Latin Biling. Coins. By Cecil Bendall in 
Jour. of Philol., vol. XXIX, No. 58, 1904. Here the rough breathing is 
represented by h, 0=th, ¢=ph. 

4 Thumb, Unters. etc., 1888, p. 1. Cf. Sophocles, Hist. of Gk. Alph. and 
Pronun., 1854. 

5 Télfy, Chron. und Topog. der griech. Ausspr. nach ἃ. Zeugnisse der 
Inschr., 1893, p. 39. 

6 Rutherford, The New Phryn., p. 32. 7 Philol. of the Gosp., p. 9. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 239 


ἴστε, ἴσασιν, he must have said, are the true forms which you 
must employ if you care to be considered a cultivated speaker or 
writer.”’ Yet in Paul’s Epistles he constantly has οἴδαμεν, --ατε, 
-ασιν. The Atticistic pronunciation was no more successful than 
the Atticistic spelling, forms and syntax. We may be sure of one 
thing, the pronunciation of the vernacular κοινή was not exactly 
like the ancient literary Attic nor precisely like the modern Greek 
vernacular, but veering more towards the latter. In Greek as 
in English the pronunciation has perhaps varied more than the 
spelling. Giles! observes that English pronunciation “is really 
a stumbling-block in tracing the history of the English language.” 
Hadley? has a very able and sane discussion of this matter of 
changes in Greek pronunciation. He insists on change all through 
the centuries (p. 1389), which is the only rational position. If we 
turn to the earliest N. T. MSS. we shall find undoubtedly traces 
of this process of change from the old Attic toward the Byzantine 
or modern Greek pronunciation. Indeed in the fourth and fifth 
centuries A.D.,?> the date of the earliest uncials, the process is 
pretty well complete. The N. T. scribes make no hesitation in 
writing ac or εἰ; t, εἰ, ἢ» 7; oc or v according to convenience or indi- 
vidual taste.’ Blass,> contrary to his former view about Tarsus, 
says that it is impossible to suppose that there was anybody in 
the schools at Tarsus who would have taught Paul the correct 
historical spelling or pronunciation. To the student of the κοινή, 
as to us, in a sense “the Greek γράμματα were dead symbols, 
from which must be recovered the living sounds.’’® Of one thing 
we may be sure, and it is that other dialects besides the Attic 
contributed to the κοινή pronunciation. The κοινή would be 
dialect-coloured here and there in its pronunciation. Alexan- 
der’s conquest, like the railroad and the steamship of the present 
day, levelled the dialectical variations in many points, whereas 
before every valley in Greece had its own pronunciation of 
certain words.’ One taught the κοινή in a Doric environment 


1 Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 103. Cf. also Ellis, Early Eng. Pronun. 

2 “Gk. Pronun.” in Ess. Philol. and Crit., pp. 128-140. 

3 Hatzidakis, Einl. ete. 

4 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 34 f. 5 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 6f. 

6 Nicklin, Cl. Rev., Mar., 1906, p. 116. This is precisely the objection that 
Jannaris (Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 33) brings against the ancient grammarians as 
“post-Christian scribes’? and unable to “speak with authority of the pro- 
nunciation of classical Greek.” 

7 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 75. Cf. Oppenheim und Lucas, Byz. 
Zeitschr., 1905, p. 13, for exx. of phonetic spelling. 


240 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


would show it somewhat. As a matter of fact the Boeotian 
dialect contributed largely to the κοινή vernacular pronunciation 
(and so the modern Greek) in points where the Boeotian differed 
radically from the old Attic... Boeotian Greek ‘“‘modified its 
vowel-system more than any other Greek dialect.’”* Thus 
already in Boeotian we find both a: and ae in the earliest in- 
scriptions and finally 7. So in Beeotian ἡ became?® εἰ in sound, 
as ἐπιδεί = ἐπειδῆ. The early Greek generally, as already shown, 
made no distinction in sign between o and w, and ἡ was a slow 
development from δ. The Ionic dialect never took kindly to 
the rough breathing and greatly influenced the κοινή and so the 
modern Greek. By the Christian era 8 is beginning to be pro- 
nounced as Ὁ, as the transliteration of Latin words like Βεργίλιος 
shows. Z is no longer ds, but z, though 6 seems still usually d, 
not th. Who is right, therefore, the ‘‘Krasmians” or the Reuch- 
linians? Jannaris* sums up in favour of the Reuchlinians, while 
according to Riemann and Goelzer® the “ Erasmians”’ are wholly 
right. As a matter of fact neither side is wholly right. In 
speaking of ancient Greek one must recognise other dialects 
than the literary Attic of the fifth century B.c. If you ask for the 
pronunciation of the vernacular κοινή of the first century A.D., 
that will be found as a whole neither in the literary Attic alone 
nor in the N. T. MSS. of the fifth century a.p. The papyri and 
the inscriptions of the time throw light on a good many points, 
though not on all. But even here the illiterate papyri do not fur- 
nish a safe standard for the vernacular of a man like Paul or 
Luke. It is small wonder therefore that N. T. MSS. show much 
confusion between --σει (future indicative) and on (aorist subjunc- 
tive), -ομεν (indicative) and —wyev (subjunctive), --σθαι (infinitive) 
and —oe (indicative middle), etc. It is possibly as well to go on 
pronouncing the N. T. Greek according to the literary Attic, since 
we cannot reproduce a clear picture of the actual vernacular 
κοινή pronunciation, only we must understand frankly that this 


1 Cf. Riem. and Goelzer, Phonét., p. 41. 

2 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 540. 

3 Riem. and Goelzer, Phonét., pp. 41, 46. Thiimb (Hellen., p. 228) warns 
us against overemphasis of the ἘΣ ΠΝ influence. 

4 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 31. “The pronunciation of ancient Gk. in the manner 
of the present Greeks had been traditionally accepted at all times, before 
and through the Middle Ages, as a matter of unquestioned fact.” 

5 Phonét., p. 56. ‘‘En résumé, la prononciation greeque ancienne était, 
sur presque tous les points, différente de la prononciation moderne.” 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 241 


is not the way it was done. On the other hand the modern Greek 
method misses it by excess, as the literary Attic does by default. 
There was, of course, no Jewish pronunciation of the κοινή. The 
Coptic shows the current pronunciation in many ways and prob- 
ably influenced the pronunciation of the κοινή in Egypt. Cf. a 
German’s pronunciation of English. 

VII. Punctuation. In the spoken language the division of 
words is made by the voice, pauses, emphasis, tone, gesture, but 
it is difficult to reproduce all this on the page for the eye. Many 
questions arise for the editor of the Greek N. T. that are not easy 
of solution. Caspar René Gregory insists that whenever N. T. 
MSS. have punctuation of any kind, it must be duly weighed, 
since it represents the reading given to the passage. 

(a) THE ParacrapH. As early as Aristotle’s time the para- 
graph (rapaypados) was known. A dividing horizontal stroke was 
written between the lines marking the end of a paragraph. Some 
other marks like > (διπλῆ) or 7 (kopwvis) were used, or a slight 
break in the line made by a blank space. Then again the first 
letter of the line was written larger than the others or even made 
to project out farther than the rest.1. The paragraph was to the 
ancients the most important item in punctuation, and we owe a 
debt to the N. T. revisers for restoring it to the English N. T. 
Cf. Lightfoot, Trench, Ellicott, The Revision of the N. T., 1873, 
p. xlvi. Euthalius (4.p. 458) prepared an edition of the Greek 
N. T. with chapters (κεφάλαια), but long before him Clement of 
Alexandria spoke of περικοπαί and Tertullian of capitula. These 
“chapters” were later called also τίτλοι.Σ The στίχος of Kuthalius 
was a line of set length with no regard to the sense, like our prin- 
ter’s ems. W.H. have made careful use of the paragraph in their 
Greek N. T. The larger sections are marked off by spaces and 
the larger paragraphs are broken into smaller sub-paragraphs 
(after the French method) by smaller spaces. Another division 
is made by W. H. in the use of the capital letter at the beginning 
of an important sentence, while the other sentences, though after 
a period, begin with a small letter. This is a wholly arbitrary 
method, but it helps one better to understand W. H.’s interpre- 
tation of the text. 


1 On the paragraph see Thompson, Handb. of Gk. and Lat. Palxog., 
pp. 67 ff. Occasionally the double point (:) was used to close a paragraph. 

2 Cf. Warfield, Text. Crit. of N. T., pp. 40 ff. 

8 Hort, Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 319. For the στίχος see further Gregory, 
Prolen, Liat. 


242 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


W. H.! have also printed in metrical form passages metrical in 
rhythm like the Magnificat of Mary (Lu. 1: 46-55), the fragment 
of a hymn in 1 Tim. 3:16, ete., while Lu. 2:14 and the non- 
metrical hymns in Revelation are merely printed in narrower 
columns. The Hebrew parallelism of O. T. quotations is indicated 
also. 

(Ὁ) SenteNcES. The oldest inscriptions and papyri show few 
signs of punctuation between sentences or clauses in a sentence,? 
though punctuation by points does appear on some of the ancient 
inscriptions. In the Artemisia papyrus the double point (:) occa- 
sionally ends the sentence? It was Aristophanes of Byzantium 
(260 B.c.) who is credited with inventing a more regular system 
of sentence punctuation which was further developed by the 
Alexandrian grammarians.* As a rule all the sentences, like the 
words, ran into one another in an unbroken line (scriptura con- 
tinua), but finally three stops were provided for the sentence by 
the use of the full point. The point at the top of the line (-) (στιγμὴ 
τελεία, ‘high point’) was a full stop; that on the line (.) (ὑποστιγμή) 
was equal to our semicolon, while a middle point (στιγμὴ μέση) 
was equivalent to our comma.® But gradually changes came over 
these stops till the top point was equal to our colon, the bottom 
point became the full stop, the middle point vanished, and about 
the ninth century a.p. the comma (,) took its place. About this 
time also the question-mark (;) or ἐρωτηματικόν appeared. These 
marks differed from the στίχοι in that they concerned the sense 
of the sentence. Some of the oldest N. T. MSS. show these marks 
to some extent. B has the higher point as a period, the lower 
point for a shorter pause.* But still we cannot tell how much, if 
any, use the N. T. writers themselves made of punctuation points. 
We may be sure that they did not use the exclamation point, 
the dash, quotation-marks, the parenthesis, οὔθ Parenthetical 
clauses were certainly used, which will be discussed elsewhere, 
though no signs were used for this structure by the ancient 
Greeks. W. H. represent the parenthesis either by the comma 
(Ro. 1:18) or the dash with comma (1 Tim. 2:7). Instead of 


Τ Τη tOsk saN ΣΙ Ds OL Ot 3 Thompson, Handb., ete., p. 69. 

2 Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 62. 4 Ib., p. 70; Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 67. 

5 | follow Thompson (Handb., etc., p. 70) on this point instead of Jannaris 
(pp. 63 and 67), who makes the ὑποστιγμῆή =our comma. 

6 Cf. Gregory, Prol., pp. 345, 348; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 17. D has 
the στίχοι in the way of sense-lines (Blass, ib.). 

1 Jannaris, Hist. Gk.,Gr., p..67. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 243 


quotation-marks W. H. begin the quotation with a capital letter 
with no punctuation before it, as in Jo. 12:19, 21. One way of 
expressing a quotation was by τό, as in Ro. 13:8. In the case 
of O. T. quotations the Scripture is put in uncial type (Jo. 12 : 18). 
The period (περίοδος) gives very little trouble to the modern edi- 
tor, for it is obviously necessary for modern needs. Here the 
editor has to make his interpretation sometimes when it is doubt- 
ful, as W. H. give ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν ἐν, not ἕν ὃ γέγονεν. ἐν (Jo. 1:4). So 
W. H. read θαυμάζετε. διὰ τοῦτο Μωυσῆς in Jo. 7:22, not θαυμάζετε 
διὰ τοῦτο. Μωυσῆς, ete. The colon (kdov),! ‘limb of the sentence’ 
formed a complete clause. See Jo. 3:31 for example of use of 
colon made by W. H. ‘The comma (κόμμα) is the most common 
division of the sentence and is often necessary, as with the voca- 
tive. So Διδάσκαλε, τί ποιήσωμεν; (Lu. ὅ : 12) and many common 
examples. In general W. H. use the comma only where it is 
necessary to make clear an otherwise ambiguous clause, whether 
it be a participial (Col. 2:2) or conjunctional phrase (Col. 1 : 28), 
or appositive (Col. 1:18), or relative (Col. 2:3). The first chap- 
ter of Colossians has a rather unusual number of colons (2, 6, 14, 
16, 18, 20, 27, 28) as Paul struggles with several long sentences, 
not to mention the dashes (21, 22, 26). The Germans use the 
comma too freely with the Greek for our English ideas, leaving 
out the Greek! Even Winer defended the comma after καρπόν in 
Jo. 15:2 and ὁ νικῶν in Rev. 3:12, not to mention Griesbach’s 
“excessive” use of the comma, Winer himself being judge.22 My 
friend, Rev. 8. M. Provence, D.D. (Victoria, Tex.), suggests a full 
stop before μαθών in Ac. 23 :27f. That would help the character 
of Claudius Lysias on:the point of veracity. 

(c) Worps. The continuous writing of words without any 
space between them was not quite universal, though nearly so.* 
The oldest Attic inscription (Dipylon vase, probably eighth cen- 
tury B.c.) is written from right to left. With the common method 
it was not always easy for the practised eye to distinguish between 
words. Hence there arose the διαστολή or ὑποδιαστολή, A COMMA 
used to distinguish between ambiguous words, as ἐστὲ νοῦς, not 
ἐστὶν οὕς. But W. H. make no use of this mark, not even in 4, τι 
to distinguish it from the conjunction ὅτι. They print uniformly 
τ 550. 10: 2:5; 14°13; 1 Cor. 16:2) etc.), not to men- 


1 Thompson, Handb., etc., p. 81. So Suidas. The colon is the main semi- 
division of the sentence, but mod. Eng. makes less use of all marks save the 
period and comma. 

2 W.-M., pp. 63, 67. 3 Thompson, Handb., etc., p. 67. 


944. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


tion doubtful cases like Mk. 9:11, 28; Jo. 8:25; Ac. 9:27; 2 
Cor. 3 :14.1 As to the marks of diewresis (7) reference may be had 
to the discussion of diphthongs and dizresis in this chapter under 
(i). W.H., like other modern editors, use the apostrophe (’) (or 
smooth breathing) to represent elision, as am’ ἀρχῆς (Mt. 24: 21).? 
The coronis is the smooth breathing used also to show when crasis 
has taken place, as in κἀμοί (Lu. 1:3).3 The hyphen, a long 
straight line, was used in the Harris-Homer MS. to connect com- 
pound words, but it is not in the N. T.4| The editors vary much 
in the way such words as ἀλλά γε, ἵνα τί, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι, etc., are printed. 
The MSS. give no help at all, for τοῦτο δὲ ἐστιν in Ro. 1: 12 is not 
conclusive against τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν elsewhere.> W. H. prefer ἀλλά γε (Lu. 
24:21; 1 Cor. 9:2), dpa ye (Ac. 8:30), δι ye (Lu. 11:8; 18: 5), 
el ye (2 Cor. 5:38, ete.), καί ye (Ac. 2: 18; 17:27), és ye (Ro. 8:32), 
διὰ παντός (Mk. 5: 5, ete.), διὰ τί (Mt. 9: 11, ete.), ἵνα τί (Mt. 9: 4, 
etc.), εἴ πως (Ac. 27:12), μή ποτε (everywhere save in Mt. 25:9 
where μήποτε), μή που (Ac. 27:29), μή πως (1 Cor. 9: 27, ete.), μή 
τις (1 Cor. 16:11, etc.). So-also δῆλον ὅτι in 1 Cor. 15: 27, ὅστις 
οὖν (Mt. 18:4). But on the other hand W. H. print διότι as well 
as εἴτε, οὔτε, μήτε, ὥστε, καίπερ, μήποτε (ONCE), μηδέποτε, μηδέπω, 
οὐδέποτε, μηκέτι, οὐκέτι, μήπω, οὔπω, μήτιγε, even μήγε (Mt. 6: 1), 
καθά, καθό, καθώς, καθάπερ, καθότι, καθόλου, ὥσπερ, ὡσεί, ὡσπερεί (1 Cor. 
15:8), etc. But W. H. give us καθ᾽ εἷς in Ro. 12 : 5, ἀνὰ μέσον in 
Mt. 13:25, ete.; κατὰ μόνας in Mk. 4:10, καθ᾽ ὅσον in Heb. 3: 3. 
Adverbs like ἐπέκεινα (Ac. 7:43), ὑπερέκεινα (2 Cor. 10: 16), παρεκτός 
(2 Cor. 11: 28) are, of course, printed as one word. W. H. prop- 
erly have ὕπερ éyw (2 Cor. 11: 23), not ὑπερεγώ. In Ac. 27:33 7 
τεσσαρεσκαιδέκατος 18S one word, but W. H. have Ἱερὰ Πόλις in Col. 
4:13 and Νέα πόλις in Ac. 16:11. It must be confessed that no 
very clear principles in this matter can be set forth, and the effort 
of Winer-Schmiedel® at minute analysis does not throw much light 
on the subject. 

(d) Tur Eprror’s Prerocativé. Where there is so much con- 
fusion, what is the editor’s prerogative? Blass” boldly advances 


1 W.-Sch., p. 35. 

2 See this ch. τὶ (k) for discussion of elision. For origin and early use of 
the apostrophe see Thompson, Handb., ete., p. 73. . 

3 See this ch. τὶ (2) for discussion of crasis. Cf. Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., 
p. 88. 4 Thompson, Handb., ete., p. 72. 

5 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 14. For the usage of Tisch. in the union and 
the separation of particles see Gregory, Prol., pp. 109-111. In most cases 
Tisch. ran the particles together as one word. ἘΣ ΡΠ 

7 Gr. of Ν. T. Gk., p. 17. Left out by Debrunner. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 245 


the German idea: “The most correct principle appears to be to 
punctuate wherever a pause is necessary for reading correctly.” 
But Winer! shrinks from this profusion of punctuation-marks by 
the editors, which “often intruded on the text their own interpre- 
tation of it.’”’ The editor indeed has to interpret the text with 
his punctuation, but certainly good taste demands that the mini- 
mum, not the maximum, of punctuation-marks be the rule. They 
must of necessity decide “a multitude of subtle and difficult 
points of interpretation.”? Hort indeed aimed at “the greatest 
simplicity compatible with clearness,’ and this obviously should 
be the goal in the Greek N. T. But the editor’s punctuation may 
_be a hindrance to the student instead of a help. It is the privi- 
lege of each N. T. student to make his own punctuation. 


1 W.-M., p. 63. 2 Hort, Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 318. 


CHAPTER VII 
THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEIZ) 


Space will not be taken for the inflection of the nouns and pro- 
nouns, for the student of this grammar may be assumed to know 
the normal Attic inflections. Aristotle! used the term “inflection ”’ 
(πτῶσις) of noun and verb and even adverb, but practically inflec- 
tion is applied to nouns and conjugation (κλίσις ῥημάτων = συζυγία) 
to verbs. Noun (ὄνομα) does, of course, include both substan- 
tive and adjective without entering the psychological realm and 
affirming the connection between name and thing (cf. Plato’s 
Cratylus). 


I. THE SUBSTANTIVE (TO ὌΝΟΜΑ) 


The Substantive (τὸ ὄνομα) is either concrete (σῶμα) or abstract 
(πρᾶγμα), ordinary appellative (ὄνομα προσηγορικόν) or proper (ὄνομα 
κὐριον). 

1. History of the Declensions. It is only since the seventeenth 
century A.D. that modern grammarians distinguish for conveni- 
ence three declensions in Greek. The older grammars had ten 
or more.” In the modern Greek vernacular the first and third de- 
clensions have been largely fused into one, using the singular of 
the first and the plural of the third.?| Thumb (Handbook, pp. 
43 ff.) divides the declension of substantives in modern Greek 
vernacular according to gender simply (masculine, feminine, 
neuter). This is the simplest way out of the confusion. In San- 
skrit five declensions are usually given as in Latin, but Whitney 4 
says: “There is nothing absolute in this arrangement; it is merely 
believed to be open to as few objections as any other.”’ Evidently 


1 Donaldson, New Crat., p. 421. It is in the accidence that the practical 
identity of N. T. Gk. with the popular κοινή is best seen, here and in the lexical 
point of view (Deissmann, EXxp., Nov., 1907, p. 434). 

2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 102; Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 264. 

3 ΤΌΣ pp. 105, 111. Cf. Hatzidakis, Einl. etc., pp. 376 ff. 

4° Sans. Grip tii: 

246 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEIS) 247 


therefore the ancient Greeks did not have the benefit of our mod- 
ern theories and rules, but inflected the substantives according to 
principles not now known to us. The various dialects exercised 
great freedom also and exhibited independent development at 
many points, not to mention the changes in time in each dialect. 
The threefold division is purely a convenience, but with this justi- 
fication: the first has a stems, the second o stems, the third con- 
sonant and close vowel (x, v) stems. There are some differences in 
the suffixes also, the third declension having always the genitive 
ending in —-os. In the third declension especially it is not possible 
to give a type to which all the words in all the cases and numbers 
conform. Besides, the same word may experience variations. 
Much freedom is to be recognized in the whole matter of the de- 
clensions within certain wide limits. See metaplasm or the fluc- 
tuation between the several declensions. 

2. The Number of the Cases (πτώσεις). The meaning and 
use of the cases will have a special chapter in Syntax (ch. XI). 

(a) THE History oF THE ForMS OF THE CasEs. This is called 
for before the declensions are discussed. The term “case” (πτῶσις, 
casus) is considered a “ falling,’ because the nominative is regarded 
as the upright case (πτῶσις ὀρθή, εὐθεῖα), though as a matter of 
: fact the accusative is probably older than the nominative (πτῶσις 
ὀνομαστική or ὀρθή). The other cases are called oblique (πλάγιαι) 
as deviations from the nominative. In simple truth the vocative 
(κλητική OY προσαγορευτική) has no inflection and is not properly a 
case in its logical relations. It is usually the noun-stem or like 
the nominative in form. There are only three other case-endings 
preserved in the Greek, and the grammars usually term them ac- 
cusative (πτῶσις αἰτιατική), genitive (πτῶσις γενικὴ) and dative 
(πτῶσις δοτική). There is no dispute as to the integrity of the ac- 
cusative case, the earliest, most common of all the oblique cases 
and the most persistent. In the breakdown of the other cases 
the accusative and the prepositions reap the benefit. In truth 
the other oblique cases are variations from the normal accusative. 
But this subject is complicated with the genitive and the dative. 
It is now a commonplace in comparative philology that the 
Greek genitive has taken over the function of the ablative (ἀφαι- 
ρετική) also. In the singular the Sanskrit had already the same 


1 Mod. Gk. vernac. has only three cases (nom., gen. and acc.) and these 
are not always formally differentiated from each other. The mod. Gk. has 
thus carried the blending of case-forms almost as far as mod. Eng. Cf. Thumb, 
Handb., p. 31. 


948 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ending (—as) for genitive and ablative, while in the plural the San- 
skrit ablative had the same form as the dative (bhyas; cf. Latin 
ibus). Thus in the Sanskrit the ablative has no distinctive end- 
ings save in the singular of a stems like kamdt (‘love’) where 
the ablative ending -¢ (d) is preserved. In Latin, as we know, 
the ablative, dative, locative and instrumental have the same 
endings in the plural. The Latin ablative singular is partly 
ablative, partly locative, partly instrumental. Some old Latin 
inscriptions show the d, as bened, in altod marid, etc. In Greek 
the ablative forms merged with the genitive as in the Sanskrit 
singular, but not because of any inherent “internal connec- 
tion between them, as from accidents affecting the outward 
forms of inflection.’”’! The Greek did not allow 7 or ὃ to stand at 
the end of a word. So the Greek has πρός (not πρότ for rpori). 
Καλῶς may be (but see Brugmann?) the ablative καλῶτ and so all 
adverbs in τως. The meaning of the two cases remained distinct 
in the Greek as in the Sanskrit. It is not possible to derive the 
ablative (source or separation) idea from the genitive (or γένος) idea 
nor vice versa. The Greek dative (δοτική) is even more compli- 
cated. “The Greek dative, it is well known, both in singular and 
plural, has the form of a locative case, denoting the place where 
or in which; but, as actually used, it combines, with the mean- 
ing of a locative, those of the dative and instrumental.’”* This 
is only true of some datives. There are true datives like ὁδῷ, 
χώρᾳ. The Indo-Germanic stock, as shown by the Sanskrit, 
had originally three separate sets of endings for these cases. 


1 Hadley, Ess. Philol. and Crit., Gk. Gen. or Abl., p. 52. Cf. also Miles, 
Comp. Synt. of Gk. and Lat., 1893, p. xvii. This blending of the cases in 
Gk. is the result of “partial confusion” “‘ between the genitive and the ablative 
between the dative and the locative, between the locative and the instru- 
mental’ (Audoin, La Décl. dans les Lang. Indo-Europ., 1898, p. 248). In 
general on the subject of the history of the eight cases in Gk. see Brugmann, 
Griech. Gr., pp. 217-250, 375 f.; Comp. Gr. of the Indo-Ger. Lang., vol. III, pp. 
52-280; Kurze vergl. Gram., II, pp. 418 ff.; K.-Bl., I, pp. 365-370, II, pp. 
299-307; Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., pp. 268-301; Bopp, Uber das Dem. 
und den Urspr. der Casuszeichen etc., 1826; Hartung, Uber die Casus ete., 
1831; Hiibschmann, Zur Casuslehre, 1875; Rumpel, Casusl., 1845; Meillet, 
Intr. ἃ Etude Comp., pp. 257 ff.; Penka, Die Entst. der Synkr. Casus im 
Lat., Griech. und Deutsch., 1874. See also p. 33 f. of Hiibner, Grundr. zu 
Vorles. tiber die griech. Synt.; Schleicher, Vergl. Griech.; Schmidt, Griech. 
Gr., ete. , 

* Brugmann (Griech. Gr., 1900, p. 225), who considers the s in οὕτως, κτλ.» 
due to analogy merely, like the s in éyyi-s, κτλ. But he sees an abl. idea in 
ἐκ-τός. Cf. also οὐρανό-θε like coeli-tus. 3. Hadley, Ess. Phil. and Crit., p. 52. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEI®) 249 


The Greek plural uses for all three cases either “the loca- 
tive in —ov or the instrumental forms in —os.”! “The forms in 
—ais, Latin --ἴ8, from —d stems, are a new formation on the analogy 
of forms from —o stems.”? ᾿Αθήνησι is locative plural. In the 
singular of consonant, « and v stems, the locative ending --ἰ is used 
for all three cases in Greek, as νυκτίἔ. In the a declension the 
dative ending —a: is the same as locative a+v. The form —a con- 
tracts with the stem-vowel a into a or 7. A few examples of 
the locative --ἰ here survive, as in πάλαι, ᾿Ολυμπίαι, Θηβαι-γενής ὃ 
Χαμαί may be either dative or locative. In the o declension also 
the dative ending —a is the usual form, contracting with the o 
into w. But a few distinct locative endings survive, like ἐκεῖ, 
ἸΙσθμοῖ, οἴκοι (cf. οἴκῳ), ποῖ, etc. The Homeric infinitive δόμεν and 
the infinitive like φέρειν are probably locatives also without the ε, 
while the infinitives in --αι (δόμεναι, δοῦναι, λελυκέναι, λύεσθαι, λῦσαι, 
etc.) are ἀδύνοβ The instrumental has left little of its original 
form on the Greek singular. The usual Sanskrit is ἃ. Cf. in 
Greek such words as ἅμα, ἕνεκα, ἵνα, μετά, παρά, eda, possibly 
the Doric κρυφᾶ, Lesbian ἄλλα. Brugmann?® thinks the Laconic 
πή-ποκαΞε Attic rw-rore is instrumental like the Gothic hé (English 
why). Cf. the in “the more the better,” ete. Another Greek suffix 
-ῴι (Indo-Germanic, bhi) is found in Homer, as βίηφι, θεόφιν 
(plural). But this --ῴι was used also for ablative or locative, and 
even genitive or dative. It is clear therefore that in Greek the 
usual seven (eight with the vocative) Indo-Germanic cases are 
present, though in a badly mutilated condition as to form. The 
ideas, of course, expressed by the cases continued to be expressed 
by the blended forms. In actual intelligent treatment it is simpler 
to preserve the seven case-names as will be seen later. 

(b) Tur BLENDING oF CasE-ENpINGS. This is a marked pe- 
culiarity of the Indo-Germanic tongues. Neuter nouns illustrate 


1 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 287. 

2 Tb., p. 290. For survivals of the dat. —ac see the Rhodian 7a: (Bjérkegren, 
De Sonis dial. Rhod., p. 41). 

3 Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 228. Cf. the Lat. domi, Rome(i). For nu- 
merous exx. of loc. and dat. distinct in form in the various dialects see Meister, 
Griech. Dial., Bd. II, pp. 61 ff.; Hoffmann, Griech. Dial., Bd. I, Ὁ. 233 (dat. 
--ἂι, loc. -1; dat. —w, loc. -o.). Cf. Collitz and Bechtel, Samm. d. griech. dial. 
Inschr., p. 308. 4 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 278 f. 

6 Griech. Gr., 3. Aufl., p. 229. Cf. K.-Bl., II., pp. 301-807, for examples of 
the survival of abl., loc. and instr. forms in Gk. adverbs. Cf. also Meister, 
Griech. Dial., 11., p. 295, for survivals of instr. forms in Cypriotic dial. (apa, 
εὐχωλᾶ). See Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I. TL, p. 194. 


250 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the same tendency, not to mention the dual. The analytic pro- 
cess has largely triumphed over the synthetic case-endings. 
Originally no prepositions were used and all the word-relations 
were expressed by cases. In modern French, for instance, there 
are no case-endings at all, but prepositions and the order of 
the words have to do all that was originally done by the case- 
forms. In English, outside of the old dative form in pronouns 
like him, them, ete., the genitive form alone remains. JF innish 
indeed has fifteen cases and several other of the ruder tongues 
have many.! On the other hand the Coptic had no case-end- 
ings, but used particles and prepositions like NTE for genitive, 
ete. It is indeed possible that all inflectional languages passed 
once through the isolating and agglutinative stages. English may 
some day like the Chinese depend entirely on position and tone 
for the relation of words to each other. 7 

(c) OrntGIN oF Case SurrrxEs. Giles? frankly confesses that 
comparative philology has nothing to say as to the origin of the 
case-suffixes. They do not exist apart from the noun-stems. 
Some of them may be pronominal, others may be positional (post- 
positions), but it adds nothing to our knowledge to call some of 
the cases local and others grammatical. They are all gramma- 
tical. The ablative and the locative clearly had a local origin. 
Some cases were used less often than others. Some of the case- 
forms became identical. Analogy carried on the process. The 
desire to be more specific than the case-endings led to the use of 
prepositional adverbs. As these adverbs were used more and more 
there was “an ever-increasing tendency to find the important 
part of the meaning in the preposition and not in the case-ending.’’? 
In the modern Greek vernacular, as already stated, only three 
case-forms survive (nominative, genitive, accusative), the dative 
vanishing like the ablative.‘ 


‘Farrar, Gr. byt. pico. 

2 Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 271. Bergaigne (Du Rdéle de la Dériv. dans la 
Décl. Indo-Europ., Mém. de la Soe. de Ling. de Paris, to. ii, fase. 5) and G. 
Meyer (Zur Gesch. der indo-germ. Stammb. und Decl.) both argue that case- 
endings had no distinctive meaning in themselves nor separate existence. 
But see also Hirt, Handb. etc., pp. 231-288, for careful treatment of the cases. 
On the general subject of syncretism in the Gk. cases see Delbriick, Vergl. 
Synt., 1. Tl, pp. 189 ff., 195 f. See also Sterrett, Hom. Il., N. 15, for traces of 
abl., loc. and instr. forms in Hom. (loc. --ἰ, —6:; instr., ττῴι, —pw; abl., --θεν). 

8 Giles, op. cit., p. 273. 

4 Dieterich, Unters. etc., p. 149. Cf. also Keck, Uber ἃ. Dual bei d. griech. 
Rednern etc., 1882. it? as 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEI=) 251 


3. Number (ἀριθμός) in Substantives. The N. T. Greek has 
lost the dual (δυικός) and uses only the singular (ἑνικός) and the 
plural (πληθυντικός). The Sanskrit and the Hebrew had the dual, 
but the Latin had only dwo and ambo (and possibly octo and υἱ- 
gintt) which had a plural inflection in the oblique cases. Coptic! 
had no plural nor dual save as the plural article distinguished 
words. English has only the dual twain, but we now say twins. 
The scholars do not agree as to the origin of the dual. Moul- 
ton? inclines to the idea that it arose “in prehistoric days when 
men could not count beyond two.” It is more likely that it is 
due to the desire to emphasize pairs, as hands, eyes, ete., not to 
accept “Du Ponceau’s jest that it must have been invented for 
lovers and married people.”’? In the oldest Indo-Germanic lan- 
guages the luxury of the dual is vanishing, but Moulton considers 
its use in the Attic as a revival. It never won a foothold in the 
fKolic and the New Ionic, and its use in the Attic was limited and 
not consistent.> The dual is nearly gone in the late Attic inscrip- 
tions,® while in the κοινή it is only sporadic and constantly vanish- 
ing in the inscriptions and papyri.’ In Pergamum® and Pisidia® 
no dual appears in the inscriptions. The only dual form that 
occurs in the LX X and the N. T. is δύο (not δύω) for all the cases 
(as genitive in 1 Tim. 5:19), save δυσί(ν) for the dative-locative- 
instrumental, a plural form found in Aristotle, Polybius, etc., and 
called a barbarism by Phrynichus.!® Only in 4 Macc. 1:28 A 
δυοῖν is found, but δυεῖν in NV, as in Polybius and the Atticists 
(Thackeray, p. 187). For examples of δυσί(ν) see Mt. 6:24; Lu. 
16:13; Ac. 21:33; Heb. 10:28, etc. In the papyri, however, 
δύω, δυῶ, δυεῖν occasionally appear" along with δυσί(ν). In the 
modern Greek the dual is no longer used. ”“Audw has vanished in 
the N..T. while ἀμφότεροι occurs fourteen times (Mt. 9:17, etc.), 


1 Tattam’s Egyp. Gr., p. 16. 2 Prol., p. 57. 
3 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 23. Cf. Geiger, Ursp. d. Spr., § ix. Cf. Giles, 
Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 264. ar RProe ἡ" 


moaunaris, List, Gk. (τον p. 101. 6 Meisterhans, Att. Inschr., p. 201. 

7 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 436. 8 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 138. 

9. Compernass, De Serm. Vulg. etc., p. 15. Tatian (p. 96 of his works) 
shows a dual. 

10 Rutherford, New Phryn., p. 289f. But οἵ. K.-BI., I, p. 362, for further 
items about the dual. 

1 Deissmann, B.S., p. 187. For δυσί(ν) in the inscriptions see Dittenberger, 
118. 22, etc. Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 313. For similar situations 
in the LXX MSS. (τοῖς δύο, τοῖς δυσί, and A δυοῖν, & δυεῖν) see Helbing, Gr. d. 
Sept., p. 53. Cf. also C. and 8., Sel. from the LXX, p. 25. 


252 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


once (Ac. 19 : 16) apparently in the sense of more than two, like 
the occasional use of the English “both” and the Byzantine use 
of ἀμφότεροι and “two clear examples of it in NP 67 and 69 
(iv/a.D.).”"! Once for all then it may be remarked that in the 
N. T. both for nouns and verbs the dual is ignored. The dualwas 
rare in the later Ionic and the κοινή follows suit (Radermacher, 
N. T. Gk., p. 184). The syntactical aspects of number are to be 
discussed later. 

4. Gender (γένος) in Substantives. In the long history of the 
Greek language gender has been wonderfully persistent and has 
suffered little variation.? It is probably due to the natural differ- Ὁ 
ence of sex that grammatical gender® arose.’ The idea of sense 
gender continued, but was supplemented by the use of endings 
for the distinction of gender. ‘This personification of inanimate 
objects was probably due to the poetic imagination of early peo- 
ples, but it persists in modern European tongues, though French . 
has dropped the neuter (cf. the Hebrew) and modern English 
(like the Persian and Chinese) has no grammatical gender save in 
the third personal pronoun (he, she, it) and the relative.’ Anal- 
ogy has played a large part in gender.’ The Sanskrit, Latin and 
Greek all gave close attention to gender and developed rules that 
are difficult to apply, with many inconsistencies and absurdities. 
In Greek ἥλιος is masculine and σελήνη feminine, while in German 
we have die Sonne and der Mond. Perhaps we had better be 
grateful that the Greek did not. develop gender in the verb like 
the Hebrew verb. Moulton® thinks it “exceedingly strange” that 
English should be almost alone in shaking off “this outworn ex- 
crescence on language.” The N. T., like Homer and the modern 
Greek, preserves the masculine (ἀρσενικόν), feminine (θηλυκόν) and 
neuter (οὐδέτερον). Some words indeed have common (κοινόν) sex, 
like ὁ ἡ παῖς, ὄνος, θεός, while others, applied to each sex, are called 
epicene (ἐπίκοινον), like ἡ ἀλώπηξ, ἄρκτος. In German we actually 
have das Weib (‘wife’)! 

(a) VARIATIONS IN GENDER. They are not numerous. ‘H 
ἄβυσσος (xwpa) is a substantive in the LXX (Gen. 1: 2, ete.) and 
the N. T. (Lu. ὃ : 31, etc.), elsewhere so only in Diogenes Laertes. 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 80. 2 Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 103. 

3 Paul, Prin. of Hist. of Lang., pp. 289 ff. Brugmann thinks that gender 
came largely by formal assimilation of adj. to subst. as ἄνθρωπος κακός, χὠρᾶ 
ἱερᾷ. Dan. Crawford, the Bantu missionary, claims 19 genders for Bantu. 

4 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 26f. ὅδ Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., pp. 64, 259. 

6 Prol., p. 59. On the whole subject of gender see K.-BL., I, pp. 358 ff. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEIS) 253 


In Mk. 14:3 W. H. and Nestle properly read τὴν ἀλάβαστρον, 
though the Western and Syrian classes give τὸν ad. after Herod- 
otus, and a few of the late MSS. τὸ ad. In Rev. 8:11 ὁ (not ἡ) 
ἄψινθος is read, though & and some cursives omit the article, be- 
cause the word is a proper name. In Mk. 12:26 all editors 
have ὁ βάτος (the Attic form according to Moeris), elsewhere 
ἡ βάτος (Lu. 20:37; Acts 7:35). Θεός may be either masculine as 
in Ac. 19:11 or feminine as in Ac. 19:87, but in Ac. 19:27 we 
have θεά (Text. Rec. also in 35, 37), an “apparently purposeless 
variation.” ! Thieme (Die Inschr. von Magn., p. 10) says that 
ἡ θεός is used in the inscriptions of Asia Minor in formal religious 
language. Burnet (Review of Theology and Philosophy, 1906, 
p. 96) says that in Athens ἡ θεός was used in every-day language, 
but ἡ θεά in the public prayers, thus taking the Ionic θεά. Ce. 
Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Papyri (Laut- und W ortlehre, 1906), p. 254 f., 
for papyri illustrations. Blass? considers ἡ ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ (Ac. 5: 28, 
etc., the common form in LXX, Luke and Paul) feminine be- 
cause it is a place-name, and hence he explains πᾶσα ᾿Ιεροσόλυμα 
(Mt. 2:3) rather than by πόλις understood. ληνός in Rev. 14:19 
strangely enough has both masculine and feminine, τὴν ληνόν ... 
τὸν μέγαν but δῇ fem. (bis). The feminine is the common construc- 
tion, but the masculine is found in LXX in Is. 63:2 only. Adios 
is always ὁ in the N. T., even when it means a precious stone 
(Rev. 5 times), where Attic after 385 B.c.? had ἡ. Λιμός is mascu- 
line in Lu. 4 : 25 as in the Attic, but is chiefly feminine in Acts 
and Luke, like the Doric and late Attic, as in Lu. 15:14; Acts 
11: 28.4 In Lu. 13:4, Jo.9:7,11 we have ὁ Σιλωάμ, while Jose- 
phus has both ἡ (War, V, 12. 2) and ὁ (War, II, 16. 2). Blass® 
explains the use of ὁ in the Gospels by the participle ἀπεσταλμένος 
in Jo. 9:7. Στάμνος in Heb. 9:4 is feminine after the Attic 
instead of the Doric ὁ στὸ, as in Ex. 16:33. In Rev. 21:18 (21) 
we read also ὁ ὕαλος rather than ἡ ὕαλος as is customary with 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 60, but he adds “is explained by inscriptions.” Cf. 
Nachmanson, Magn. Inschr., p. 126, for many exx. 

2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 32. Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 160. Mk. and Jo. 
have only τὸ Ἰεροσόλυμα and Mt. usually. 

3 Meisterhans, Att. Inschr., p. 129. 

4 Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 157. Moulton (Prol., p. 60) finds Acuds 
- now masc. and now fem. in the pap. LXX MSS. show similar variations. Cf. 
Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 45; Thack., p. 145f., for same situation in LXX 
concerning βάτος, ἀλάβαστρος (—ov), ληνός, στάμνος. Cf. C. and 58., Sel. from the 
LXX, p. 27, for further exx. 

maar. OLN Gk ip. 32, 


954 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


precious stones.! Ὕσσωπος (Heb. 9:19; Jo. 19:29) reveals its 
gender only in the LXX (Lev. 14:6, 51f.) where it is masce. in 
BA, fem. in E and 1 (8) Ki. 4:19 BA. The neuter τὸ ἅλας occurs 
in papyri as early as third century B.c. (Moulton and Milligan, 
Expositor, 1908, p. 177). 

(b) INTERPRETATION OF THE LXX. In Ro. 11:4 Paul uses 
τῇ Baad rather than the frequent LX X τῷ Baar. The feminine is 
due, according to Burkitt, to the Q’r? nwa (αἰσχύνη. Moulton 
speaks of ἡ Baad as occurring “three times in LXX and in Ascen- 
sio Isatiae li. 12.”? But ἡ Baad occurs “everywhere in the pro- 
phetic books, Jer., Zeph., Hos., etc.” (Thayer), though not so 
common in the historical books, far more than the “three times” of 
Moulton. In Mk. 12:11 and Mt. 21:42 the LXX αὕτη is due to 
nxt, though the translators may have “interpreted their own Greek 
by recalling κεφαλὴν ywvias.”’® In Gal. 4:25 Paul has not mis- 
takenly used τό with “Ayap, for he is treating the name as a word 
merely. Any word can be so regarded. 

(c) VARIATIONS IN GENDER Dur To HETEROCLISIS AND ME- 
TAPLASM. These will be discussed a little later. Delbriick thinks 
that originally all the masculine substantives of the first or a de- 
clension were feminine and that all the feminine substantives of 
the second or o declension were masculine. 

5. The First or a Declension. There was a general tendency 
towards uniformity‘ in this declension that made it more popular 
than ever. Here only the N. T. modifications in this general de- 
velopment can be mentioned. 

(a) THe Doric GENITIVE-ABLATIVE SINGULAR ἃ. This form 
survives in βορρᾶ (Lu. 13:29; Rev. 21:13) and was common in 
the Attic after 400 B.c. Note also μαμωνᾷ (Lu. 16:9). It is fre- 
quent in the LXX, papyri, inscriptions, though mainly in proper 
names. ‘These proper names in —ds, chiefly oriental, make the 
genitive-ablative in --ἃ or, if unaccented —as, in ἃ. So Axtd\a and 
᾿Ακύλου in papyri (Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 187), though no 
gen. in N. T. (only -as and -av) ’Aypimma® (Ac. 25: 23), ’Avavia 


1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 26. Cf. Theophrast, De lapid. 49, for ἡ ὕελος. 
2 Moulton, Prol., p. 59. He corrects this erratum in note to H. Scott. 
3 Tb. 
4 Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 106. Swete, O. T. in Gk., p. 304 f., has some 
’ good illustrations and remarks about the declensions in the LXX. 

> Both ’Aypirra and ᾿Αγρίππου occur in the pap. Cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 
1901, pp. 34 and 434. This gen. in —a gradually became “ἃ ruling principle” 
for all substantives in —as (Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 108, 110). See Thumb, 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEIZ) — Plats) 


(from —as, so Thayer), “Avva (Lu. 3:2), ᾿Αντίπας (indeclinable here 
or mere slip for -a, Rev. 2:18), ‘Apéra (2 Cor. 11:32), Βαραββᾶ 
(gen. does not appear, only nom. —ds as Mk. 15:7, and accus. --ἂν 
as 15:11, etc.), Βαρνάβα (Gal. 2:1; Col. 4:10; see Deissmann, 
Bible Studies, p. 187), ’Exadpa (Col. 1:7), Ἑρμᾶν (Ro. 16: 14, Doric 
accusative), Znvav likewise (Tit. 3:13); ᾿Ηλεία (Lu. 1:17) accord- 
ing to NB (so W. H.); ‘Iovéa (person, Lu. 3:33; Mk. 6:3; tribe, 
Mt. 2:6; Heb. 8:8; land, Lu. 1:39), Ἰωνᾶ (Mt. 12: 39), Karada 
(isepones 0 7.5.9) ΣΚηφα (1 Cor. 1:12); KAwra (Jo. 19: 25); 
Λουκᾶς (only in nominative, as Col. 4: 14, but genitive would be —a), 
Σατανᾶ (Mk. 1:18), Σίλας (dative Σίλᾳ in Ac., and genitive Lida 
in Jos. Vit., 17), Σκευᾶ (Ac. 19: 14), Στεφανᾶ (1 Cor. 1:16). Nach- 
manson finds the Doric genitive fairly common with such short 
proper names and mentions Σηνᾷ in his list. Very common in 
modern Greek, cf. Hatzidakis, Hinl., p. 76. 

(b) THe Attic GENITIVE-ABLATIVE. The usual Attic form for 
the masculine gen. abl. (ov) is found also as in Aivéas (so Lobeck, 
Prol. Pathol., p. 487), .’Avépéov (Mk. 1:29), Βαραχίου (Mt. 23:35), 
*Efexiov (so LXX), Ἠλείου (Lu. 4:25), "Hoaiov (Mt. 3:3, etc.), 
Ἰερεμίου (Mt. 2:17), Λυσανίου (Lu. 3:1), Οὐρίου (Mt. 1:6), Zaxa- 
piov (Lu. 1:40). These Hebrew proper names ended in 4-, but 
receive the regular inflection for masculine nouns of the first 
declension. There are likewise some proper names in --ἧς with 
genitive-ablative in —ov. ᾿Ιαννῆς and ᾿Ιαμβρῆς (2 Tim. 3:8) only 
appear in the N. T. in the nominative. Κρήσκης (2 Tim. 4: 10) and 
Πούδης (2 Tim. 4: 21) belong to the 3d declension. Εὐφράτης (Rev. 
9:14; 16:12) has only accusative and dative (instrumental-loca- 
tive) in the oblique cases in the N. T., though the genitive-ablative 
form is—ov. Ἡρῴδου (Mt. 2:1) and ’Iopéavov (Mt. 3:5) follow the 
usual rule like ἅδου (Mt. 16:18). ᾿Απελλῆς (Ro. 16:10), Ἑρμῆς 
(Ro. 16: 14), like κοδράντης (Mt. 5: 26) and φελόνης (2 Tim. 4: 13), 
have no oblique case in the N. T. save the accusative (- ἢν).2 
᾿Ιωάνης in W. H. always has genitive-ablative in —ov for the Apostle 


and in Jo. 1:42; 21:15, 16, 17, for the father of Simon Peter, κ᾿ 


though Βαριωνᾷ in Mt. 16 : 17.2 So for John Mark (Acts 12: 12). 


Handb., p. 49. Cf. Thackeray, Gr., pp. 160-166. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 33, 
for LX X illustrations. 

1 Magn. Inschr., p. 120. Cf. also Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 139. 

2 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 94. 

8. Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 159. See Nachmanson (Magn. Inschr., p.— 
119) and Schweizer (Perg. Inschr., p. 138 f.) for illustrations of these points 
from the κοινή inscr. The gen. in --οῦ is more common in the pap. than that in ᾿ 


256 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Σωσθένης has accusative in —nv (Ac. 18: 17) for the first declension 
and is heteroclite.| We have only ἕξεστῶν in Mk. 7:4. Words like 
νεανίας have the genitive-ablative in —ov (Ac. 7 : 58). 

(c) Voe. in-a of masc. nouns In -τῆς in δέσποτα, ἐπιστάτα, Kap- 
διογνῶστα, ὑποκριτά. Cf. ἅδη. 

(α) Worpbs IN -ρὰ AND PARTICIPLES IN —vta. ‘These come reg- 
ularly? to have the genitive-ablative in —ys and the dative-locative- 
instrumental in —y like the Ionic. Moulton* indeed thinks that 
“analogical assimilation,” on the model of forms like δόξα, δόξης, 
had more to do with this tendency in the κοινή than the Ionic in- 
fluence. Possibly so, but it seems gratuitous to deny all Ionic in- 
fluence where it was so easy for it to make itself felt. The “best 
MSS.’’! support the testimony of the papyri and the inscriptions 
here. So W. H. read paxaipns (Rev. 13 : 14), πλημμύρης (Lu. 6 : 
48), πρῴρης (Ac. 27: 30), Σαπφείρῃ (Ac. 5:1), σπείρης (Ac. 21 : 31; 
27:1). In Acts B is prone to have —as, -ᾳ as with D in Ac. 5:1, 
but W. H. do not follow B here. In Ac. 5:2 συνειδυίης may be 
compared with ἐπιβεβηκυίης (1 Sam. 25 : 20), and other examples in 
the LXX,° but the forms —vias, —via still survive in the Ptolemaic 
period.’ The preference of the LX X MSS. and the early papyri 
for μαχαίρας (—pa) shows that it is a matter of growth with time. 
In the early Empire of Rome —pzs forms are well-nigh universal. 
Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 142. On the other hand note the adjective 
στείρᾳ (Lu. 1:36). Words like ἡμέρα (—pa) and ἀλήθεια, ula (va, eva) 
preserve the Attic inflection in —as, a.® 

(ὁ) THe Opposite TENDENCY TO (d). We see it in such exam- 
ples as Λύδδας (Ac. 9 : 38, but Soden reads —é6ys with EHLP) and 
Μάρθας (Jo. 11:1). Moulton® finds the Egyptian papyri giving 
Ταμύσθας as genitive. Θέρμα is given by Lobeck, though not in 
N. T. (genitive της, Ac. 28:3), and note πρύμνα in Ac. 27:41. 


πα. See Mayser, Gr. griech. Pap., 1906, p. 250 f. (Laut- u. Wortlehre). For 
the contracted forms see p. 252. It is also more frequent in the LXX. Cf. 
Thackeray, Gr., p. 161 f. 

1 W.-Sch., p. 94. 2 B.S., p. 186, 

3 Prol., p. 48; Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 34. where a number of exx. are given like 
ἀρούρης, καθηκυίης, etc. Cf. Thumb, Hellen., p. 69. Cf. Helbing, Gr. ἃ. Sept., 
pp. 31-338, and Thack., Gr., p. 140 f., for similar phenomena in the LXX. 

4 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 156. 5 Deissmann, B.S., p. 186. 

6 Gregory, Prol., p. 117. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 81. 

7 Moulton, Prol., p. 48. 

8 Cf. Blass, Gr. of Ny. TD: Gk: p.. 25. 

9. Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 434. For examples in Attic inscriptions see Meister- 

: hans, p. 119 f. Cf. Σουσάννας in LXX, C. and S., Sel. fr. the LXX, p. 26. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEI=) Pave 


Moulton! suggests that Νύμφᾶν (Col. 4:15 according to the cor- 
rect text) is not due to a Doric Νύμφᾶν, but by a “reverse analogy 
process” the genitive Νύμφης produced the short nominative Niyuda 
_ like δόξα, δόξης. Blass? calls χρυσᾶν (Rev. 1: 13) “a gross blunder, 
wrongly formed on the model of χρυσᾶς 1:12,” but Moulton® 
holds that we have “abundant parallels.” 

(f) Douste DrcLEeNston. This phenomenon appears in the 
case of Νέαν Πόλιν (Ac. 16:11) and Ἱερᾷ Πόλει (Col. 4 : 13), the 
adjective as well as the substantive being treated separately in 
the first and third declensions. 

(9) H®TEROCLISIS (ἑτερόκλισις) AND METAPLASM (μεταπλασμοός). 
Blass* makes no distinction in his treatment of heteroclisis and 
metaplasm, though the distinction is observed in Winer-Schmie- 
del. For practical use one may ignore the distinction and call 
all the examples metaplasm with Blass or heteroclisis with Moul- 
ton. The fluctuation is rare for the first declension in the N.°T. 
In Ac. 28:8 editors properly read δυσεντέριον rather than δυσεντε- 
pia (supported only by a few cursives). The form θεά (Ac. 19:27) 
and the usual Attic ἡ θεός (Ac. 19:37) are both found. This varia- 
tion between the first and the second declensions is well illustrated 
by Γομόρρας (2 Pet. 2:6) and Γομόρρων (Mt. 10:15; --οἰς, Mk. 6:11 
Rec.), Λύστραν (Ac. 14:6) and Λύστροις (Ac. 14:8). Moulton? 
finds abundant parallel in the Egyptian papyri use of place-names. 
In Rev. 1:11 ABC and some cursives read Ovdrecpay instead of 
the usual Ovarepa. Soin Ac. 27:5 some of the MSS. read Μύρραν 
instead of Μύρρα as accus., a reading confirmed by Ramsay,® who 
found the accus. in —av and the gen. in -ων. Moulton® cites ἡ 
Ἱεροσόλυμα from two MSS. of xi/a.p. (Usener, Pelagia, p. 50). 

The chief variation between the first and second declensions 
appears in the compounds in —apxns and (Attic) -apxos. Moulton! 
finds examples of it passim in the papyri and calls the minute 
work of Winer-Schmiedel “conscientious labour wasted thereon.” 
But Hort" does not think these variations in good MSS. “wholly 


1 Prol., p. 48. Cf. also his paper in Proc. Camb. Philol. Soc., Oct., 1893, 
p. 12. 

2 Gr., p. 25, but 4th ed., p. 28, cites P. Lond. I, 124, 26, χρυσᾶν ἢ ἀργυρᾶν. 

3 Prol., p. 48. “Falsche Analogie” acc. to W.-Sch., p. 81. 

ἘΠ ΤΟΙ N.-1..Gk.,; p. 28 f. 

5 Pp. 83 ff. Thack. (Gr., p. 153) includes heteroclisis under metaplasm. 

6 Prol., p. 48. 7 Ib., p. 244. 

8 St. Paul the Traveller, p. 129. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p.48. 910. 

10 Ib. Cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 34. 

1 Notes on Orth., p. 156. 


258 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


irregular.”’ In the N. T. forms in —apxns, like most of the dialects 
and the κοινή, are greatly in the majority. Thus in the N. T. we 
have ᾿Ασιάρχης (Ac. 19:31; not in nom. in N. T.), ἐθνάρχης (2 
Cor. 11:32), πατριάρχης (Heb. 7:4), πολιτάρχης (Ac. 17:6, 8), 
τετραάρχης (Lu. 3:19), but always χιλίαρχος. In the addition of 
the B text to Ac. 28:16 the MSS. divide between orparorédapxos 
(HLP) and -ἀρχης (cursives). ‘Exarévrapxos is the nominative 
in Mt. (8:5, 8; 27: 54), and the accusative in —xov is found once 
in Acts (22:25). Elsewhere in all cases in Matthew, Luke and 
Acts the form in --χῆς is read by the best MSS. (as Ac. 10: 1). 

The first and the third declensions show variation in δίψος (old 
form δίψα) in 2 Cor. 11:27, where indeed B has δίψῃ instead of 
δίψει. Νίκη (the old form) survives in 1 Jo. 5:4, but elsewhere the 
late form νῖκος prevails (as 1 Cor. 15:54 f.). The LXX likewise 
shows τὸ δίψος, τὸ νῖκος interchangeably with the ἡ forms. Helbing, 
Gr. ἃ. Sept., p. 49; Thackeray, Gr., p. 157. The dative “Iwave 
(third declension) instead of *Iwavy (first declension) is accepted a 
few times by W. H. (Mt. 11:4; Lu. 7:18; Rev. 1:1). Zarapivy 
(first declension) for Σαλαμῖνι (third declension) in Ac. 18:5, Hort? 
considers only Alexandrian. 

The third declension nouns often in various N. T. MSS. have 
the accusative singular of consonant stems in --ν in addition to —a, 
as χεῖραν in Jo. 20: 25 (NAB), 1 Pet. 5:6 (NA). This is after the 
analogy of the’ first declension. Other examples are ἄρσεναν in 
Rey. 12: 13 (A), ἀσεβῆν in Ro. 4:5 (NDFG), ἀστέραν in Mt. 2: 10 
(NC), ἀσφαλῆν in Heb. 6:19 (ACD), Aiay in Ac. 14:12 (DEH), 
εἰκόναν in Rev. 13: 14 (A), μῆναν in Rev. 22: 2 (A), ποδήρην in Rev. 
1:13 (A), συγγενὴν in Ro. 16:11 (ABD), γήρει Jo. 5:11 (). 
Blass* rejects them all in the N. T., some as “incredible,” though 
properly recalling the Attic τριήρην, Δημοσθένην. Moulton‘ finds 
this conformation to the “analogy of first declension nouns” very 
common in “uneducated papyri, which adequately foreshadows 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 28; K.-BL., I, 3, 502. Cf. also W.-M., p. 70f.; 
W.-Sch., p. 82; Soden, p. 1887 f. For illustrations from the LX X see W.-M. 
Cf. also Nachmanson, Magn. Inschr., p. 121. For numerous pap. examples 
of compounds from ἄρχω see Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap. (Laut- u. Wortl.), 
p. 256f. For the LXX see Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 37f. Thack., Gr., 
p. 156, finds —apyns ousting —apyxos. 

2 Notes on Orth., p. 156. *GruofsN. Gk, p26. ΝΟ 

4 Prol., p. 49. Cf. Gregory, Prol., p. 118; W.-M., p. 76; Jann., pp. 119, 
542; Psichari, Grec de la Sept., pp. 165 ff. Cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 
34f., for this “very common” ace. in the pap. See Mayser, Gr. ἃ. griech. 
Pap., p. 286 f. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEIS) 259 


its victory in modern Greek.’ The inscriptions! as well as the 
papyri have forms like γυναῖκαν, ἄνδραν, etc. It is these accusative 
forms on which the modern Greek nominative in ἄρχοντας is made 
(cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 47) and thus blended the first and the 
third declensions.?. Hort* will accept none of these readings in 
the N. T. because of the “irregularity and apparent capricious- 
ness”’ of the MS. evidence, though he confesses the strength of 
the testimony for ἀσφαλῆν in Heb. 6:19, συγγενῆν in Ro. 16:11, 
and χεῖραν in Jo. 20:25. These nouns are treated here rather 
than under the third declension because in this point they invade 
the precincts of the first. The LX X MSS. exhibit the same phe- 
nomena (ἐλπίδαν, μονογενῆν, etc.). See Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 50; 
Thackeray, Gr., p. 147. The opposite tendency, the dropping of 
ν in the first declension accusative, so common in modern Greek, 
is appearing in the papyri, as δεξιὰ χεῖρα (Volker, Papyrorum 
Graecorum Syntaxis ete., p. 30 f.). 

(h) INDECLINABLE SUBSTANTIVES. These are sometimes inflected 
in some of the cases in the first declension. Βηθανιά is accusative 
in Lu. 19: 29, and so indeclinable, like Βηθφαγή, but elsewhere it is 
inflected regularly in the first declension (so —iavy Mk. 11:1, etc.) 
save once or twice in B. Βηθσαιδά has accusative Βηθσαιδάν in 
Mk. 6:45; 8:22, but it may be only another alternate inde- 
clinable form (Thayer) like Μαγαδάν. So likewise Γολγοθά has 
accusative in -ἀν in Mk. 15:22. Hort?‘ finds “the variations 
between Μαρία and the indeclinable Μαριάμ᾽᾽ “singularly intricate 
and perplexing, except as regards the genitive, which is always 
—ias, virtually without variation, and without difference of the 
persons intended.” It is not necessary to go through all the 
details save to observe that as a rule the mother of Jesus and 
the sister of Martha are Μαριάμ, while Mary of Clopas is always 
Μαρίας Mary Magdalene is now Μαριάμ, now Μαρία. In the 
Aramaic as in the Hebrew probably all were called Μαριάμ. 
Μαρία is merely the Hellenized form of Μαριάμ. It is probably 
splitting too fine a hair to see with Hort® a special appropriate- 
ness in Μαριάμ in Jo. 20: 16, 18. 

6. The Second or o Declension. There is no distinctively 
feminine inflection in the o declension, though feminine words oc- 


1 Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 133. 

2 Cf. Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 156 f.; Schmid, Atticismus, IV, 586. 

δ᾽ Notes on Orth., p. 158. Kretschmer (Entst. der Κοινή, p. 28) finds this 
acc. in —ay in various dialect inscriptions. Cf. also Reinhold, De Graec. etc., 
p. 24, for χάριταν, etc. 4 Notes on Orth., p. 156. 5 ΤΌ. 


260 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


cur, like ἡ ὁδός. But the neuter has a separate inflection. Modern 
Greek preserves very few feminines in --ος. Thumb (Handb., p.53f). 
gives none. The main peculiarities in the N. T. are here noted. 
(a) THE So-CaLtLep Attic SeconD DeEcLENSIoN. It is nearly 
gone. Indeed the Attic inscriptions began to show variations 
fairly early.2. The κοινή inscriptions® show only remains here and 
there and the papyri tell the same story. Already λαός (as Lu. 
1:21) has displaced λεώς and ναός (as Lu. 1: 21) vews, though vew- 
κόρος survives in Ac. 19:35. ᾿Ανάγαιον likewise is the true text 
in Mk. 14:15 and Lu. 22 : 12, not ἀνώγεων nor any of the various 
modifications in the MSS. In Mt. 3:12 and Lu. 3:17 ἡ ἅλων 
may be used in the sense of ἡ ἅλως (see Thayer) by metonymy. 
The papyri show ἅλως (Attic second declension) still frequently 
(Moulton and Milligan, Expositor, Feb., 1908, p. 180). Cf. same 
thing in LXX. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 49 f.; Con. and Stock, 
Sel. fr. LX X, p. 26; Thackeray, Gr., p. 144. ᾿᾿Απολλώς has accusa- 
tive in -ὠν in 1 Cor. 4:6 and Tit. 3 : 18, though the Western and 
Syrian classes have —w in both instances. In Ac. 19 : 1 ᾿Απολλώ is 
clearly right as only A?L 40 have -ὠν. The genitive is ᾿Απολλώ 
without variant (1 Cor. ter). So the adjective ἵλεως is read in Mt. 
16 : 22 and Heb. 8: 12, though a few MSS. have ἵλεος in both places. 
The best MSS. have τὴν Κῶ in Ac. 21:1, not Κῶν as Text. Ree. Cf. 
1 Mace. 18 : 295. Blass®> compares αἰδώς of the third declension. 
(Ὁ) Contraction. There is little to say here. The adjectives 
will be treated later. ᾿Οστοῦν (Jo. 19:36) has ὀστέα, accus. pl., in 
the best MSS. in Lu. 24:39 and ὀστέων in Mt. 23:27 and Heb. 
11:22. So also ὀστέων in the Western and Syrian addition to Eph. 
5:30. ’Opveov (Rev. 18:2) and ὄρνεα (Rev. 19:21) are without 
variant. The papyri show this Ionic influence on uncontracted 
vowels in this very word as well as in various adjectives (Moul- 
ton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 485). For examples in the LXX (as ὀστέων 
2 Ki. 13:21) see Winer-Schmiedel, p. 82, and Helbing, Gr. d. 
Sept., p. 36; Thackeray, p. 144; Con. and Stock, Sel. fr. LXX, 
p. 27. Moulton® considers it remarkable that the N. T. shows 


1 Jann, ΠΙΞῸ (τς (τ᾿ 1} 2 Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 127 f. 

3 Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 123 f.; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 142. 

4 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 84. See also Mayser, Gr. ἃ. griech. Pap., 
1906, p. 259 f. For the LXX see Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 38 f., where a few 
exx. occur. 

5 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 25. Neds appears in 2 Mace. 6: 2, ete. 

6 Prol., p.48f. He thinks it proof that the N. T. writers were not illiterate, 
since the pap. examples are in writers “with other indications of illiteracy.” 
Cf. also Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 34. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEI2) 261 


no traces of the contraction of κύριος into κύρις and παιδίον into 
παιδίν, for instance, since the papyri have so many illustrations 
of this tendency. The inscriptions! show the same frequency of 
the --ς, --ἰτν forms which finally won the day in modern Greek. Cf. 
Thumb, Handb., p. 61. 

(c) THE Heese In the o aeeleneon it does not always end 
in εἴη the masculine singular. Θεός in ancient Greek is practically 
always retained in the vocative singular. The N. T. has the same 
form as in Mk. 15: 34 (cf. also Jo. 20:28), but also once θεέ 
(Mt. 27:46). This usage is found occasionally in the LX X and 
in the late papyri.? So also Paul uses Τιμόθεε twice (1 Tim. 1:18; 
6:20). Aristophanes had ᾿Αμφίθεε, Lucian Τιμόθεε, and the in- 
scriptions φιλόθεε5 Note also the vocative vids Δαυείδ (Mt. 1 : 20) 
and even in apposition with κύριε (Mt. 15: 22). The common use 
of the article with the nominative form as vocative, chiefly in the 
third declension, belongs more to syntax. Take as an instance of 
the second declension μὴ φοβοῦ, τὸ μικρὸν ποίμνιον (Lu. 12 : 32). 

(d) HeTEROCLISIS AND ΜΈΤΑΡΙΑΒΜ. Variations between the 
first and second declensions have been treated under 5 (f). The 
number of such variations between the second and third declen- 
sions is considerable. Νοῦς is no longer in the second declension, 
but is inflected like Bods, viz. νοός (2 Th. 2:2), vot (1 Cor. 14: 15, 
19). So πλοός in Ac. 27:9, not πλοῦ. The most frequent inter- 
change is between forms in —os, masculine in second declension 
and neuter in the third. In these examples the N. T. MSS. show 
frequent fluctuations. Τὸ ἔλεος wholly supplants τὸν ἔλεον (Attic) 
in the N. T. (as in the LXX), as, for instance, Mt. 9:13; 12:7; 
23:23; Tit. 3:5; Heb. 4:16, except in a few MSS. which read 
ἔλεον. Without variant we have ἐλέους and ἐλέει. On the other hand 
ὁ ζῆλος is the usual N. T. form as in the ancient Greek (so ζήλῳ, 
Ro. 13:13; 2 Cor. 11:2), but 76 ζῆλος is the true text in 2 Cor. 
9:2 and Ph.3:6. In Ac. 5:17 only B has ζήλους, and all read 
ζήλου in Acts 13:45. *Hyos is usually masculine and in the second 
declension, as in Heb. 12 : 19 (οἷ. Lu. 4:37; Ac. 2: 2), and for the 


1 Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 125; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 148. On 
the origin of these forms see Hatz., Einl., p. 318; Brug., Grundr., 11, § 62 ἢ"; 
Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 34. 

2 Moulton, Cl. Revs 1901, pp. 34, 434. 

δ. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 81. In ae LXX both θεός and θεέ occur. Cf. Helbing, 
Gr. d. Sept., p. 34; C. and S., Sel. fr. LXX, p. 26; Thack., p. 145. 

4 Cf. Arrian, Peripl., p. 176. See W.-Sch., p. 84, for similar exx. in the 
inscr., as ῥοῦς, pods in late Gk. For pap. exx. of βοῦν, πλοῦν and χοῦν see Mayser, 
Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 257 f., 268 f. 


Zo02 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


earlier ἠχή according to Moeris and Blass.!. In Lu. 21:25 W. H. 
read ἠχοῦς from ἠχώ, but Hort? admits ἤχους from τὸ ἦχος to be 
possible, and Nestle reads ἤχους in his sixth edition. In Ac. 3: 10 
C reads 64uBov’instead of θάμβους. In eight instances in Paul 
(2. Cor. 8:2: Ph. 4719; Col) Pe 270222 ein hee Lee eeeo tn eres 
16) in the nominative and accusative we have τὸ πλοῦτος, but 
ὁ πλοῦτος in Gospels, Jas., Heb., Rev. The genitive is always —rov. 
To σκότος instead of 6 σκότος is read everywhere in the N. T. save 
in the late addition to Heb. 12:18 where σκότῳ appears, though 
ζόφῳ is the true text. The form δάκρυσιν (Lu. 7:38, 44) is from 
δάκρυ, an old word that is found now and then in Attic, but τὸ 
δάκρυον appears also in Rev. 7:17; 21:4; δακρύων may belong to 
either decl. Σάββατον (—rov, --τῳ) is the form used in the N. T. al- 
ways, as Mk. 6: 2, but σάββασιν as Mk. 1:21, etc. B has σαββάτοις, 
like the LX X sometimes, in Mt. 12:1, 12. Κατήγωρ is accepted 
by W. H. and Nestle in Rev. 12 : 10 on the authority of A against 
NBCP, which have the usual κατήγορος. According to Winer- 
Schmiedel? this is not Greek, but a transliteration of the Aramaic 
ΟΡ. Blass,’ however, thinks it is formed on the model of ῥήτωρ. 

Several words fluctuate between the masculine and the neuter 
in the second declension. In Lu. 14:16; Rev. 19:9, 17, several 
MSS. read δεῖπνος instead of the usual δεῖπνον. Like the old Greek, 
δεσμός has the plural δεσμά in Lu. 8:29; Ac. 16: 26; 20 : 23, but 
of δεσμοί in Ph. 1:13. Before Polybius ζυγόν was more common 
(Thayer), but in the N. T. it is ζυγός (Mt. 11:30). ‘O θεμέλιος is 
the only form of the nom. sing. in the N. T., as 2 Tim. 2:19 
(supply λίθος); Rev. 21:19, but τὰ θεμέλια (ace.) in Ac. 16: 26 
like the LX_X and the Attic. The plural θεμελίους we have in Heb. 
11:10; Rev. 21: 14, 19. Θεμέλιον (ace.) may be either masculine 
or neuter. In Ro. 11:10 ὁ νῶτος is used in the quotation from the 
O. T. instead of the older τὸ νῶτον. In the early Greek ὁ σῖτος 
(never τὸ σῖτον) had a plural in σῖτα as well as otro. The same 
thing is true of the N. T. MSS. for Ac. 7: 12 except that they di- 
vide between τὰ σῖτα and τὰ σιτία, and σιτία is the correct text. 


1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 28. Cf. LXX MSS., for like variations in τὸ ζῆλος 
and ὁ £., ὁ ἔλεος and τὸ éX., 6 ἦχος and τὸ ἦ., ὁ πλοῦτος and τὸ 7A. See Helbing, 
Gr. d. Sept., p.47f. See p. 49 for σάββασι and σαββάτοις, δάκρυον and δάκρυσι. 
Cf. also Thack., Gr., pp. 153 ff. 

2 Notes on Orth., p. 158. See W.-Sch., p. 84, for exx. of ἤχους in the LXX. 
For similar variations in the inser. see Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 135. 

3 P. 85. So also Thayer, the Rabbins’ name for the devil. 

4 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 29; Deiss., Light, p.90; Raderm., Gr., p. 15. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEIZ) 263 


Blass! indeed objects that σιτία does not suit the sense. Στάδιον 
has σταδίους rather than the Attic στάδια in Lu. 24:13; Jo. 6:19 
(W. H. and Nestle, but Tisch. στάδια ND), and is a marginal 
reading in Rev. 21:16 instead of σταδίων. 

(ὁ) THE Mixep D&EcLENSION. Some substantives with spe- 
cial inflection have this. It is particularly in foreign names in 
the a and o declensions that this inflection became popular. “The 
stem ends in a long vowel or diphthong, which receives —s for nom- 
inative and -ν for accusative, remaining unchanged in vocative, 
genitive, and dative singular. ᾿Ιησοῦς is the most conspicuous of 
many N. T. examples. It plays a large part in modern Greek.”’ 2 
Hence we have ’Incods nominative, ᾿Ιησοῦ genitive-ablative, as 
Mt. 26:6; dative, etc., as Mt. 27:57; vocative Mk. 1:24. Some 
MSS. of the LXX have dative Ἰησοῖ in Deut. 3:21, etc. The 
accusative is ᾿Ιησοῦν, as Mt. 26:4. Ἰωσῆ is the genitive of ᾿Ιωσῆς 
according to the reading of Mt. 27:56 in W. H. instead of 
Ἰωσήφ, but in Mk. 6:3 Ἰωσῆτος is the reading. So runs Aeveis 
(nominative, Lu. 5:29), Aevei (genitive, Lu. 3:24), Λευείν (accu- 
sative, Lu. 5:27). Dative appears only in the LXX as Gen. 
34:30 Λευεί. Μανασσῆς has accusative Μανασσῆ in Mt. 1:10 and 
the genitive in -- (Rev. 7:6), but Hort*® calls attention to the 
fact that &°B have Μανασσῆ instead of the nominative in Mt. 
1:10, making the word indeclinable. 

(f) Proprr NAMES. ᾿Ιακώὼβ is indeclinable in Mt. 1:2, but we 
have ᾿Ιάκωβον in Mt. 4:21. Several proper names have only the 
plural, as Θυάτειρα (Rev. 2 : 18, but B -ρη and ABC --ραν, 1: 11), 
Ιεροσόλυμα (Mt. 2:1, but πᾶσα Ἰ., 2:3), Φίλιπποι (Ac. 16:12), 
Καῦδα (Ac. 27: 16), Μύρρα (Ac. 27: 5), Πάταρα (Ac. 21:1), Σάρεπτα 
(Lu. 4 : 26), Σόδομα (Jude 7). The Latin words μόδιος (Mt. 5: 15) 
and μάκελλον (1 Cor. 10: 25) are inflected. So Latin proper names 
like Ἰοῦστος (Ac. 18:7) and Παῦλος (Ro. 1:1). For Γομόρρας and 
Λύστραν see 5 (q). 

7. The Third Declension (consonants and close vowels t and 
v). The third declension could easily be divided into several 
and thus we should have the five declensions of the Sanskrit and 
the Latin. But the usual seven divisions of the third declension 
have the genitive-ablative singular in —os (-ws). The consonantal 


1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 28. In the LXX MSS. we find δεσμοί and --ά, ζυγοί 
and --ἀ, θεμέλιοι and —a, νῶτοι and —a, στάδιον and στάδιοι, otros and otra. Cf, 
Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 46 f.; Thack., p. 154f. 2 Moulton, Prol., p. 49. 

3 In the LXX proper names have great liberty in inflection. This is quite 
natural in a transl. Cf. Thack., Gr., pp. 160-171. 


264 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


stems show more sweeping changes than the vocalic (sonantic) 
stems in this declension.!. Only those changes that are related to 
the N. T. Greek can be here discussed. 

(a) Tue Nominative as Vocative. There is an increasing 
use of nominative forms as vocatives. This usage had long ex- 
isted for nouns that were oxytone or had labial or guttural stems. 
Elsewhere in general the stem had served as vocative. No 
notice is here taken of the common use of the article with the 
nominative form as vocative, like ἡ παῖς (Lu. ὃ : 54), a construc- 
tion coming under syntactical treatment. According to Winer- 
Schmiedel? the use of the singular without the article belongs also 
to syntax and the solution of W. H. is called “certainly false.” 
Hort* had suggested that in the case of θυγάτηρ as vocative (Mk. 
5:34; Lu. 8:48; Jo. 12:15) and πατήρ (Jo. 17: 21, 24, 25) the 
long vowel (η) was pronounced short. Why not the rather sup- 
pose that the vocative is like the nominative as in the case of la- 
bial and guttural stems? The usage is thus extended sometimes 
to these liquids. Indeed, in Jo. 17:25 we have πατὴρ ἀγαθέ, the 
adjective having the vocative form. In Mk. 9:19 (Lu. 9:41) we 
have ὦ γενεὰ ἄπιστος and ἄφρων in Lu. 12:20; 1 Cor. 15:36). 
See also ὦ πλήρης (Ac. 19: 10) for -es, which might be an inde- 
clinable form like the accusative (11, 2 (f)). But these adjectives 
show that the usage is possible with substantives. There are in- 
deed variant readings in the MSS. above, which have θύγατερ and 
πάτερ, but in Mt. 9:22 DGL have θυγάτηρ. Note also ἄνερ (1 Cor. 
7:16) and γύναι (Lu. 13:12). For peculiarities in nom. see (d). 

(0) Tur AccusaTIVE SinauLAR. The theoretical distinction 
that consonant-stems had the accusative singular in -- and vocalic 
stems in —v began to break down very early. From the third cen- 
tury B.c. Jannaris* suspects that popular speech began to have all 
accusative singulars with v, an overstatement, but still the ten- 
dency was that way. The use of ν with words like πόλιν, ναῦν (Ac. 
27:41, only time in N. T., elsewhere vernacular πλοῖον), etc., to- 
gether with the analogy of the first and second declensions, had a 
positive influence. See 5 (f) for discussion of the double accusa- 
tive ending —a plus », like ἄνδραν in the papyri.> These forms belong 
in reality to the third declension, though formed after the analogy 
of the first, and so were presented when first reached in the dis- 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 121. P90. 

3 Notes on Orth., p. 158. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 35, gives μήτηρ as 
voc. three times in a iii/A.D. pap. (B.U.). 

4 ‘Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 119. 5 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 488. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEIS) 265 


cussion. However, there are other consonant-stems which form 
the accusative in —v instead of -a. In Tit. 3:9 and Ph. 1:15 
we have ἔριν instead of ἔριδα. So in Rev. 3:7 and 20: 1 the Attic 
κλεῖν is read, for this is not a new tendency by any means, but 
in Lu. 11:52 the MSS. have κλεῖδα, though here also D has 
κλεῖν. Κλεῖδα is found in the LXX as in Judg. 3:25. Χάριτα 
appears in Ac. 24:27 and Ju. 4, and A has it in Ac. 25:9, but 
the Attic χάριν holds the field (forty times).2 In the LXX the 
Ionic and poetical χάριτα occurs only twice (Zech. 4:7; 6: 14) and 
is absent from the papyri before the Roman period. Cf Thack- 
eray, Gr., p. 150. For the irrational ν with μείζω in Jo. 5:36 see 
Adjectives. In Ac. 27:40 the correct text is ἀρτέμωνα, not —ova, 
from nom. ἀρτέμων. : 

(c) THe AccusativE PLuRAL. In Winer-Schmiedel (p. 88) 
ἔρεις iS given as nominative and accusative except in 1 Cor. 1: 11 
(ἔριδες, nom.), but as a matter of fact the accusative plural 
does not appear in the N. T. except as an alternative reading 
ἔρεις In N°ACKLP, in Tit. 3:9 (correct text ἔριν). In Gal. 5: 20 
W. ΗΠ. put ἔρεις in the margin rather than ἔρις, probably ‘‘an 
itacistic error.”* W. H. read τὰς κλεῖς in Rev. 1:18, but κλεῖδας 
in Mt. 16:19. In Ac. 24:27 χάριτας is supported by HP and 
most of the cursives against χάριτα (correct text) and χάριν (NEL, 
etc.). The accusative in —vs has changed into —as with —v and —ov 
stems, as Boas from βοῦς (Jo. 2: 14 f., ef. LX X), βότρυας from βό- 
tpus (Rev. 14 : 18), ἰχθύας from ἰχθύς (Mt. 14 :17).4 This simplifica- 
tion of the accusative plural was carried still further. Just as 
πόλεας had long ago been dropped for πόλεις, so βασιλέας has be- 
come --εἷς like the nominative, ‘‘and this accusative plural is reg- 
ular in N. T. for all words in —evs.””®> In the LXX —eas appears a 
few times, but since 307 B.c. the Attic inscriptions show --εἰς as 
accusative. It is found indeed sometimes in Xenophon and 


1 Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 157. For the LXX see Thack., p. 140; Hel- 
bing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 40 f., where the N. T. situation is duplicated. 

2 See Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 151, for illustr. of these aces. in the inser. 
For the pap. see Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 35, both χάριτα and χάριν, ete. 
Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 271 f. 

3 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 157. 

4 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 26, and W.-Sch., p. 86. Arrian has ἰχθύας. 
‘LXX MSS. (Thack., Gr., p. 147) show νηός and νεώς, νῆας and vais, Boas. Cf. 
Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 48. Usually ἰχθύας, p. 44. 

5 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 26. 

6 Meisterh., p. 141. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 86. So the LXX. Cf. Thack., Gr., 
p. 147 f.; Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 48. Wackern. (Indoger. Forsch., 1903, 


266 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Thucydides, though the strict Atticists disown it. Cf. γραμμα- 
recs in Mt. 23:34, etc. A few forms in —eas survive in the in- 
scriptions.!. Νήστεις (from νῆστις) is the correct accusative in Mk. 
8:3 and Mt. 15:32. W& here reads νήστις, but is unreliable on 
this itacism (Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 157). The Achzan, Elean, 
Delphian and Phocian inscriptions? (Northwest Greek) have the 
accusative plural in —es just like the nominative (cf. Latin).? It is 
very common in the modern Greek vernacular and in the papyri.! 
Moulton’ finds many examples like γυναῖκες, μῆνες, ὄντες, πάντες, 
τέκτονες, τέσσαρες, etc. In the LXX τέσσαρες as accusative is very 
common as a variant in the text of Swete. In Herodotus τεσσα- 
ρεσκαίδεκα 15 indeclinable and τρεισκαίδεκα in Attic since 300 B.c.7 
So in the N. T. some MSS. read τέσσαρες (though the most still 
have τέσσαρας) as NA in Jo. 11:17, 8 in Ac. 27:29, AP in Rev. 
4:4; 7:1, δὰ in Rev. 9:14.83 In Rev. 4:4 the best authority (N, 
AP, etc.) is really on the side of τέσσαρες (second example).? In- 
deed ‘‘in the N. T. τέσσαρας never occurs without some excellent 
authority for τέσσαρες." 5 In the first 900 of Wilcken’s ostraca, 
Moulton (Prol., p. 243) finds forty-two examples of accusative 
τέσσαρες and twenty-nine of τέσσαρας. Moulton" considers it prob- 
able that other nominative forms in Revelation, like ἀστέρες in A 
(Rev. 1:16), may be illustrations of this same tendency. 


p. 371) thinks the acc. in --εἰς is due not to the nom. but to compensative 
lengthening. 

1 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 150. 

2 Also early in Phthiotis (J. Wackernagel, Zur Nominalinfl., indoger. 
Forsch., 1903, p. 368). Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 119; Mayser, Gr. d. griech. 
Pap., 1906, p. 270 f. 

3 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 546. 

4 Moulton, Prol., p. 36. Cf. Vélker, Pap. Graec. Synt., p. 28. 

5 Cl. Rev., 1901, pp. 34, 435. Cf. also Buresch, Rhein. Mus., XLVI, 218. 

6 W.-Sch., p. 87. 7 Ib. Cf. Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 163 f. 

8 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 26. Cf. Jann., p. 120. 

9 Cf. Hort, Notes on Sel. Read., p. 138. 

10 Moulton, Prol., p. 36. “In Rev. CB have --ρας, 8 3/5, AP 3/6.” H. 
Scott. 

4 Tb. This use of --ες as acc. may be compared with the common acc. pl. 
in —es in the mod. Gk. vernac. Cf. Thumb, Handb., pp. 47 ff. Cf. nom. like 
ὁ πατέρας (Psichari, Ess. de Gr. Hist. Néo-grecque, 1886, 1° partie, p. xviii). 
ven ἡμέρες, πολίτες, etc. In the Eleatic dial. the loc.-dat. pl. is —-os as in 
xenuaros. Cf. Meister, Bd. II, p. 61. The LXX MSS. show τέσσαρες as ace. 
See Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 54. The acc. in --ες rare in LXX MSS. outside of 
τέσσαρες. Thack., Gr., p. 148 f. Moulton (Prol., p. 243, ed. 2) suggests that 
this tendency started with τέσσαρες because it is the only early cardinal that 
had a separate form for the ace. plural. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEIS) 267 


(d) PECULIARITIES IN THE NOMINATIVE. In general one may 
say that the various ways of forming the nominative singular in 
Greek are blending gradually into unity, the masculine in s and 
the feminine in a or ἡ. Many of the new substantives went over 
to the first declension.!. Luke has gen. ᾿Ελαιῶνος, in Ac. 1:12 from 
nom. ᾿Ελαιών, and the papyri give nearly thirty examples of this 
noun.2 Jos. also (Ant. vil, 9, 2) has ’EXadvos. On the other 
hand the use of ’Edaia is frequent (in Jos. also), as els τὸ ὄρος τῶν 
᾿Ελαιῶν (Mt. 21:1). But in Lu. 19:29 we have πρὸς τὸ ὄρος τὸ 
καλούμενον ᾿Ελαιῶν (W. H.),and in Lu. 21:37 εἰς τὸ ὄρος κτλ. In 
both these examples it would be possible to have ᾿Ελαιών, not as 
an indeclinable substantive, but as a lax use of the nominative 
with ὁ καλούμενος (cf. Revelation and papyri). So Deissmann.? 
But even so it is still possible for ᾿Ελαιῶν to be proper (on the 
whole probably correct) in these two disputed passages.* It is 
even probable that the new nominative ’EXawy is made from the 
genitive ᾿Ελαιῶν. "Epecs is a variant with ἔρις in Gal. 5: 20 ( marg. 
Neat?) minoOnwo ao Διο 12. 20. 1 Lim. 6 :4,.but. in. 1. Cor. 
1:11 all MSS. have ἔριδες. W. H. once (Ac. 1:10) accept the 
rare form ἔσθησις (2, 3 Macc.) rather than the usual ἐσθής, though 
the Alexandrian and Syrian classes have it also in Lu. 24:4. In 
Lu. 18:34 ND read ὄρνιξ, nominative not found in ancient Greek 
(Thayer), though the Doric used the oblique cases ὄρνιχος, etc.® 
Elsewhere in all MSS. the usual ὄρνις occurs, as Mt. 23: 27, and 
inthe N. T. only the nominative singular is found.’ Another con- 
trary tendency to the usual s in the nominative singular is seen in 
wo (1 Th. 5:3; οἵ. also Is. 37:3) for the usual ὠδίς. The papyri 
show forms like ὀξύρριν. 

One or two points about neuter substantives call for remark. 
The inflection in —as, —aos=—ws, has nearly vanished.’ A few ex- 
amples still survive in the inscriptions. In Lu. 1:36 the Ionic 
form γήρει from γῆρας is found, as often in the LXX and Test. 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 121. 

2-Moulton, Prol., p. 49; Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 35. Deiss., B. S., pp. 208 ff. 

B25. 0.210. . 

4 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 158. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 98. Moulton (Prol., pp. 69, 
235) has a full presentation of the facts. 

5 Moulton, Prol., p. 235. 

6 The form ὄρνιξι appears several times in the pap. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 
1901, p. 35. Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 149. 

7 W.-Sch., p. 89. LXX ὀρνίθων. 

po ialass Gr. of N. 1 Gk,, p. 26. 

® Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 156. 


968 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW. TESTAMENT 


XII Pat.! Képas always in the N. T. (as in LXX) has the Attic 
plural κέρατα (Rev. 8 times) and τέρας regularly τέρατα (11 times). 
The plural κρέα (from κρέας) is the only form in the N. T. (1 Cor. 
8:13; Rom. 14: 21) as in the LXX, though a MSS. or so in each 
case has κρέας (singular). 

(ὃ ΤῊΝ GENITIVE-ABLATIVE Forms. These call for little re- 
mark save in the adjective, for which see later. Σινάπεως (from 
σίναπι) is uniform in the Ν. T., as Mt. 17:20. IInxus has no geni- 
tive singular in the N. T. though πήχεος is common in the LXX,? 
but has πηχῶν (from Ionie πηχέων or through assimilation to neu- 
ters in —os), not the Attic πήχεων. In Jo. 21:8 only A Cyr. have 
πήχεων and in Rey. 21:17 only &.°. For the genitive singular of 
ἸἸωσῆς and Μανασσῆς see 6 (ὁ). 

(f) Contraction. It is not observed in ὀρέων (Rev. 6 : 15) 
and χειλέων (Heb. 18:15). In both instances the Ionic absence 
of contraction is always found in the LXX (Prov. 12:14). This 
open form is not in the Attic inscriptions, though found in MSS. 
of Attic writers and the poets especially.4 In the κοινή it is a 
‘widespread tendency” to leave these forms in —os uncontracted, 
though ἐτῶν is correct in Ac. 4 : 22, ete.» So the LXX, Thackeray, 
Grp: 151. 

(g) PRopER Names. Μωυσῆς has always the genitive-ablative 
Μωυσέως (Jo. 9: 28), though no nominative Μωυσεύς is known. The 
genitive Μωσῆ appears usually in the LXX, as Num. 4:41, and 
the vocative Mwoj as in Ex. 3:4. Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 163 f. 
W.H. have Μωυσεῖ (always with v. r.—-o7) asin Mk. 9:4, except 
in Ac. 7:44 where the form in -- is due to the LX X (usual form 
there). The accusative is Μωυσέα once only (Lu. 16: 29), else- 
where --ἣν, as in Ac. 7:35 (so LXX). Σολομών (so in the nom- 
inative, not —év) is indeclinable in & in Mt. 1:6 as usually in 
the LXX. But the best MSS. in Mt. 1:6 have the accusative 
Σολομῶνα, a few -ὦντα. So the genitive Σολομῶνος in Mt. 12: 42, 


1 W.-Sch., p. 86. So Sir. 25:3, ete. The LXX also has the Ionic gen. 
γήρους. See Thack., Gr., p. 149; Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 42. Cf. Mayser, 
Gr. d. Griech. Pap., p. 276. 2 As Ex. 25:9. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 87. 

8 Hort, Notes on Orth. But Xen. and Plut. (often) have πηχῶν. See 
W.-M., p. 75. In LXX note πήχεος and πήχεως, πήχεων and πηχῶν. Helbing, 
Gr., p. 45; Thack., p. 151. 

4 W.-Sch., p. 88. 5 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 27. 

6 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 158. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 58-60, for 
discussion of the decl. of proper names in the LXX. The phenomena corre- 
spond to those in N. T. MSS. Προμηθεύς had an Attic nom. --ἧς, gen. —éws, 
Thumb, Handb., § 330. 1. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEI>) 269 


though a few MSS. have --ῶντος. The Gospels have uniformly the 
genitive in —Gvos. But in Ac. 3:11 W. H. accept Σολομῶντος (so 
also 5:12), though BD etc. have vos in 5:12. Cf. Ξενοφῶντος 
(from nominative —Gv). Διοτρέφης (3 Jo. 9) and ‘Epyoyévns (2 Tim. 
1:15) occur in nom. There are other proper names (Roman and 
Semitic) which are inflected regularly like Βαβυλών (Mt. 1:11), 
Γαλλίων (Ac. 18: 12), ᾿Ελαιών (Ac. 1: 12) Καῖσαρ (Mt. 22:17), Σαρών 
(Ac. 9:35), Σιδών (Mt. 11:21), Σίμων (Mt. 4:18). There should 
be mentioned also Σαλαμίς (dative --ἶνι, Ac. 13:5). Cf. proper 
names in the LXX, Thackeray, Gr., pp. 163 ff. 

(h) Hererocuisis AND Merartasm. Most of the examples 
have already been treated under the first declension 5 (g) or the 
second declension 6 (d). The accusative ἅλα (Mk. 9 : 50) is like 
the old Greek ὁ ἅλς. Some MSS. (Western and Syrian classes) in 
Mk. 9 : 49 have ἁλί also. In Mk. 9 : 50 NLA have τὸ ἅλα as nomi- 
native (cf. Lev. 2:13) like γάλα. But the best MSS. (NBDLA) 
give τὸ ἅλας in the first two examples in 9 : 50 and ἅλα (accusative) 
in the third (so W. H.). So also Mt. 5:13 and Lu. 14:34. Cf. 
dative ἅλατι in Col. 4:6. In the LXX τὸ ἅλας is rare (Thackeray, 
Gr., p. 152). Papyri show τὸ ἅλας in third century B.c (Moulton, 
and Milligan, Hapositor, Feb., 1908, p. 177). Instead of ὄρνις in 
Rev. 18 : 2 we have the genitive ὀρνέου, from ὄρνεον (good old Greek 
word), ὀρνέοις in Rev. 19:17, and ὄρνεα in 19:21. In Mk. 6:4 
and Lu. 2 :44 συγγενεῦσι (cf. 1 Macc. 10:88) is probably! from 
συγγενεύς, not συγγενής. Cf. 1 Mace. 10:89. This is a good 
place for me to record the admiration which has possessed me as I 
have tested the work of Hort through the maze of details in the 
MS. evidence concerning the forms. 

8. Indeclinable Words. ‘These do not, of course, belong to 
any declension. Josephus Grecized most of the Hebrew proper 
names like ᾿Αμίναβος (Mt..1:4, ’Auiwada8).2 Some he put in the 
first declension, many in the second and third declensions.? Blass4 
sums the matter up by observing that “the Hebrew personal 
names of the O. T., when quoted as such,” are indeclinable. This 
is an overstatement. But certainly many that in the LXX and 
the N. T. are not inflected, might have been, such, for instance, 
as ’Aapwv, ᾿Ιακὠβ, Kedpwv, Σαλμών, Συμεών, to go no further.> It 
is hardly worth while to give the entire list of these words. 


1 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 158. 3 W.-Sch., p. 91. 

2 Ib. for extensive list. 4 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 29. 

δ Thack., Gr., p. 169, suggests that place-names in των are declined or in- 
declinable according to rank and distance. 


270 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


They include such other words as the majority of those in the 
genealogy in Mt. 1 and that in Lu. 3, besides many other proper 
names,! including such geographical names as Αἰνών, Βηθφαγή, 
Diwy, Viva, ete. ᾿ 

There are other indeclinable Hebrew and Aramaic words such 
as KopBav (Mk. 7:11), μάννα (Rev. 2:17), πάσχα (Lu. 2 : 41), σί- 
κερα (LU. 1:15 as in LXX). The gender (fem.) of the inde- 
clinable οὐαί (Rev. 9 : 12; 11:14) is probably due, as Blass? sug- 
gests, to θλίψις. In 1 Cor. 9:16 οὐαί is used as a substantive (so 
also LXX). 

The use of ὁ ὧν καὶ ὁ ἦν Kal ὁ ἐρχόμενος in the nominative after 
ἀπό in Rev. 1:4, etc., belongs more to syntax than to accidence. 
It is evidently on purpose (to express the unchangeableness of 
God), just as 6 διδάσκαλος καὶ 6 κύριος is in apposition with ye (Jo. 
13 : 18) in lieu of quotation-marks. 


Il. THE ADJECTIVE ("ONOMA ’EIIIOETON) 


Donaldson* is probably right in saying that, in general, the 
explanation of the adjective belongs to syntax rather than to 
etymology. But there are some points concerning the adjective 
that demand treatment here. 

1. The Origin of the Adjective. Adjectives are not indis- 
pensable in language, however convenient they may be.‘ In the 
Sanskrit, for instance, the adjective plays an unimportant part. 
Whitney ® says: “The accordance in inflection of substantive and 
adjective stems is so complete that the two cannot be separated 
in treatment from one another.” He adds® that this wavering 
line of distinction between substantive and adjective is even 
more uncertain in Sanskrit than in the other early Indo-Ger- 


manic tongues. Most of the Sanskrit adjectives have three 


endings, the masculine and neuter being usually ἅ stems while 
the feminine may have ἃ or 7, this matter being “determined in 
great part only by actual usage, and not by grammatical rule.” 
So likewise Giles in his Comparatwe Philology has no distinct 
treatment of adjectives. The adjective is an added descriptive 
appellative (ὄνομα ἐπίθετον) while the substantive is an essential 
appellative (ὄνομα οὐσιαστικόν). But substantives were doubtless 


1 See further list in W.-Sch., p. 91. 3 New Crat., p. 502. 

20 Gr γι Neal ΤΟΣ τῷ eee 4 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 29. 
eAaNs ΡΠ 

6 Ib. Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 117, for the adjectival use of the substantive. 


ae. τ ὦ p Bind - etl, “Se, “ἀν 


δὼ et tat a -, 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEIS) 271 


used in this descriptive sense before adjectives arose, as they are 
still so used. So, for instance, we say brother man, Doctor Α., 
Professor B., etc. Cf. in the N. T. ἐν τῷ ᾿Ιορδάνῃ ποταμῷ (Mt. 
3:6), etc. This is, indeed, apposition, but it is descriptive ap- 
position, and it is just at this point that the adjective emerges in 
the early period of the language.!. Other Greek adjectives in 
form as in idea are variations from the genitive case, the genus 
case.? In itself the adjective is as truly a noun as the substantive. 
As to the form, while it is not necessary* that in every case the 
adjective express its gender by a different inflection, yet the ad- 
jectives with three genders become far commoner than those 
with two or one.*’ From the etymological point of view this in- 
flection in different genders is the only distinction between sub- 
stantive and adjective.6 The Greek has a much more highly 
developed system of adjectives than the Sanskrit, which has sur- 
vived fairly well in modern Greek, though a strong tendency is 
present to simplify adjectives to the one declension (—os, —y, —or). 
Participles, though adjectives in inflection, are also verbs in sev- 
eral respects and call for separative discussion. ‘The process of 
treating the adjective as a substantive belongs to syntax.® The 
substantivizing of the adjective is as natural, though not so com- 
mon in Greek as in Latin, as the adjectivizing of the substantive 
which we have been discussing.’ The distinction between adjec- 
tive and substantive is hard to draw in modern Greek (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 66). In modern Greek every adjective has a special 
feminine form. The development is complete. Cf. Thumb, pp. 
66 ff. 

2. Inflection of Adjectives. In Greek as in Sanskrit, the ad- 
jective has to follow the inflection of the substantive in the various 
declensions, the three genders being obtained by combining the 
first with the second or the third declensions. 

(a) ADJECTIVES WITH ONE TERMINATION. Of course at first 
this may have been the way the earliest adjectives arose. Then 
the genders would be formed. But analogy soon led to the for- 
mation of most adjectives with three endings. Some of these 


1 Delbriick, Syntakt. Forsch., IV, pp. 65, 259. Cf. Giles, Man. of Comp. 
Philol., p. 239. 

2 Donaldson, New Crat., p. 474. 4 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 139. 

3 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 30. 5 Donaldson, New Crat., p. 502. 

6 Brug. (Griech. Gr., pp. 413-417) has no discussion of the adjective save 
from the syntactical point of view. 

7 See Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 414 f., for numerous exx. in the earlier Gk, 


ΤᾺ A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


adjectives with one ending were used only with the masculine or 
the feminine, and few were ever used with the neuter.1. Jannaris? 
considers them rather substantives than adjectives, but they il- 
lustrate well the transition from substantive to adjective, like 
ἄπαις, μάκαρ, φυγάς. In fact they are used of animated beings. 
In the N. T. we have ἅρπαξ (Mt. 7: 15; 1 Cor. 5:10), πένης (2 Cor. 
9:9. Cf. πλανῆτες, Jude 13 B), and ovyyevis (Lu. 1:36). Συγγενίς 
is a later feminine form like εὐγενίς for the usual συγγενής (both 
masculine and feminine) which Winer? treats as a substantive (so 
Thayer). Strictly this feminine adjective belongs* only to words 
in -τής and —evs. Blass® quotes εὐγενίδων γυναικῶν by way of com- 
parison. Modern Greek still has a few of these adjectives in use. 
The ancient adjectives in —7s (εὐγενής) have disappeared from the 
modern Greek vernacular (Thumb, Handb., p. 72). 

(b) ADJECTIVES WITH Two TERMINATIONS. Some adjectives 
never had more than two endings, the masculine and the femi- 
nine having the same form. In the so-called Attic second de- 
clension this is true of ἵλεως (Mt. 16:22). But a few simple 
adjectives of the second declension never developed a feminine 
ending, as, for instance, βάρβαρος (1 Cor. 14:11), ἔ(αἰ) φνίδιος (Lu. 
21 : 34), σωτήριος (Tit. 2:11).6 In the N. T. ἥσυχος has changed 
to ἡσύχιος (1 Pet. 3:4). The adjectives in the third declension 
which end in -ἧς or τὼν have no separate feminine form. So 
εὐγενής (Lu. 19:12), εὐσεβής (Ac. 10:7) μείζων (Jo. 15:18), ete. 
Then again some simple adjectives varied’ in usage in the earlier 
Greek, especially in the Attic, and some of these have only two 
endings in the N. T., like ἀΐδιος (Ro. 1:20), ἔρημος (Ac. 1: 20, etc., 
and often as substantive with γῆ or χώρα not expressed), κόσμιος 
(1 Tim. 2:9), οὐράνιος (Lu. 2:13; Ac. 26:19), φλύαρος (1 Tim. 
5:18), φρόνιμος (Mt. 25:2, 4, 9), ὠφέλιμος (1 Tim. 4:8; 2 Tim. 
3:16). With still others N. T. usage itself varies as in the case 
of αἰώνιος (Mt. 25:46, ete.) and αἰωνία (Heb. 9:12; 2 Th. 2:16, 
and often as a variant reading); ἕτοιμος (Mt. 25:10) and ἑτοίμη 
(1 Pet. 1:5); μάταιος (Jas. 1:26) and ματαία (1 Pet. 1:18); ὅμοιος 
(Rev. 4:3, second example correct text) and ὁμοία (Rev. 9:10, 


1 K.-Bl., I, p. 547 £. 2 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 143. 
3 W.-M., p. 80. But ef. W.-Sch., p. 97. 
+ Blass τ Ὁ Wel Gk pac: 5 Tb. 


6 Cf. K.-BL., I, p. 535 f., for fuller list. Some of the simple verbals in —ros 
also had no fem., as ὥνητος. 


7 In the LXX we see a very slight tendency towards giving a fem. form to 
all adjs. Thack., Gr., Ὁ. 172. 





THE DECLENSIONS (ΚΛΙΣΕΙΣ) 273 


though W. H. put ὁμοίοις in the margin instead of ὀμοίας, 19); ὅσιος 
(1 Tim. 2:8; so probably, though ὁσίους may be construed with 
éxaipovras instead of χεῖρας). The early Attic inscriptions furnish 
examples of two endings with such adjectives as δόκιμος (no fem- 
inine example in the N. T.) and λοιπός with either two or three 
(N. T. only three)! The papyri furnish ἔρημος and οὐράνιος as 
feminine and others not so used in the N. T., as δίκαιος, μέτριος, 
σσπόριμος." It was the rule with compound adjectives to have only 
two endings, for the most of them never developed a feminine 
form, as ὁ (ἡ) ἄλογος. This. tendency survives in the inscriptions, 
especially with compounds of a— privative and prepositions, and 
in the papyri also we have abundant examples.’ The N. T. usage 
is well illustrated by 1 Pet. 1:4, εἰς κληρονομίαν ἅφθαρτον καὶ ἀμίαν- 
Tov Kal ἀμάραντον. Cf. Jas. 3:17. 

(c) ADJECTIVES WITH THREE TERMINATIONS. The great ma- 
jority of Greek adjectives, like ἀγαθός, —7, -όν, developed three 
endings and continue normal (cf. Thumb, Handbook, p. 68), as 
is universal in the modern Greek. Some of the compound adjec- 
tives also had three endings, especially compounds in --ἰκός and 
πιος, aS μοναρχική, avakia (Plato). The same thing is observed in 
the inscriptions® and the papyri.’ In the N. T. we have several 
examples, as ἀργός, —7 (Attic always ἀργός, though Epimenides has 
—n) in 1 Tim. 5:18; Tit. 1:12; Jas. 2:: 20 according to BC. In 
Mk. 4 : 28 αὐτομάτη is not entirely new, for classic writers use it. 
In 2 Jo. 13 (and probably also 1) we have ἐκλεκτή. In Mt. 4:13 
the MSS. give zapafadaccia, but D has τιον. However, in Lu. 
6 : 17 παράλιος is the feminine form, though occasionally the LXX 
and older Greek had --ἰα, varying like the other compounds in 
πιος. Other adjectives of three endings belong to the third and 


1 Cf. Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 148. Cf. also αἰώνιος, κόσμιος, in Magnesia 
(Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 140). Aristophanes used βασίλειος, βέβαιος, μακά- 
ριος, οὐράνιος, πάτριος With two endings (ἃ. Wirth, De Motione Adjectivorum, 
1880, p. 51). This is true also of Euripides (ib., p. 49 f.). For further discus- 
sion of adjectives with two endings see Wilhelm, Zur Motion der Adjec. dreier 
End. in Griech. etc., p. 23; Wilhelm, Der Sprachgebr. der Lukianos etc., p. 
23. Cf. Helbing, Gr. ἃ. Sept., p. 57f. On the whole the LXX shows the ex- 
tension of the fem. so that adjs. which in Attic have two or three terminations 
have three in the LX X (ἄγριος, βέβαιος, δίκαιος, ἐλεύθερος, μάταιος). Thack., Gr., 
p. 172. ' 

2 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p.289f. 8 K.-BI., I, p. 588. 

4 Cf. Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 141; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 158; 
Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 291. 

’ K.-BI., I, p. 538 f. 6 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 158. 

7 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 291. 


274 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the first declensions, like ὀξύς, ὀξεῖα, ὀξύ; πᾶς, πᾶσα, πᾶν; ἑκών, ἑκοῦσα, 
ἑκόν; μέλας, μέλαινα, μέλαν; μέγας, μεγάλη, μέγα; πολύς, πολλή, πολύ. 
Cf. the perfect active participle in —ws, τυῖα, -ός The LXX MSS. 
sometimes have πᾶν as indeclinable (πᾶν τὸν τόπον, etc.) like 
πλήρης. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 51. Indeclinable πλήρης 
is retained by Swete in Sir. 19:26. Cf. Helbing, 2b. See (/f) 
below. 

(qd) ΤῊΝ AcCUSATIVE SINGULAR. Some adjectives of the third 
declension have ν after the analogy of the first declension. See 
this chapter, 1, 5, (g), for the discussion in detail. W. H. reject 
them all, though in a few cases the testimony is strong.!_ They are 
ἀσεβῆν (Ro. 4: 5), ἀσφαλῆν (Heb. 6:19), μείζων (Jo. 5:36), συγγενῆν 
(Ro. 16: 11), ὑγιῆν (Jo. 5:11). The use of irrational ν with μείζω 
(Jo. 5:36 μείζων in ABEGMA) is likened by Moulton (Prol., p. 49) 
to irrational ν with subjunctive 7 (ἦν). Cf. ch. VI, m (ὦ. 

(e) CONTRACTION IN ADJECTIVES. ‘Two points are involved, 
the fact of contraction (or the absence of it) and the use of a or 
n after εὐ, p. The uncontracted forms of adjectives are not so 
common as is the case with substantives. Cf. this chapter, I, 6, 
(b). The contracted forms are practically confined to forms in 
πους, like ἁπλοῦς, διπλοῦς, ἀργυροῦς, πορφυροῦς, σιδηροῦς, χαλκοῦς, 
χρυσοῦς. Here again we have a still further limitation, for the 
uncontracted forms occur chiefly in the Apocalypse and in & 
and in the case of xpvaots.2 Cf. Rev. 4:4; 5:8, where δὰ reads 
χρυσέους, —€as. But in Rey. 2:1 NPB read χρυσῶν, while AC have 
χρυσέων. Χρυσᾶν in Rev. 1:13, though accepted by W. H. and 
read by NAC, is rejected by Blass, but admitted by Debrunner 
(p. 28), as shown on p. 257. P. Lond. reads χρυσᾶν ἢ ἀργυρᾶν, and 
L. P.” (ii/iii A.p.) also has χρυσῆν ἢ apyupiv.s In each instance 
probably analogy has been at work.* Thackeray (Gr., p. 172 f.) 
gives a very few uncontracted forms in —eos in the LXX. W. H. 
accept the genitive βαθέως in Lu. 24:1 and πραξως in 1 Pet. 3:4 
instead of the usual form in τος. Hort® considers the variations 
in ἥμισυς as “curious,” but they find abundant parallel in the 


1 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 157 f. For pap. exx. of ὑγιῆν see Mayser, Gr. d. 
griech. Pap., p. 295. Thack. (Gr., p. 146) considers it a vulgarism, though it 
began as early as iv/B.c. (see Σωκράτην, τριήρην). It is common ii/A.D. 

2 Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 157; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 25. Cf. Hel- 
bing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 34f., for LXX. 

3 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, pp. 35, 435. 

4 Moulton, Prol., p. 48. Cf. τὴν ἱερὴν κεφαλήν on Rom. tomb (Kaibel, Epi- 
gram. Graeca, 1878, p. 269). 

5 Notes on Orth., p. 158. 





| 
d 
q 
: 
| 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEIS) 275 


papyri as does χρυσέων above.t In Mk. 6:23 ἡμίσους, not —eos, 
is the genitive form, the usual (probably only) form in the pa- 
pyri.2 The neuter plural ἡμίσεα has practically no support in Lu. 
19:8, though ἡμίση is the Text. Rec. on the authority of late 
uncials and cursives. Τὰ ἡμίσυ has slight support. W. H. read 
τὰ ἡμίσια (NBQ 382, L having itacistic --εια) and derive it from a 
possible jyicvos.2 But it is possible, if not probable, that ἡμίσεια 
was the earlier form changed by itacism to ἡμίσια. The plural of 
νῆστις is νήστεις (Mk. 8:3; Mt. 15:32), and not νήστις as already 
shown.’ For participles in -ουῖα, —vins see this chapter, 1, 5, (ὦ. 
As a rule the forms in —vins and —pys predominate, but note orelpa 
in Lu. 1:36. In the case of ὑγιής, whereas the Attic had accu- 
sative ὑγιᾶ (ὑγιῆ in Plato, Phadr. 89 d), the N. T., like the inscrip- 
tions, papyri and the LXX, has only ὑγιῆ (Jo. 5:11, 15; 7: 23).7 
In Jo. 18:1 χειμάρρου is almost certainly from χείμαρρος instead of 
the classical χειμάρροος.5 In 2 Pet. 2:5 ὄγδοον is not contracted, 
though sometimes the papyri have ὄγδους, dydouv.? 

(f) INDECLINABLE ApsEcTIVES. The papyri have cleared up 
two points of much interest here. One is the use of πλήρης in 
N. T. MSS. in an oblique case. In Mk. 4:28 Hort (Appendiz, 
p. 24) suggests πλήρης σῖτον (C* two lectionaries) as probably the 
original. In Ac. 6:5 W. H. put ἄνδρα πλήρης in the margin, 
though πλήρη is read only by B among the MSS. of importance. 
In Jo. 1:14 all the MSS. (save D 5 followed by Chrys. and 
Theoph.) have πλήρης. Moulton” indeed suggests that πλήρη was 
the original text, which was changed to the vulgar πλήρης. But 
the argument can be turned round just as easily. In almost 
every N. T. instance of an oblique case of πλήρης good uncials 
have the indeclinable form (Moulton, Prol., p. 50). The LXX 
also has examples of indeclinable πλήρης (cf. Hort, Appendix, p. 

1 Χρυσέῳ is exceedingly common in the pap. (Moulton, Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901, 

. 485). 
2 ‘eae Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 294f. Cf. also Deiss., B. S., p. 186; Moul- 
ton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 34. So also the LXX, Thack., Gr., p. 179. 

3 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 158. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 87. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. 
Sept., p. 52. 

4 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 87. Ἡμίσεια occurs in Antoninus Liberalis (ab. 150 a.p.) 
and οἰκεῖος is analogous. 

5 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 157. ΘΠ ΠΕ GreoteNa LGks p. 25. 

7 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 35. For adjs. with acc. in -- (and sometimes 
v added, --ν) see Dieterich, Unters., p. 175. Cf. this ch., τα, 2, (ὦ. 

8 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 25. 9 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 294. 

10 Prol., p. 50. See Crénert, Mem., p. 179; Turner, Jour. Theol. St., I, pp. 
100 ff. Milligan (N. T. Doc. s, p. 65) finds one ex. of indecl. πλήρης B.C. 


2°76 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


24). So Job 21:24, NABC. The examples of πλήρης so used are 
‘fairly common” in the papyri’ and come as early as the second 
century B.c.2. There seems therefore no reason to refuse to con- 
sider πλήρης in Jo. 1:14 as accusative and to accept it as the text 
in Mk. 4:28 and Ac. 6:5. The other example of indeclinable 
adjectives is found in comparative forms in —w, like πλείω. Moul- 
ton? points out that in Mt. 26 : 53 NBD read πλείω δώδεκα λεγιῶνας, 
while the later MSS. have mended the grammar with πλείους. 
He quotes also Crénert* who has furnished abundant evidence 
from the papyri and literature of such a use of these forms just 
like πλήρης. Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Papyri, p. 63 f. 

3. Comparison of Adjectives. The comparative is a natural 
development in the adjective, as the adjective itself is a growth 
on the substantive. 

(a) Tue Positive (θετικὸν ὄνομα OR ὄνομα ἁπλοῦν). This is the 
oldest form of the adjective, the most common and the most per- 
sistent. It is not always true that the comparative and superla- 
tive forms represent an actually higher grade than the positive. 
The good is sometimes more absolute than better or even best. 
See ἀγαθός in Mk. 10: 18, for instance. Sometimes indeed the posi- 
tive itself is used to suggest comparison as in Mt. 18:9, καλόν σοί 
ἐστιν εἰσελθεῖν. . . ἢ δύο χεῖρας, κτλ. This construction is common 
in the LX X, suggested perhaps by the absence of comparison in 
Hebrew.®> The tendency of the later Greek is also constantly to 
make one of the degrees do duty for two. Cf. Thackeray, Gr., 
p. 181. But this matter belongs rather to the syntax of compari- 
son. Participles are, of course, used only in the positive save in 
a few cases where the adjective-idea has triumphed wholly over 
the verb-conception.® Verbals in —ros sometimes have comparison, 
though μᾶλλον may be freely used with participles. 

(b) THe CoMPARATIVE (συγκριτικὸν ὄνομα). The stem may be 
(besides adjective) either a substantive (βασιλεύ-τερος) or an adverb 
(πρό-τερο). Cf. Monro, Homeric Grammar, Ὁ. 82. The primary 
comparative-ending —vw» (Sanskrit 7yans) is probably kin to the ad- 
jective-ending --ἰος. 1 This form along with the superlative -τπιστος is 
ΟΣ Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 35. For the indecl. πλήρης in Acta Thomae see 
Reinhold, De Graec. ete., p. 24. Cf. Sir. 19:26. See Helbing, Gr. ἃ. Sept., 
p. 52. It is not till i/a.p. that it is common in the pap. Thack. (Gr., p. 176) 
thinks it not genuine in the LX X. 

2 Ib., p. 485. But see Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 297. 

δὲ Prol., p. 50; 4 Philologus, LXI., pp. 161 ff. 5 W.-M., p. 302. 


6 K.-BL, I, p. 553; Schwab, Die Hist. Synt. d. griech. Comparative, 3. 
Heft, 1895, pp. 152 ff. 7 Hirt, Handb. ete., p. 290; Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 30. 





THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEIS) 260 


probably originally qualitative in idea and does not necessarily 
imply excess. In the modern Greek these forms are not used at all.4 
They have disappeared before the secondary comparative form 
—repos, which even in the earlier Greek is far more common. The 
ending —repos does imply excess and appears in various words that 
are not usually looked upon as comparatives, as ἕσττερος (‘one of 
two’), éxa-repos (‘each of two’), ἡμέ-τερος (nos-ter), ὑμέ-τερος (vos-ter), 
vo-tepos.2 So also det-repos like πρό-τερος (cf. Latin al-ter, Eng- 
lish other) is a comparative form.? ‘The comparison-suffixes wr, 
ιστος, Tepos belong to the Indo-Germanic ground speech.’’4 In the 
N. T. the forms in -wy, as in the papyri,® hold their own only 
in the most common words. Schwab (op. cit., p. 5) makes —aros 
older than —raros. ’Apetywy is not used in the N. T. and Ba- 
τιον only as an adverb once (2 Tim. 1:18). ᾿Ελάσσων appears 
four times, once about age as opposed to μείζων (Ro. 9:12), once 
about rank as opposed to κρείσσων (Heb. 7:7), once about excel- 
lence (Jo. 2:10) as again opposed to κρείσσων, and once as an 
adverb (ἔλασσον, 1 Tim. 5:9) in the sense of less, not μικρότερος 
(‘smaller’). ‘Hooov (neuter only) is found in 1 Cor. 11:17 as op- 
posed to κρεῖσσον, and as an adverb in 2 Cor. 12:15. Κάλλιον (Ac. 
25:10) is an adverb. Κρείσσων is confined to Peter, Paul’s Epis- 
tles and Hebrews (some eighteen examples, ten of them in Heb.). 
Μείζων is common (some fifty times), though some of them dis- 
place the superlative as we shall see directly. The neuter plural 
(μείζονα) appears once as μείζω (Jo. 1:50). Once also (3 Jo. 4) 
the double comparative form μειζότερος occurs, several simi- 
lar examples appearing in the papyri, as μειζότερος, μελαντώτερον, 
πρεσβυτερωτέρα. A few other examples in poetry and late Greek 
are cited by Winer-Moulton,® like κρειττότερος, μειζονότερος, μειζό- 


1 Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 73. 

2 Cf. Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 292; Brug., Indoger. Forsch., 1903, pp. 7 ff. 

3 Cf. Ascoli in Curtius’ Stud. zur griech. und lat. Gr., 1876, p. 351. 

4 Schwab, Hist. Synt. d. griech. Comp., Heft I, 1893, p. 3. 

5 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 298. He mentions βελτίων, ἐλάσσων, 
ἥσσων, πλείων (πλέων). For the inscr., Nachm. (Magn. Inschr., p. 143) adds 
ἀμείνων and μείζων. 

6 The pap. have many exx. of the form without ν as in πλείω (ους), ete. See 
Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 298 ff. But the usage varies greatly. The 
LXX MSS. show similar variations. See Helbing, Gr. ἃ. Sept., p. 54f. As 
LXX exx. of uniformity in form of comp. note ἀγαθώτερος and αἰσχρότερος, but 
only ἐγγίων (--στος), not ἐγγύτερος (—raros), C. and §., Sel. fr. LX_X, p. 29. Thack. 
(Gr., pp. 184 ff.) gives a careful summary of the exx. of -πιων, τιστος in the LXX. 

7 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, pp. 35, 4385. 

8 P. 81. Cf. also Dieterich, Unters. etc., p. 180, for δλιζότερος. 


278 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


repos itself, μειότερος, πλειότερος. Cf. English vernacular “lesser.”’ 
Τάχιον (W. H. eov), not θᾶσσον, is the N. T. form as we read in 
the papyri also.! Cf. Jo. 20:4, etc. Χείρων is found a dozen times 
(cf. Mt. 9:16). The ending —repos is more and more. the usual 
one. Cf. τομώτερος (Heb. 4:12). Some comparative adjectives 
are derived from positive adverbs like ἐξώτερος (Mt. 8:12), 
ἐσώτερος (Ac. 16: 24),. κατώτερος (Eph. 4:9). These latter adjec- 
tives are common in the LXX and the later Greek, not to say 
Attic sometimes.? Διπλότερος (Mt. 23:15) is for the old Attic 
διπλούστερος. So Appian also. Cf. ἁπλότερον, Anthol. Pal., III, 
158 (Dieterich, Unters., Ὁ. 181). The Ionic already had ὀλιγώτερος 
and taxtrepos (Radermacher, Gr., p. 56). Cf. ἀγαθώτερος (Hermas, 
Mand. VIII, 9, 11) and ἀγαθώτατος (Diod., 16, 85). The rules 
for the use of —wrepos and -ὀτερος apply in the N. T. As μᾶλλον 
is often used with the positive in lieu of the comparative ending, 
so it is sometimes with the comparative, a double comparative 
(μᾶλλον κρεῖσσον, Ph. 1:23; μᾶλλον περισσότερον, Mk. 7:36), a 
construction not unknown to the classic orators of Athens where 
emphasis was desired.’ Paul did not perpetrate a barbarism when 
he used ἐλαχιστότερος (Eph. 3:8), a comparative on a superlative. 
It “is correctly formed according to the rule of the common 
language.’’* Cf. also such a late form as écxarwrepos.® 

(c) THE SUPERLATIVE (ὑπερθετικὸν ὄνομα). As with the com- 
parative, so with the superlative there are primary and secondary 
forms. The primary superlative ending --πιστος (old Indian isthas, 
Zend. and Goth. ἐξέα) ὁ did not perhaps represent the true super- 
lative so much as the elative (intensive like English “ very’’) super- 
lative.” It was never very widely used and has become extinct in 
modern Greek.’ The κοινή inscriptions show only a few examples 
like ἄγχιστα, ἔγγιστα, κάλλιστος, κράτιστος, μέγιστος, πλεῖστος.39ϑ In 
the papyri Mayser! notes βέλτιστον, ἐλάχιστον (--ἰστη also), καλλί- 
στη, κράτιστος, πλεῖστοι, ταχίστην (--πιστα), χειρίστην. In the N. T., 
however, the superlative in -πιστος is more common than that in 
—ratos, though none too frequent in itself. They are besides usu- 
ally elative (intensive) and not true superlatives. D reads ἔγ- 

1 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 35. Cf. also ἀμεινότερος in the older language 
(Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 34). 2 W.-M., p. 81; Thack., Gr., p. 183. 

3 Schwab, Hist. Synt. ete., Heft III, p. 65. 

4 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 34. 5 W.-M., p. 81, Jann., Ὁ. 147. 

6 K.-Bl., I, p. 554; Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 291. 

7 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 30. 8 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 144. 


9 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 160; Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 143. 
10 Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 298. i Blass, ;GrofNoabaGke pase: 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEIS) 279 


γιστα in Mk. 6: 36. ‘O ἐλάχιστος (1 Cor. 15:9) is a true superla- 
tive, a thing so rare in the N. T. that Blass! attributes this ex- 
ample either to the literary language or to corruption in the 
text.! But Moulton? is able to find a parallel in the Tb.P. 24, 
ii/B.c. But more about true and elative superlatives in Syntax 
(ch. XIV, xtv). In 2 Cor. 12:9, 15 (D in Ac. 13:8), we have 
ἥδιστα. Kpariore (Lu. 1: 3, etc.) is “only a title” (Moulton, 
p. 78). Μάλιστα appears a dozen times only, though μᾶλλον is 
exceedingly common. Blass* indeed suggests that a popular sub- 
stitute for μάλιστα as for πλεῖστα was found in the use of περισσός. 
This is much more true of the use of περισσός as the equivalent of 
μᾶλλον or πλείων (cf. Mt. 5:37; 27: 23). Paul uses the comparative 
adverb περισσοτέρως (Ph. 1:14. Cf. double comparative in Mk. 
7:36). In Heb. 7:15 (ef. 2:1; 13:19 —ws) περισσότερον ἔτι κατά- 
δηλον we have more than μᾶλλον. Cf. μέγιστος (2 Pet. 1:4) and 
mietoros in Mt. 11: 20; 21:8; 1 Cor. 14:27. Τάχιστα (Ac. 17: 15) 
Blass‘ credits again to the literary element in Luke. In ὕψιστος 
we have a superlative that occurs thirteen times and always 
about God or heaven (as Mk. 5:7; 11:10). 

When we take up the form in —ra7os in the N. T. the story is 
soon told. Brugmann® finds the origin of this ending in forms 
like δέκατος (cf. Latin decimus), πρῶτος (cf. Latin primus), ὕπατος, 
ὕστατος. It has no direct parallel in the other languages.® Hirt? 
suggests —rayos and —atos as two forms which finally resulted in 
—ratos. It is true that the forms in --ατος faded away as superla- 
tives and ἔσχατον became ἐσχατώτατον in the κοινή inscriptions,’ 
but this is true also of the forms in —raros.? The papyri have 
“‘scores”’ of examples of superlatives in —raros (chiefly elative).!° 
The rarity of the --τατος forms in the N T. may be purely acci- 
dental (Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 154). It is not quite true that 


1 Th. Siar Of oN Gea pesaits 

pPProl> 7.1/9; 4 Ib., p. 33. 

5 Indog. Forsch., 1903, pp. 7-9. Ascoli (Curtius’ Stud., etc., 1876, p. 351) 
suggests τρίτος (cf. Hom. rpiraros.) also. Cf. also ἔσχατος. 

6 Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 294. 0: 

8 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 161. 

9 This double superl. does not appear in the N. T., but various instances 
are noted in the pap. and the later Gk. as ἐλαχιστότατος, μεγιστότατος, πρώτιστα. 
So Lat. minissimus, pessimissimus. Cf. W.-M., p. 81; Dieterich, Unters., 
p. 181. 

10 Moulton, Prol., p. 78; Mayser, Gr. ἃ. griech. Pap., p. 297 f. See Helbing, 
Gr. d. Sept., pp. 54-57, for corresponding infrequency of the superl. forms in 
the LXX. The compar. is driving it out. Cf. also ib., p. vil. 


280 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


“only one example of the —raros superlative” (Moulton, Prol., 
p. 78) survives in the N. T. There are three with —raros, besides 
those with —aros: ἁγιώτατος (Ju. 20), ἀκριβέστατος (Acts 26: 5), τιμιώ- 
τατος (Rev. 18:12; 21:11). Thackeray (Gr., p. 182) finds —raros 
much more common in the LXX, though chiefly in the elative 
sense and in the more literary books of the LXX (Wisd., 2-4 
Mace., Prov., Esd.). ᾿Ακριβέστατος (Ac. 26: 5) Blass again credits 
to the literary language. "ἔσχατος and πρῶτος (w from wera, Doric 
ἃ) are both very frequent in the N. T. See Mt. 19:30 for the 
contrasted πρῶτοι ἔσχατοι κτλ. The very. great number of times 
that πρῶτος (πρῶτον included) is used in the N. T. (some 200) in 
contrast to only ten instances of πρότερον and one of προτέρα (Eph. 
4:22) deserves comment. This seems in conflict with the ob- 
served disuse of the superlative in favour of the comparative. But 
a counter-tendency is at work here. The disappearance of dual- 
ity before plurality has worked against πρότερον. Luke does not 
use πρότερον at all and it appears only once in Grenfell and Hunt’s 
four volumes of papyri.!. The LX X shows πρῶτος displacing πρότε- 
pos (Thackeray, Gr., p. 183). So in English we say first story of 
a house with only two, first edition of a book which had only two, 
etc. It is almost an affectation in Greek and English, however 
good Latin it may be, to insist on πρότερος. So in Jo. 1:15 (πρῶ- 
tos pov), 15:18 (πρῶτον ὑμῶν), Ac. 1:1 (τὸν πρῶτον λόγον) we have 
merely first of two and in the two first instances the ablative con- 
struction as with the comparative. Winer properly saw this usage 
of πρῶτον to be true to the Greek genius. In Mt. 27: 64 we have 
both ἔσχατος and πρῶτος used of two, ἔσται ἡ ἐσχάτη πλάνη χείρων 
τῆς πρώτης. Ilporepos is indeed used in the sense of the former in 
Eph. 4: 22, whereas πρότερον in the sense of the first of two does 
appear in Heb. 7:27 (πρότερον --- ἔπειτα). It is probably a de- 
fect in both Latin and Greek that the same forms were used to 
express the elative and true superlative sense (so as to compara- 
tive 8150). As the dual vanished, so it was inevitable that with 
the same principle at work either the comparative or the superla- 
tive would. Outside of ἔσχατος and πρῶτος where the principle 
crossed -with a different application because πρότερος was dis- 
appearing, it is the superlative that goes down, especially the true 
superlative as opposed to the elative (intensive). Hermas, though 
in the vernacular, still uses the superlative in the elative (inten- 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 79 8 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 34. 
2 W.-M., p. 306. 4 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 30. 





THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEI=) 281 


sive) sense very often.! In the N. T. then the comparative is 
beginning to take the place of the superlative, a usage occasion- 
ally found in classical Greek,? and found now and then in the 
papyri.? See 1 Cor. 13:18 τὰ τρία ταῦτα μείζων δὲ τούτων ἡ ἀγάπη. 
See also ὁ μείζων (Mt. 18:4). But this matter will call for more 
comment under Syntax (ch. XIV, x1, (7)). 


ΠῚ. NUMERALS (’APIOMOI). 


No great space is demanded for the discussion of the non- 
syntactical aspects of the numerals. ; 

1. The Origin of Numerals. Donaldson‘ thinks that seven of 
the first ten numerals may be traced to primitive pronominal ele- 
ments. Pronouns and numerals belong to the stable elements of 
language, and the numerals are rather more stable than the pro- 
nouns in the Indo-Germanic tongues.® See the numerals in sub- 
stantial integrity in modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., pp. 80-84). 
The system of numeration is originally decimal (cf. fingers and 
toes) with occasional crossing of the duodecimal.* There possibly 
were savages who could not count beyond two, but one doubts if 
the immediate ancestors of the Indo-Germanic peoples were so 
primitive as that.? See previous discussion in this chapter, I, 3. 
Counting is one of the first and easiest things that the child 
learns. It is certain that the original Indo-Germdnic stock had 
numerals up to 100 before it separated... The roots are wide- 
spread and fairly uniform. 

2. Variety among Numerals. 

(a) DirrERENT Functions. The numerals may be either sub- 
stantive, adjective or adverb. So ἡ χιλιάς (Lu. 14:31), χίλιοι 
(2 Pet. 3:8), ἑπτάκις (Mt. 18:21).2. Number thus embraces sep- 
arate ideas. 

(Ὁ) THe CarpINALs (ὀνόματα ἀριθμητικαά). They may be either 
declinable or indeclinable, and this according to no very well-de- 
fined principle. The first four are declinable, possibly from their 
frequent use.!° After 200 (δια-κόσιοι, --αι, --α) they have the regular 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 33. He cites the mod. Italian also which makes 
no distinction between the comp. and superl. 

2 Schwab, Hist. Synt. d. griech. Comp., II, pp. 172 ff. 

3 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 499. 5 Giles, Man., etc., p. 393. 
4 New Crat., p. 294. 6 Tb. 

7 However, see Moulton, Prol., p. 58. Cf. Taylor, Prim. Cult., I, p. 242 f. 
8 Moulton, Prol., p. 58. 

® Cf. K.-BL, I, p. 621 -f. 10 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 35. 


282 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


inflection of adjectives of the second and first declensions. The 
history of εἷς, ula, ἕν is very interesting, for which see the compara- 
tive grammars.! Eis is exceedingly common in the N. T. as a 
cardinal (Mt. 25:15) and as an indefinite pronoun (Mt. 8 : 19), 
approaching the indefinite article. For the use of eis in sense 
of ordinal see Syntax, ch. XIV, xv, (a), but it may be remarked 
here that the papyri have τῇ μιᾷ καὶ εἰκάδι (Moulton, Cl. Rev., 
1901, p. 35). The indeclinable use of eis (or adverbial use of κατά) 
is common in later Greek. Cf. καθ᾽ εἷς in Mk. 14: 19; (Jo. 8: 9); 
Ro. 12: 5.2 So modern Greek uses ἕνα as neuter with which 
Mayser® compares ἕνα as feminine on an early ostrakon. But the 
modern Greek declines ἕνας, μία, ἕνα in all genders (Thumb, Handb., 
p. 81). Οὐδείς and μηδείς are both very common in the N. T. with 
the inflection of eis. Μηθείς occurs only once (Ac. 27:33). W. H. 
admit οὐθείς only seven times (all in Luke and Paul, as Ac. 20: Bo), 
and once (Ac. 15:9) οὐδέν is in the margin. Jannaris (Hist. Gk. 
Gr., p. 170) calls this form in 6 chiefly Alexandrian, rare in Attic, 
but Mayser (Gr., p. 180) notes οὐδείς as ‘‘Neubildung” while 
οὐθείς is good Attic. For history of it see Orthography and Pho- 
netics, 3, (f). The frequent use of δύο as indeclinable save in the 
plural form δυσί in the later Greek has already been commented 
on in this chapter (1, 3), as well as the disappearance of ἄμφω be- 
fore ἀμφότεροι. Indeclinable δύο is classical, and after Aristotle δυσί 
is the normal dative (Thackeray, Gr., p. 186). Τρία (possibly also 
Tpts) is occasionally indeclinable in the papyri.* —The common use 
of τέσσερα in the κοινή and the occasional occurrence of τέσσαρες 
as accusative in N. 'T. MSS. (like Northwest Greek) have been 
noticed in chapters VI, 2, (a), and VII, 1, 7, (ο). Πέντε, ἕξ and ἑπτά 
need not detain us. The originally dual form ὀκτώ is found only 
ten times, and five of them with other numerals. ’*Evvéa appears 
only five times, while δέκα is nothing like so common as ἑπτά, not 
to mention the first five cardinals. “Evéexa is found six times, but 
δώδεκα 1S quite common, due chiefly to the frequent mention of the 
Apostles. From thirteen to nineteen in the N. T., like the pa- 
pyri’ and the modern Greek, δέκα comes first, usually without καί, 


1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 211; Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 311; Giles, Man., p. 394. 
On numerals in the LXX see Thack., Gr., pp. 186-190; C. and S., Sel. fr. the 
ΧΙ a0 ἢ 2 Cf. W.-M., p. 312. So ἀνὰ els (Rev. 21:21). 

3 Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 312. Perhaps the earliest ex. of indeclinable ἕνα. 
For the LX X usage cf. W.-Sch., p. 90. 

4 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 315. 

5 Ib. Cf. also Dittenb., 674. 28. 6 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 316. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KATZEIS) 283 


as δέκα ὀκτὠ (Lu. 13:4), though once with καί (Lu. 18:16). But 
unlike the papyri the N. T. never has δεκαδύο. But δεκαπέντε (as 
Jo. 11:18) and δεκατέσσαρες (as Gal. 2:1) occur several times 
each. Εἴκοσι is a dual form, while τριάκοντα and so on are plural.’ 
‘Exarov is one hundred like ἅ-παξ. W. H. accent ἑκατονταετής, not 
—érys. Usually no conjunction is used with these numerals, as 
εἴκοσι τέσσαρες (Rev. 19 : 4), ἑκατὸν εἴκοσι (Ac. 1:15), but τεσσαρά- 
kovra Kal €& (Jo. 2:20). Cf. Rev. 13:18. In the LXX there is 
no fixed order for numbers above the “teens.” Thackeray, Gr., 
p. 188. The N. T. uses χίλιοι often and δισχίλιοι once (Mk. 5 : 13) 
and τρισχίλιοι once (Ac. 2:41). The Ν. T. examples of μυρίος by 
reason of case do not distinguish between μύριοι, ‘ten thousand’ 
(Mt. 18:24) and μυρίοι, ‘many thousands’ (1 Cor. 4:15). The 
N. T. uses μυριάς several times for the latter idea (‘myriads’), some- 
times repeated, as μυριάδες μυριάδων (Rev. 5:11). So also χιλιάς 
is more common in the N. T. than χίλιοι, both appearing chiefly 
in Revelation (cf. 5:11). In Rev. 13:18 B and many cursives 
have χἕς' ΞΞ ἑξακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα ἕξ, while the cursive 5 has yxus’ = ἑξακό- 
ovo δέκα ἕξ. As arule in the N. T. MSS. the numbers are spelled 
out instead of mere signs being used. 

(c) Tue ORDINALS (ὀνόματα τακτικά). They describe rank and 
raise the question of order, πόστος. They are all adjectives of 
three endings and all have the superlative form --τὸς save πρό- 
tepos and dev-repos which are comparative.t| In most cases the 
ordinals are made from the same stem as the cardinals.6 But 
this is not true of πρῶτος nor indeed of δεύ-τερος (not from δύο, but 
from devouar).6 Cf. the English superlative ‘first’ (with suffix —7sto). 
Πρῶτος has driven πρότερος out of use in the N. T. except as an 
adverb (or τὸ πρότερον) save in one instance, προτέραν ἀναστροφήν 
(Eph. 4:22). The disappearance of πρῶτος before the ordinal 
use of εἷς belongs to Syntax. In the N. T. as in the papyri?® the 
ordinals up to twelve are regular. Ifrom 13 to 19 the N. T., like the 
vernacular papyri’ (so Ionic and κοινή generally), puts the smaller 


1 Δέκα δύο is normal in the pap. of the Ptol. age. Cf. Rec., Ac. 19:7. Cf. 
Thack., Gr., p. 188. So also δέκα τρεῖς, and even δέκα μιᾶς once. Always 
δέκα τέσσαρες, δέκα πέντε, δέκα ὀκτώ. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 35. 

2 Giles, Man., p. 398. 

3 K.-Bl., I, p. 622. Cf. Brug., πόστος; Cl. Philol., 1907, p. 208. 

4 These both have a superl., as πρῶτος and δεύτατος (Hom.). Brug., Gk. Gr., 
p. 212. 

5 Giles, Man., p. 400. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 212; Moulton, Prol., p. 95 f. 

6 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 318. 

7 Ib. Cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 35. 


284 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


number first and as a compound with καί, only the second half of 
the word in the ordinal form. So τεσσαρεσκαιδέκατος (Ac. 27: 27), 
not τέταρτος καὶ δέκατος (Attic). But the papyri show examples 
of the usual Attic method,? as ἔνατος καὶ εἰκοστός. The distinction 
between the decades (like τριακοστός) and the hundreds (like τρια- 
κοσιοστός) should be noted. In modern Greek all the ordinals 
have disappeared out of the vernacular save πρῶτος, δεύτερος, τρί- 
τος, τέταρτος The article with the cardinal is used instead. 

(d) DISTRIBUTIVES IN THE N. T. The multiplicative distrib- 
utives (with ending --πλοῦς) occur in the N. T. also. ᾿Απλοῦς as an 
adjective is found only twice (Mt. 6 : 22; Lu. 11: 34), both times 
about the eye. δΔιπλοῦς appears four times (as 1 Tim. 5:17). 
Cf. the Latin sim-plex, du-plex, English simple, diplomatic. The 
proportional distributives end in -πλασίων. As examples one 
may note ἑκατονταπλασίονα (Lu. 8:8) and πολλαπλασίονα (Lu. 18 : 
30). Cf. English “two-fold,” “three-fold,” etc. One of the com- 
monest ways of expressing distribution is by repetition of the 
numeral as in δύο δύο (Mk. 6:7). Cf. συμπόσια συμπόσια (Mk. 6: 
39 f.). In Lu. 10:1 we have ἀνὰ δύο δύο in the text of W. H., a 
“mixed distributive” (Moulton, Prol., p. 97). The modern Greek 
has either ἀπὸ δυό or δυὸ δυό (Thumb, Handb., p. 83). It is a 
vernacular idiom which was given fresh impetus (Brugmann, 
Distributiva, p. 9) from the Hebrew idiom. Deissmann cites τρία 
τρία from O. P. 121 (iii/a.p.). Moulton (Prol., p. 21) follows 
Thumb (Hellen., p. 152) in denying that it is a Hebraism. See 
further ch. XIV, xv (d). ) 

(e) NuMERAL ApvERBS. These are of two kinds, either like 
ἅμα (Ac. 24: 26), δίχα, ‘in two’ (not in the N. T., though see διχάζω 
Mt. 10 : 35), or like ἅπαξ, dis, τρίς, etc. The one kind answers to 
multiplicatives and the other to proportionals.4’ The numeral ad- 
verbs continue in use in the LX X (Thackeray, Gr., p. 189 f.). The 
modern Greek instead of the numeral adverb uses φορά (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 88). 


IV. PRONOUNS (ANTONYMIAIT) 


1. Idea of Pronouns. It is not the idea of a subject or object 
that is set forth by the pronoun, but the relation of a subject or 
object to the speaker.’ Sometimes, to be sure, as in conversation, 

1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 35. So the LXX also. Thack., Gr., p. 188. 

2 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 35. And even the use of forms like ἕν xat 
εἰκοστόν, Mayser, Gr. ἃ. griech. Pap., p. 318. 

8. Thumb, Handb. d. neugr. Volksspr., p. 56. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., 
Ὁ 175: 4 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 36. 5 K.-BL., I, p. 579. 





THE DECLENSIONS (KAISEI=) 285 


the pronoun does not strictly stand in the place of a substantive. 
When one person addresses another, “I”? and “‘thou”’ are plain 
enough from the nature of the circumstances. The pronoun in- 
dicates, but does not name the speaker, etc. In a sense then 
language is a sort of drama in which there are three characters, 
the speaker, the person addressed and the person spoken οἵ. 
Hence the first and second personal pronouns have no gender, 
while the third person, who may or may not be present, has gen- 
der. Giles? cites the case of Macaulay who repeated the substan- 
tive so often as almost to make the pronoun useless, though the 
reverse tendency is more common. ‘The right use of pronouns 
is a good index of style. 

2. Antiquity of Pronouns. The personal pronouns are prob- 
ably the oldest part of the Indo-Germanie declension.* Pronouns 
(and numerals) are the most persistent parts of speech. They are 
essential to the very life of a language. Strange enough, the 
Coptic and the Hebrew, for instance, are only alike in their pro- 
nouns and their numerals.’ In Greek as in Sanskrit and English 
the pronouns maintain themselves with great tenacity. The pro- 
nouns are also closely akin in all the Indo-Germanic tongues. Cf. 
Sanskrit aham, Greek ἐγώ(ν), Latin ego, Gothic 7k, Anglo-Saxon 
ic, German ich, English J, French je. They retain the case-forms 
better than any other parts of speech. 

3. Pronominal Roots. Indeed pronouns present an indepen- 
dent set of roots parallel to the verbal and nominal roots. As 
verb, noun, adjective, adverb, preposition, conjunctions, inten- 
sive particles grow up around the old verbal (and nominal) roots, 
so pronouns represent a separate history. There are two great 
root-stocks then (verbal or nominal and pronominal).® The pro- 
nouns can be resolved into monosyllabic roots.’ One may not fol- 
low Donaldson® (now obsolete), when he calls all the pronouns 
originally demonstrative, and yet something can be said for that 
idea. In the Sanskrit Whitney® calls this “‘very limited set of 
roots, the so-called pronominal or demonstrative roots.’”? Monro” 
remarks that noun-stems name or describe while pronouns only 

1 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 32. He accents πρόσωπον (persona) as illustrating 
this dramatic aspect. 

2 Giles, Man., p. 238. 3 Tb., p. 297. Sb 19: 

5 Renan, Hist. des Lang. Sémit., p. 84 f. f 

6 Cf. Bopp, Uber den Einfl. der Pron. auf die Wortbild., 1832. 

7 Donaldson, New Crat., p. 241. 


8 ΤῊ p. 245. ® Sans. Gr., p. 185. 
10 Hom. Gr., p. 57; Bopp, Vergl. Gr., § 105. 


286 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


point out; the one is predicative, the other demonstrative. The 
difference then is fundamental. ‘‘Pronouns are found to contain 
the same elements as those which furnish the person-endings of 
verbs.”’ (Monro, 7b.) 

4. Classification. Pronouns are either substantive in signifi- 
cation and inflection as ἐγώ, adjective as ἡμέτερος, or adverb as 
οὕτως. The other classification is into nine or ten great classes: 
personal, intensive, reflexive, possessive, demonstrative, relative, 
interrogative, indefinite, distributive.1 The correlative pronouns 
can. be regarded separately also. These classes will call for spe- 
cial comment in detail See also ch. XV, I. 

(a) THE PERSONAL Pronouns. In all the Indo-Germanic 
tongues the personal pronouns vary a good deal in inflection from 
the substantives and adjectives.2,. The various Greek dialects 
show great variety in the inflection of the personal pronouns.® 
The nominative singular has a different stem in the first personal 
pronoun from the other cases in all the Indo-Germanic languages. 
The N. T. follows current and ancient usage fairly well in the 
form of the first and second personal pronouns. The same thing 
is true as to the enclitic and the emphatic forms in the oblique 
cases. The MSS. vary between μου and ἐμοῦ, etc. Not only do 
MSS. give the regular πρός we, but the papyri* furnish els με, 
περί μου, ὑπό pov. The question whether cov or σοῦ should be 
read is a very delicate one and rests almost wholly with the 
editor. W. H. have, for instance, ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ cov and ἐν τῷ 
ὀφθαλμῷ σοῦ in the same sentence (Mt. 7:4. Cf. also the next 
verse). Nestle here has no such refinement, but cov all through 
these verses. The third personal pronoun gave trouble in 
Greek as in some other languages. In Attic the old οὗ, of, ἕ 
(without nominative) was chiefly reflexive,> though not true of 
the Ionic. Possibly this pronoun was originally reflexive for 
all the persons, but came to be used also as the simple pronoun 
of the third person, whereas in Latin it remained reflexive and 
was restricted to the third person. The N. T. is like the κοινή 


1 K.-BL., I, p. 579, have only five. 

* Hirt, Handb., p. 296. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 84, for mod. Gk. 

2. Cf. K.-Bl., I, pp. 580 ff. See briefer summary in Giles, Man., p. 298 f., 
and Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 244f. On the multiplicity of roots in the pers. 
pron. see Riem. and Goelzer, Phonét., p. 336. 

4 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p.302f. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 165. 

δ Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 33. He illustrates by the Eng.: “I will lay me 
down and sleep.”’ Cf. ὑμῖν in Mt. 6:19 f. 

6. Riem. and Goelzer, Phonét., p. 341. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEIZ) 287 


in the use of αὐτός (common also in Attic) instead of οὗ as the 
third personal pronoun. It is used in all three genders and 
in all cases save that in the nominative it usually has emphasis 
(cf. Mt. 1:21), a matter to be discussed under Syntax. Indeed 
αὐτός, Whatever its etymology, is originally an intensive pro- 
noun (like Latin zpse), not a personal pronoun.! The “frequent 
and almost inordinate use’ (Thayer) of αὐτός in the LXX (cf. 
Jer. 18:3f.) and the N. T. is noticeable. So modern Greek 
(Thumb, Handb., p. 86) 

(Ὁ) Tur INTENSIVE Pronoun. The N. T. has nothing new to 
say as to the form of the intensive αὐτός. It is usually in the 
nominative that it is intensive like αὐτὸς μόνος (Jo. 6 : 15), though 
not always (cf. Jo. 14:11). The modern Greek? uses also a 
shorter form τοῦ, etc. (also Pontic ἀτοῦ), as personal pronoun. The 
use of ὁ αὐτός may be compared with ὁ ἴδιος. See ch. XV, m1, (g). 

(c) REFLEXIVE Pronouns. The reflexive form is nothing but 
the personal pronoun plus the intensive αὐτός. The reflexive is 
one use of this intensive in combination with the personal pro- 
noun. They were originally separate words.’ So αὐτὸς ἐγώ (Ro. 
7: 25) which is, of course, not reflexive, but intensive. The Greek 
reflexives have no nominative and the English has almost lost 
“‘himself,’’ ‘‘myself”’ as nominative. In the N. T. the first and 
second persons have a distinct reflexive form only in the singular 
(ἐμαυτοῦ, σεαυτοῦ). In 2 Th. 1:4 αὐτοὺς ἡμᾶς is obviously inten- 
sive, not reflexive. In 1 Cor. 7:35 ἡμῶν αὐτῶν it is doubtful. See 
ch. XV, iv, for further discussion. The contracted form σαυτοῦ 
is not found in the N. T. It is common in the Kingdom books in 
the LXX and occurs in the papyri. See even carov in σὺ βλέπε 
σατὸν ἀπὸ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων, B.G.U. 1079 (a.p. 41). So as to αὑτοῦ. 
Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 190. The modern Greek uses τοῦ ἐμαυτοῦ 
μου for the reflexive (Thumb, Handb., p. 88). The reflexive for the 
third person® (usually ἑαυτοῦ in the singular, about twenty times 
αὑτοῦ, etc., in W. H., as αὑτὸν in Jo. 2: 24), while the only reflexive 
form for all persons in the plural in the N. T. has no secure place 
in the N. T. for the first and second person singular. The pos- 
sible reflexive (or demonstrative?) origin of οὗ made this usage 
natural. It appears in the papyri’ (74 αὑτοῦ, Pet. I. 15, 15) and the 


1 Flensberg (Uber Urspr. und Bild. des Pron. αὐτός, 1893, p. 69) denies that 
it is from αὖ, but rather from ava. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 244. 

2 Thumb, Handb., p. 85. 6 Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 144. 

$ K.-BI., I, p. 596. 6 Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 33. 

4 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p.62. 7 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 303 f. 


29838 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


late inscriptions! for the first and second person singular. In the 
modern Greek the same thing is true.?, But in the N. T. only late 
MSS. read ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ against ἀπὸ σεαυτοῦ (XN BCL) in Jo. 184 34." In 
Gal. 5:14 and Ro. 18:9 only Syrian uncials have ἑαυτόν for 
σεαυτόν. This use of ἑαυτῶν for all three persons is fairly common 
in classical Attic. Indeed the personal pronoun itself was some- 
times so used (δοκῶ μοι, for instance).4 

(4) PossesstvE PRONOUNS (κτητικαὶ ἀντωνυμία). It is some- 
what difficult in the discussion of the pronouns to keep off 
syntactical ground, and this is especially true of the possessive 
adjectives. For the etymology of these adjectives from the cor- 
responding personal pronouns one may consult the compara- 
tive grammars.> But it is the rarity of these adjectives in the 
N. T. that one notices at once. The third person possessives (és, 
σφέτερος) have entirely disappeared. és is found in only two of 
Paul’s letters: 1 Cor. and Phil., and these only three times. ds 
is found about twenty-six times and ὑμέτερος eleven (two doubtful, 
Lu. 16:12; 1 Cor. 16:17). Ὑμέτερος appears in Paul only in 
1 and 2 Cor., Gal., Ro. Ἡμέτερος appears only nine times counting 
Lu. 16: 12, where W. H. have ὑμέτερον in the margin, and Ac. 24:6 
which W. H. reject. It is only ἐμός that makes any show at all in 
the N. T., occurring some seventy-five times, about half of them 
(41) in the Gospel of John. Thumb* and Moulton’ have made a 
good deal of the fact that in Pontus and Cappadocia the use of 
ἐμός, σός, ete., is still common, while elsewhere the genitive per- 
sonal pronoun prevails.2 The point is that the Gospel of John 
thus shows Asiatic origin, while Revelation is by another writer. 
But one can easily go astray in such an argument. The Gospel 
of Luke has ἐμός three times, but Acts not at all. The large 
amount of dialogue in the Gospel of John perhaps explains 
the frequency of the pronoun there. The possessive ἐμός is 
naturally in the mouth of Jesus (or of John his reporter) more 
than ods, for Jesus is speaking so much about himself. The 
possessive is more formal and more emphatic in the solemn 


1 Schweizer, Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 161. 2 Thumb, Handb., p. 88. 

3 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 167. These last two quote Lev. 19:18. 
Cf. Simcox, ib.; Dyroff, Gesch. des Pron. Reflex., 2. Abt., pp. 23 ff. (Hefte 9 
und 10 in Schanz’s Beitr. etc.). 

4 Cf. Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 63; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 167. 

δ Giles, Man., p. 301; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 250; Hirt, Handb. ete., p. 307. 

6 Theol. Literaturzeit., 1893, p. 421. 

7 Prol., p. 40f. He admits that the other possessives do not tell the same 
story. 8 Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 89. 


ape 


ee ee ee ee ee ee ee Oe ae 


—— ee eS δόλο δι 


THE DECLENSIONS (ΚΛΙΣΕΙΣ) 289 


words of Jesus in this Gospel. This is probably the explanation 
coupled with the fact that John was doubtless in Asia also when 
he wrote the Gospel and was open to whatever influence in 
that direction was there. The discussion of details will come 
later, as will the common use of the genitive of the personal pro- 
nouns rather than the possessive adjective, not to mention the 
article. The reflexive pronoun itself is really possessive when in 
the genitive case. But this as well as the common idiom ὁ ἴδιος 
need only be mentioned here. The Bceotian inscriptions show 
Εἰδιος in this sense as early as 150 B.c. (Claflin, Syntax of Beotian 
Inscriptions, p. 42). The line of distinction between the pronouns 
is thus not always distinct, as when ἑαυτῶν (αὑτῶν) is used in the 
reciprocal sense (Lu. 23:12), a usage known to the ancients. 
The necessity in the N. T. of using the genitive of personal pro- 
nouns in the third person after the disappearance of és is like 
the Latin, which used ejus, suws being reflexive. Farrar (Greek 
Syntax, p. 34) recalls the fact that zts is modern, his being origi- 
nally neuter also. 

(6) DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS (δεικτικαὶ ἀντωνυμία). But 
deictic must have a special limitation, for all pronouns were pos- 
sibly originally deictic (marking an object by its position). The 
anaphoric (ἀναφορικαί) pronouns develop out of the deictic by 
usage. They refer to or repeat. The true relative is a further 
development of the anaphoric, which includes demonstrative in 
the narrower sense. In a strict historical method one should be- 
gin the discussion of pronouns with the demonstratives in the 
larger sense and show how the others developed.? But here we 
must treat the demonstrative pronouns in the narrower sense 
as distinct from the original deictic or the later relative. The 
demonstrative thus applies both to position and relation. ‘The 
declension of the demonstratives is more akin to that of substan- 
tives than any of the other pronouns.’ “Ode* occurs only ten times 
in the N. T., and eight of these in the form τάδε, seven of which 
come in the formula in Rev. τάδε λέγει (as Rev. 2:1, etc.). The 
others are τάδε (Ac. 21:11), τῇδε (Lu. 10: 39), τήνδε (Jas. 4 : 18). 


1 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 54. Dr. Abbott (Joh. Gr., p. 295) thinks 
that John’s love of contrast leads him to use ὑμεῖς as often as all the Synoptists. 

2 So Riem. and Goelzer in their Phonét., pp. 316 ff. 3 Tb. 

4 Gildersleeve (Am. Jour. of Phil., 1907, p. 235) considers ὅδε the pron. of 
the first. person, οὗτος of the second, ἐκεῖνος of the third. 

5 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 85 f. For the etymology of the dem. pron. 
see Brug., Gk. Gr., p. 242 f. 


290 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


The inscriptions and the papyri agree with the N. T. in the great 
rarity of ὅδε in the later κοινή. But in the LXX it is commoner, 
and chiefly here also rade λέγει (Thackeray, Gr., p. 191). There 
are also many examples of és as a demonstrative, as Ro. 14:5 
and also cf. ὁ, ἡ, τό with δέ, as of δὲ in Mt. 27:4. This latter de- 
monstrative construction is very common. Αὐτός is beginning to 
have a semi-demonstrative sense (common in modern Greek) in 
the N. T., as in Lu. 13:1, ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ καιρῷ. There is little to say 
on the non-syntactical side about ἐκεῖνος and οὗτος save that both 
are very common in the N. T., οὗτος extremely so, perhaps four 
times as often as ἐκεῖνος which is relatively more frequent in John.? 
Blass* points out the fact that obroc-i does not appear in the 
N. T. (nor in the LX X), though the adverb νυν-ί is fairly common 
in Paul and twice each in Acts and Hebrews. Οὐχί is much more 
frequent especially in Luke and Paul. Smyth* compares ἐ-κεῖνος 
(κεῖνος in Homer) to Oscan e-tanto. Modern Greek uses both 
forms and also é-rodros and τοῦτος in the nominative.® 

Of the correlative demonstratives of quality τοῖος is not found 
in the N. T. and τοιόσδε only once (2 Pet. 1:17). Τοιοῦτος (neuter 
τοιοῦτο and —ov) occurs less than sixty times, chiefly in the Gospels 
and Paul’s earlier Epistles (Gal. 5:21). We find neither τόσος 
nor τόσοσδε and τοσοῦτος (the only correlative demonstrative of 
quantity) is less frequent than τοιοῦτος (cf. Lu. 7:9). The neuter 
is also in -οὧν and -ο. Of the correlatives of age τηλικοῦτος alone is 
found four times (cf. Jas. 3:4). See also ch. XV, vi. 

(f) Revative Pronouns (ἀναφορικαὶ ἀντωνυμία). Homer 
shows the transition of the demonstrative to the relative, using 
five forms (ὁ, 6 τε, ὅς, ds Te, ὅς Tis). Attic dropped ὁ and 6 τε as 
well as és τε. This use of τε with ὁ and ὅς may be compared with 
the common use of the Latin qui=etis. So the Hebrew πὶ (‘this’) 
is sometimes relative. Cf. German der and English ἐμαί. Rela- 
tives in the narrower sense grew naturally out of the anaphoric 
use of the demonstrative. The weakening of 6 to the article and 
the introduction of the longer demonstratives (ὅδε, οὗτος, ἐκεῖνος) 
left ὅς more and more for the true relative use. ‘O and és have a 


1 See Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 145; Dieterich, Unters., p. 197; Mayser, 
Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 308. 

+ BlassGrsot Nov. Gk pati: 3 Ib., p. 35; Thackeray, p. 191. 

4 The Ionic Dial., p. 448. 

6 Cf. Thumb, Handb. ἃ. neugr. Volkspr., p. 64. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., 
p. 161. 

6 Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., pp. 185 ff.; Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 35. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEI=) 291 


different etymology. Relative 6s=Sanskrit yds. There are thus 
only two pure relatives that survive in the N. T., ὅς and ὅστις, 
for ὅσπερ and ὁσδήποτε are not found save that the Western and 
Syrian classes read ὅνπερ in Mk. 15:6. ‘Oodnrore in Jo. 5:4 dis- 
appears with the rejection of that verse. Already the papyri! 
and the inscriptions” show the rare occurrence of ὅστις, confined as 
a rule to the nominative and gradually disappearing in the mod- 
ern Greek before ὁ ὁποῖος and even ποῦ. Compare the vulgar 
“whar” in “the man whar said that.”” “Ὅστις is, of course, merely 
ὅς plus the indefinite τις in the sense of ‘any one’ or again of ‘some- 
body in particular.’ Both of these senses occur in the N.T. usage. 
The N. T. follows the papyri and inscriptions in using only the 
nominative of ὅστις save the neuter accusative 6 τι (Lu. 10 : 35), 
and the genitive in set phrases like ἕως ὅτου (Jo. 9:18). It is 
used in both the singular and the plural, however, but is other- 
wise nearly indeclinable. Ὅς γε (Ro. 8: 32) is, of course, simply 
ὅς plus the intensive particle ye. “Os itself is many times more 
common in the N. T. than ὅστις and raises no questions save many 
syntactical ones. οἷος, ὁποῖος, ὅσος, ἡλίκος are also relatives of 
quality, quantity and age. Οἷος is.found only fourteen times in 
the N. T., ten of them in Paul’s writings (cf. 2 Cor. 10:11). 
“Ὅποϊος can count up only five examples, four in Paul if we credit 
to him Ac. 26:29. This is a little strange when one recalls how 
common it is in the modern Greek. But the correlatives generally 
are weak in the vernacular‘! κοινή. ὋὉπόσος is not in the Ν. T. 
nor modern Greek, but ὅσος (1 Cor. 7:39) holds its own. As to 
ἡλίκος, it drops to four instances, two of them in the same sentence 
(Taso 0). 

(g) INTERROGATIVE PRONOUNS. Tis (τί) is fairly common in 
the N. T. both in direct (Mt. 21 : 31) and indirect questions (Mt. 
20:22) like the papyri usage. Tis, τί in the Thessalian Greek 
is κίς,5 κί. So Sanskrit kas, Latin quis, Gothic hwas, English who, 
German wer. In Latin and English the relative is formed from 
the same root, but not so in the Greek. In modern Greek, how- 
ever, τίς has vanished before ποῖος (cf. ὅστις before ὁ zotos),® ac- 
cented ποιός, though τί (indeclinable) survives strangely enough 
in the sense of “‘what βογύ. 7 In the N. T. the qualitative cor- 


1 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 310. 2 Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 145. 
$’ Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 167f. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 93. 

4 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 311; Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 145. 

5 K.-BL, I, p. 613; Hoffmann, Die gr. Dial., Bd. 11, p. 558. 

6 Thumb, Handb., p. 94. od lay 


pad A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


relative ποῖος is used fairly often as a direct interrogative (cf. Mk. 
11:28) and sometimes as an indirect interrogative (Mt. 24:42). 
Ilorarés is used a few times in direct (Mt. 8:27) and indirect 
also (Lu. 7:39). Ilocos is still used as a direct interrogative 
(Mt. 12:12) in quantitative questions and a few times in indi- 
rect questions (Mk. 15:4). Πηλίκος occurs only twice (one of 
these doubtful, Gal. 6:11, W. H. ἡλίκοις margin) and both times 
in indirect question (Heb. 7:4). The disappearance of duality 
has taken πότερος entirely away, though πότερον occurs once as an 
adverb in an indirect question (Jo. 7:17). In the LXX we find 
πότερον only once in Job (Thackeray, Gr., p. 192). Modern Greek 
does not use πηλίκος, though πόσος survives. 

(h) INDEFINITE Pronouns. Like the Latin ali-quis (interrog- 
ative quis) the Greek τὶς differs from the interrogative ris only in 
accent. It is very common in the N. T. (as Lu. 1: 5), but already 
it is giving way to eis (Mt. 8:19), a usage not unknown to the 
older Greek.! In the N. T. we have εἷς τις together (Mk. 14: 47; 
Lu. 22:50). Modern Greek has supplanted τὶς, τὶ by κανείς (κἄν, 
eis) and καθείς (cf. καθ’ εἷς in N. T.).2 The negative forms μήτις 
and οὔτις do not appear in the N. T. save that μήτι occurs in 
questions (Mt. 12:23) and μή τις with ἵνα. But μηδείς and οὐδείς 
are very common. ‘The old δεῖνα meets us only once (Mt. 26: 18), 
but hangs on in the modern Greek.* Ov πᾶς and μὴ πᾶς belong 
wholly to Syntax. 

(ὃ DisTRIBUTIVE AND ReEcIPROCAL PRONOUNS. These pro- 
nouns have an insecure place in the N. T. with the exception of 
ἄλλος, ἀλλήλων, ἕκαστος and ἕτερος. ‘Exarepos like πότερος has van- 
ished, as implying duality. It is rare in the LXX (Thackeray, 
Gr., p. 192). "λμφω is gone, but ἀμφότεροι lingers on in some four- 
teen instances (cf. Mt. 9:17). ᾿Αλλήλων (composed of ἄλλος, ἄλ- 
dos) is naturally only in the oblique cases of the plural, but is 
fairly common (cf. Jo. 4:33). It has vanished in the modern 
Greek. “Exacros on the other hand appears only in the singular 
except in Ph. 2:4 (probably twice there). It too has disap- 
peared in the modern Greek. “Erepos is beside ἀμφότεροι the only 
surviving dual pronoun, and it goes down in the modern Greek 
along with ἀμφότεροι. It is less common (97 times) in the N. T. 


1 Dieterich, Unters., p. 202; Hatz., Einl., p. 207. 

2 Thumb, Handb., p. 95 f. 3 Ib., p. 98. 

4 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 179. The pap. (Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., 
p. 312) show a few examples of ἑκάτερος, μηδέτερος, ὁπότερος. Once (Prov. 
24:21) the LXX has μηθέτερος. 


THE DECLENSIONS (ΚΛΙΣΕΙΣ) 293 


than ἄλλος (150), chiefly in Matthew, Luke, Paul, Heb., never in 
Revelation, Peter, and only once in Jo. (19:37) and Mk. (16: 12) 
and this latter in disputed part. It is usually in the singular 
(73 times, plural 24). The distinction (not always observed in 
the N. T.) between ἄλλος and ἕτερος belongs to Syntax. The use 
of εἷς τὸν ἕνα as reciprocal (1 Th. 5:11) and of ἑαυτῶν (1 Cor. 6: 7) 
along with other uses of ἄλλος and ἕτερος will receive treatment 
under Syntax. 


V. ADVERBS (EIIIPPHMATA) 


1. Neglect of Adverbs. A glance at the average grammar will 
show that the grammarians as a rule have not cared much for the 
adverb, though there are some honorable exceptions. Winer has 
no discussion of the adverb save under Syntax. Still others have 
not understood the adverb. For instance, Green! says that once 
in the N. T. “8 preposition without change is employed as an 
adverb,” viz. ὕπερ éyw (2 Cor. 11:23). That is a perfunctory 
error which assumes that the preposition is older than the ad- 
verb. It is of a piece with the idea that regards some adverbs 
as “improper” prepositions. Donaldson? says that, with com- 
pliments to Horne Tooke, ‘‘the old grammarian was right, who 
said that when we know not what else to call a part of speech, 
we may safely call it an adverb.” Certainly it is not easy 
nor practicable always to distinguish sharply between the ad- 
verb and _ preposition, conjunction, interjections and other 
particles? But the great part played by the adverb in the 
history of the Greek language makes it imperative that justice 
shall be done to it. This is essential for the clear understand- 
ing of the prepositions, conjunctions and particles as well as 
the adverb itself. Substantive and verb blend at many points 
and glide easily into each other in English, for instance. At- 
tention has often been called to the use of “but” in English 
as adverb, preposition, conjunction, substantive, adjective and 
pronoun. 


1 Handb. to the Gr. of the N. T., p. 138. 

2 Gk. Gr., p. 37. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, pp. 535-648, has the most com- 
plete treatment of the adv. 

$ Brug., Gk. Gr., p. 250. In the Sans. the line is still less clearly drawn 
between the various indeclinable words (Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 403). 

4 Giles, Man., p. 237 f. Cf. Schroeder, Uber die form. Untersch. der Redet., 
p. 35f.; Delbriick, Grundr., Bd. III, p. 536 f. 


994 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


2. Formation of the Adverb. The name suggests a mere 
addendum to the verb, an added word (like the adjective) that is 
not necessary. But in actual fact adverbs come out of the heart 
of the language, expressions fixed by frequent usage. 

(a) Fixep Casres. A large number! of words retain the case- 
ending in the adverb and often with the same function. Perhaps 
the bulk of the adverbs are either the simple case used directly 
in an adverbial sense or the formation by analogy. It is just be- 
cause adverbs are usually fixed case-forms or remnants of obsolete 
case-forms that they deserve to be treated under the head of De- 
clensions. They have to be approached from the standpoint of 
the cases to understand their history. Leaving analogy for the 
moment let us see some examples of the cases that are so used. 
The cases most commonly used thus are the ablative, locative, 
instrumental and accusative.2 The dative and genitive are sel- 
dom employed as adverbs. The vocative never occurs in this 
sense, and the nominative (so occasionally in Sanskrit) only in a 
phrase like καθ᾽ εἷς in the addition to John’s Gospel (Jo. 8: 9), τὸ καθ᾽ 
eis (Ro. 12:5). Cf. ἀνα-μίξ. Examples of the various cases as used 
in the N. T. will be given without attempting to be exhaustive. 
The κοινή and the modern Greek illustrate the same general ten- 
dencies as to adverbs that we see in the earlier Greek. Here the 
N. T. is in close accord with the papyri as to adverbs in use.’ 

(1) The Accusative. The most obvious illustration of the ac- 
cusative in adverbs is the neuter of adjectives in the positive, 
comparative and superlative (singular and plural). In the com- 
parative the singular is the rule, in the superlative the plural, but 
variations occur.*’ In the modern Greek accusative plural is more 
common even in the comparative (Thumb, Handb., p. 77). Take 
for the positive αὔριον, εὐθύ (s added later), éyyi(s), μέγα, μέσον, 
πλησίον, πολύ, ταχύ, σήμερον, ἀλλά (ἄλλα), πολλά, μακράν. The com- 
parative may be illustrated by ὕστερον, βέλτιον, and the superlative 
by πρῶτον (and πρῶτα) and ἥδιστα. Cf. also ταχίστην. Sometimes 
the article is used with the adjective where the adverbial idea is 
encroaching, as τὸ λοιπόν, τὰ πολλά, and note also τὴν ἀρχήν (Jo. 
8:25), substantive with article. But the substantive alone has 
abundant examples also, as ἀκμήν, ἀρχήν, δωρεάν, πέραν, χάριν. 


1 Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 250 ff. 2 Hirt, Handb. ete., pp. 320 ff. 

3 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 456 ff. 

4 Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 251; Hirt, Handb. ete., p. 322. In the Sans. 
the acc. also is the case most widely used adverbially (Whitney, Sans. Gr., 
408). Cf. Delbriick, Grundl., pp. 34 ff. 


.-- eee ῊΝΝΣῚ 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEIS) 295 


Σχεδόν is a specimen of the adverb in -δον, -δα. Cf. also ὁμοθυμα- 
δόν, ῥοιζηδόν. The accusative in adverbs is specially characteristic 
of the κοινή (cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 459; Schmid, 
Attic., II, pp. 36ff.). In the modern Greek the accusative for 
the adverbs is almost universal. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 77. 

(2) The Ablatie. All adverbs in —ws are probably ablatives. 
Καλῶς, for instance, is from an original καλῶδ. The ὃ (Sanskrit ¢) is 
dropped and a final s is added.!’ Cf. old Latin meritéd, faciluméd.* 
The οὕτως, ws of the Greek correspond exactly with the old Sanskrit 
tid, ydd. The ending in —ws comes by analogy to be exceedingly 
common. Practically any adjective can by —ws make an adverb 
in the positive. Some, like ἀδιαλείπτως, belong to the later Greek 
(κοινή). Participles also may yield such adverbs as φειδομένως 
(2 Cor. 9:6), ὁμολογουμένως (1 Tim. 3:16), ὄντως (Mk. 11:32). 
Radermacher (N. T. Gk., p. 54) cites ἀρκούντως, τετολμηκότως 
(Diod., XVI, 74. 6), etc. The bulk of the adverbs in —ws are from 
adjectives and pronouns. But the examples of —ws are rare in the 
modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 77). 

(3) The Genitwe. There are not many adverbs in this case 
outside of those ending in -ov, like αὐτοῦ, ὅπου, ποῦ, ὁμοῦ and --ἧς 
(ἑξῆς). This use survives in modern Greek. Cf. the local use of 
the genitive in ᾿Εφέσου (Ac. 19: 26). The common use of ἡμέρας, 
νυκτός verges toward the adverb.* Cf. also τοῦ λοιποῦ (Gal. 6: 17). 
The genitive is almost never used adverbially in Sanskrit. 

(4) The Locative. This is a rare use in Sanskrit, but more 
frequent in Greek. Instance ἐκεῖ, κύκλῳ, οἴκοι, πρωί. So also ἀεί, 
πέρυσι, etc. Hirt’ (but not Brugmann) likewise treats examples 
like δημοσίᾳ, ἰδίᾳ, πεζῇ, etc., as locative. Certainly ποῖ is locative, 
but it does not appear in the N. T. Cf. also τῷ ὄντι (article and 
participle) in adverbial sense (Ro. 7: 23). 

(5) The Instrumental. This case lends itself naturally to the 
adverb where the idea of manner (associative) is so common.’ In 
the Sanskrit it is very common for adverbs to be in the instrumen- 
tal.° Such adverbs as ἅμα (cf. ablative ὅμως from same root), εἰκῆ, 
κρυφῆ(ῇ), λάθρα(ᾳ), μάλα, πάντη(ῃ), πανταχῆ(ῇ), Taxa, etc., are doubt- 


1 Giles, Man., p. 240. 2 Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 320. 

3 Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 457 f., for further exx. Cf. the Lat. 
adv. (abl.) raro, quomodo etc., Bopp, Vergleich. Gr., §183. Cf. also Delbriick, 
Grundl., pp. 48 ff. 

4 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 252. 5 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 410. Selb. 

7 Handb. etc., p. 321. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 252 (dat. acc. to Brug.). 

8 Hirt, Handb., p. 321. 9 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 409. 


296 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


less instrumental. In some cases: is added to bring it in harmony 
with the locative-dative cases with which it blended. Brug- 
mann? also puts here such words as ἄνω, κάτω, ἔξω, ἀνωτέρω, ἀνω- 
τάτω, οὔτπω. —IIw is by ablaut from —7n (so Laconic πή-ποκα). 

(6) The Dative. As in the Sanskrit,’ so in the Greek the dative 
is very rare in adverbs. Indeed Hirt‘ is not far wrong when 
he says that it is not easy to find any dative adverbs distinct 
from the locative, though he accepts zapai, χαμαί, κτὰ. as dative 
(p. 260). Brugmann® thinks otherwise, and one is slow to dis- 
sent from the modern master of comparative grammar. He cites 
πάλαι, χαμαί, KaTal, mapat, κύκλῳ, σπουδῇ, etc. But Delbriick® is 
against Brugmann here. Besides the dative in its proper sense is 
a little difficult to fit into an adverb. But we have given enough 
to justify the treatment of adverbs under the declensions.’ 

(0) Surrrxes. Other adverbs are formed by suffixes which 
may be relics of lost case-endings that are no longer clear to us. 
Here only the main suffixes in use in the N. T. will be mentioned. 
For —axi-s take πολλάκις and the numeral adverbs like τετράκις, etc. 
For --αχοῦ note πανταχοῦ. For —de take οἴκαδε. For —dov take ὁμο- 
θυμαδόν (Ac. 18:12). For -ys we may note ἐξαίφνης, ἑξῆς, ἐφεξῆς. 
Those in —0e(v) are numerous, like ἄνωθεν, ἔξωθεν, οὐρανόθεν, παιδιό- 
θεν, etc. Αὐτόθι is common in the papyri, but not in the N. T.8 
The deictic i appears in νυνί and οὐχί. An example of -1s appears 
in μόλις (cf. μόγις Text. Rec. in Lu. 9:39). For --τί note ’EBpai- 
att, Ἑλληνιστί, Λυκαονιστί, Ῥωμαϊστί. For --κα take ἡνίκα. For -ν 
we have νῦν, πάλιν. For --τε we may mention ὅ-τε, πό-ττε. Then —s 
is added in the case of dis, τρίς and various other words like ἄχρις, 
εὐθύς, μέχρις, οὕτως, τετράκις, χωρίς, etc. ’Exetce 15 an instance of 
-σε. Then —7os appears in ἐκτός, ἐντός, Finally —ya is seen in ἔν- 
vuxa. ‘The papyri furnish parallels for practically all these N. T. 
examples (and many more).® “Απαξ seems to stand by itself. 

(c) Compounp ApvERBS. Some adverbs are due to the blend- 


1 Hirt, Handb., p. 321 f. 
3 Griech. Gr., p. 252 f. Cf. Delbriick, Grundr., III, p. 581 f. 


8 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 410. 4 Handb., p. 321. 
® Griech. Gr., p. 252. Cf. also p. 229f., where he acknowledges the other 
point of view as possible. 6 Grundr., p. 60f. 


1 In Lat. adv. are partly remnants of case-forms and partly built by anal- 
ogy. Draeger, Hist. Synt., p. 109. For Gk. see also Lutz, Die Casus-Adv. 
bei att. Rednern (1891). 

8 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 456. 

9 Ib., pp. 455-459. See also Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 253-257. Cf. Donald- 
son, New Crat., pp. 449-501, for discussion of these adv. suffixes. 





THE DECLENSIONS (ΚΛΙΣΕΙΣ) 297 


ing of several words into one word, perhaps with modification 
by analogy. The xow is rather rich in these compound ad- 
verbs and Paul fairly revels in them. As samples take ἔκπαλαι 
(2 Pet. 2:3), κατέναντι (2 Cor. 12:19), κατενώπιον (Eph. 1:4), 
παραυτίκα (2 Cor. 4:17), ἀπροσωπολήμπτως (1 Pet. 1:17), παρα- 
χρῆμα (Lu. 1:64), ὑπεράνω (Eph. 4:10), ὑπερέκεινα (2 Cor. 10: 16), 
ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ (1 Th. 3:10), ὑπερλίαν (2 Cor. 11:5), ὑπερπερισσῶς 
(Mk. 7:37), etc. The intense emotion in 2 Cor. explains the 
piling-up and doubling of some of these prepositional phrases. 
Occasionally a verbal clause is blended into one word and an ad- 
verb made by analogy with —ws. So (from νοῦν ἔχω) νουνεχῶς (Mk. 
12:34), used by Aristotle and Polybius along with another ad- 
verb like νουνεχόντως in Isocrates.1 But in Mark it is used without 
any other adverb. Ὑπερβαλλόντως (2 Cor. 11:23) is made from 
the participle and is common in Attic (Xen., Plato). There are, 
besides, adverbial phrases like ἀπὸ μακρόθεν (Mk. 15:40) ἀπ᾽ ἄνω- . 
θεν, ἕως κάτω (Mt. 27:51), etc. Cf. Con. and Stock, Sel. fr. LXX, 
p. 47. See chapter IV, τν, (7), for discussion of the formation of 
compound adverbs which are very common in the κοινή. Paul 
uses the idiom frequently. For the use of adverbs in the κοινή, 
see Mayser’s careful list from the papyri, pp. 455 ff., and Nach- 
manson, Magn. Inschr., p. 188 f. New adverbs are continually 
made in the later Greek, though many of the older ones survive 
in the modern Greek. Cf. Thumb, Handb., pp. 78 ff. He groups 
them under place, time, manner and quantity. 

(d) ANaLoay. A word is needed to accent the part played by 
analogy in the formation of adverbs, though it has already been 
alluded to. The two examples mentioned above, νουνεχῶς and 
ὑπερβαλλόντως will serve as good illustrations of the work done by 
the principle of analogy. The bulk of the —-ws adverbs are abla- 
tives made by analogy.’ 

(ὁ) THE CoMPARISON OF ADVERBS. In general the adverb is 
like the adjective save that in the comparative the accusative 
singular is used, like τάχιον, and the accusative plural in the super- 
lative, like τάχιστα. But, per contra, note πρῶτον and κατωτέρω 
(Mt. 2:16), περισσοτέρως (2 Cor. 1:12), σπουδαιοτέρως (Ph. 2: 28), 
ἐσχάτως (Mk. 5:23), πορρωτέρω (Lu. 24:28. AB -pov). Cf. fur- 
ther ch. XII, 11. 

3. Adverbial Stems. The derivation of the adverb deserves 
a further word, though the facts have already been hinted at. 
Brief mention is all that is here called for by way of illustration. 

1 Giles, Man., p. 240. 2 Ib. 


298 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(a) Sussrantives. As N. T. examples of adverbs from sub- 
stantives may be mentioned ἀρχήν, δωρεάν, χάριν. 

(Ὁ) Apsectives. It was and is always possible to make an 
adverb from any Greek adjective by the ablative ending —ws. Cf. 
both ταχύ (accusative) and ταχέως (ablative). Indeed the line be- 
tween the adjective and adverb was never sharply drawn, as will 
be shown when we come to the study of the syntax of the adjec- 
tive (cf. English “looks bad,” “feels bad,” a different idea from 
the adverb, however). In passing note ἑκοῦσα (Ro. 8:20) and 
devrepator (Ac. 28 : 13) in strict accordance with the Greek idiom. 
The comparison of adverbs is another link between adverb and 
adjective. In most cases, however, it is merely the use of the 
comparative and superlative forms of the adjective as an adverb. 
But in some cases the comparative and superlative adverb is 
made without any corresponding adjective, done by analogy 
merely. So μᾶλλον, μάλιστα, from μάλα, ἀνώτερον from the adverb 
ἄνω. Cf. also ἐγγύτερον (Ro. 13:11) from ἔγγύς, κατωτέρω (Mt. 
2:16) from κάτω, and πορρώτερον (Lu. 24 : 28) from πόρρω. Com- 
parative adjectives made from positive adverbs are, on the other 
hand, seen in ἐξώτερος (Mt. ὃ : 12), éowrepos (Heb. 6 : 19), κατώτερος 
(Eph. 4:9). Karwrépw, περισσοτέρως (Heb. 2:1, often in Paul; 
Gal. 1:14), σπουδαιοτέρως (Ph. 2:28), τολμηροτέρως (Ro. 15: 15) 
rather than the forms in —repov are due to analogy of the abla- 
tive -ws. Adverbs made from participles can be looked upon as 
adjectival or verbal in origin, since the participle is both verb 
and adjective. 

(c) Numerats. All that is necessary here is to mention such 
words as πρῶτον, δίς, ἑπτάκις, etc. In Ac. 11:26 we have πρώτως 
instead of πρῶτον. Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 58) cites for —ws 
Clem., Hom. 9, 4; 16, 20; Polyb. vi, 5. 10; Diod., ete. 

(d) Pronouns. The pronominal adverbs are very numerous, 
like οὕτως, ὡσαύτως, etc., αὐτοῦ, ποτέ, τότε, ὧδε, etc. As with the 
correlative pronouns, so the correlative adverbs are lessening. 
Of the indefinite adverbs only ποτέ, πού (a few times), and πως 
(only in εἴπως, μή πως) appear.! Forms like οἷ, ὅποι, rot have van- 
ished before οὗ, ὅπου, ποῦ. Cf. English,? “where (rather than 
‘whither’) are you going?” Cf. also the accusative ri (Mk. 
LOG 1S) saya 

(ὁ). Verss. Besides such words as νουνεχῶς (verbal phrase) and 
participles like ὄντως, ὁμολογουμένως, φειδομένως, ὑπερβαλλόντως One 
should note ’Efpaiori (from Ἐβραΐζω), Ἑλληνιστί (from Ἑλληνίζω), 

* Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p.59f. 2 Green, Handb. to N. T. Gk., Dear: 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEIZ) 299 


etc. In Jas. 4:13; 5:1 ἄγε is used with the plural as an adverb, 
if indeed it is not in reality an interjection. The modern view of 
the imperative forms like aye (cf. vocative aye from ἀγός) is that 
it is merely the root without suffix.! In the case of δεῦρο we 
actually have a plural δεῦτε. Moulton? illustrates the close con- 
nection between interjectional adverb and verb by the English 
“Murder!” which could be mere interjection or verbal injunction 
according to circumstances. 

4, Use of Adverbs. This is still another way of looking at the 
subject, but it is a convenience rather than a scientific principle. 
Blass? in his N. 7. Grammar follows this method solely. 

(a) ADVERBS OF MANNER. These are very numerous indeed, 
like πνευματικῶς, σπουδαίως, ete. ᾿Εσχάτως ἔχει (Mk. 5: 23) is not 
like the English idiom. The phrase really means that she has it 
in the last stages. Cf. βαρέως ἔχουσα (Pap. Brit. M., 42). Ev, so 
common in Attic, has nearly gone in the N. T. (only in Mk. 14:7; 
Mt. 25: 21, 23; Ac. 15:29; Eph. 6:3 quot.). Εὖγε occurs also in 
Lu. 19:17 (W. H. text, margin εὖ). Καλῶς is common. Βέλτιον ap- 
pears once (2 Tim. 1:18) and κρεῖσσον often (1 Cor. 7:38). The 
comparative adverb διπλότερον (Mt. 23:15) is irregular in form 
(ἁπλούστερον) and late.4 

(b) ADVERBS OF PLAcE. These answer the questions ‘‘ where” 
and “whence.” ‘‘Whither”’ is no longer a distinct idea in N. T. 
Greek nor the κοινή generally. Even in ancient Greek the distinc- 
tion was not always maintained.® Blass® carefully illustrates how 
“here” and “hither” are both expressed by such words as ἐνθάδε 
(Ac. 16:28; Jo. 4:16), oddly enough never by ἐνταῦθα, though 
ὧδε (especially in the Gospels) is the common word (Lu. 9 : 33, 
41). But ἐκεῖ is very common in the sense of ‘there’ and ‘thither’ 
(here again chiefly in the Gospels) as in Mt. 2:15, 22. ’Exke?tce 
(‘thither’) is found only twice, and both times in Acts (21:3; 22: 
δ), which has a literary element. So οὗ in both senses (Lu. 4 : 16; 
10:1) and ὅπου (very common in John’s Gospel, 14:3 f.). The 
interrogative ποῦ (Jo. 1:39; 3:8) follows suit. The indefinite 
πού is too little used to count (Heb. 2:6) and once without local 
idea, rather ‘about’ (Ro. 4:19). ᾿Αλλαχοῦ occurs once (Mk. 1: 
38), but πανταχοῦ several times (Lu. 9:6, ete.). Ὁμοῦ is found 
four times only (Jo. 4 : 36, etc.), and once D adds ὁμόσε (Ac. 20: 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 171. 

2 Ib., p. 171f. But adv. from verbs are “late and always rare,’’ Giles, 
Man., p. 342. 

Grae...) Gr... pp..os ff. 4 ΤΌ. 5 Tb. 6 Tb. 


200 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


18). Πανταχῇ(η) likewise is read once (Ac. 21:28), Syrian class 
-οὔ. In Ac. 24:3 πάντη(ῃ) is contrasted with πανταχοῦ. Other 
adverbs of place in the N. T. are ἄνω, ἐντός, ἐκτός, ἔσω, ἔξω, κάτω. 
A number of adverbs answer to the question “whence.” They 
are usually words in -Vev. ᾿Αλλαχόθεν (Jo. 10:1) is found only 
once in the N. T. "λνωθεν (Mk. 15 : 38) is more frequent, though 
never κάτωθεν. The only pronominal forms that appear in the 
N. T. are ἐκεῖθεν (Rev. 22 : 2, rather common. in Matthew), ἔνθεν 
(Mt. 17 : 20), ἐντεῦθεν (twice in Jo. 19:18, and in contrast with 
ἐκεῖθεν Rev. 22:2), πάντοθεν (Mk. 1:45), ὅθεν (Mt. 12:44), πόθεν 
(Mt. 21:25). The last two are fairly frequent. Blass’ notes 
how “stereotyped and meaningless” the ending -θεν has become 
in many examples, especially with ἔμπροσθεν (common in Matthew 
and Luke) and ὄπισθεν (rare). See both in Rev. 4:6. In some 
cases by a little effort the real force of -ϑεν may be seen, but the 
old Greek soon allowed it to become dim in these words. In the 
case of ἔσωθεν and ἔξωθεν Blass? insists on the force of —fev only in 
Mk. 7:18, 21, 23; Lu. 11:7. Cf. also xuxAddev (Rev. 4:8). The 
addition of ἀπό occasionally may be due either to the weakened 
sense of -θεν or to a fuller expansion of its true idea. So ἀπ᾽ ἄνω- 
dev twice (Mt. 27:51, so W. H. against NL ἄνωθεν, Mk. 15:38), 
ἀπὸ μακρόθεν (Mk. 5:6; 15:40, etc.), ἐκ παιδιόθεν (Mk. 9:21). 
Blass? observes that both μακρόθεν and παιδιόθεν are late words and 
that late writers are fond of using prepositions with -ῦεν as Ho- 
mer had az’ οὐρανόθεν. But Luke used only οὐρανόθεν in Ac. 14:17. 

(c) ApvERBS OF Time. The list is not very great, and yet ap- 
preciable. ᾿Δεί (Ac. 7:51) is not in the Gospels at all and is 
largely supplanted by πάντοτε (Jo. 6 : 34) like the κοινή and modern 
Greek. ‘Hvixa is read twice only (2 Cor. 3:15f.). "Ἔπειτα (1 Cor. 
12:28) and εἶτα (Mk. 4:17) are about equally frequent. “Ore 
(Mt. 9:25) and ὅταν (Mt. 9:15) are both used freely. ‘Ozdre 
appears only in the Syrian class in Lu. 6:3 against the neutral 
and Western ὅτε (so W. H.). Πότε (Mt. 17:17) and ποτέ (Lu. 
22:32) are both far less common than ὅτε and ὅταν. But τότε 
and πάλιν amply atone for this scarcity. All the numeral ad- 
verbs (ἅπαξ, πρῶτον, δίς, ἑπτάκις etc.) belong here also. 

5. Scope of Adverbs. Here again we are retracing ground and 
crossing our steps, but a brief word will be useful to show how 
from adverbs grew other parts of speech. The fact has been 
stated before. What is here called for is some of the proof and 
illustration. 

+ Gr-of Nee Gk pe ode 2 Tb. 8 Ib. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEI2) 301 


(a) RELATION BETWEEN ADVERBS AND PREPOSITIONS. When 
we come to study prepositions (ch. XIII) a fuller discussion 
of this matter will be given. Here the principle will be stated. 
“The preposition therefore is only an adverb specialized to define 
a case-usage.’’! That puts the matter in a nutshell. Many of the 
older grammars have the matter backwards. The use of prepo- 
sitions with verbs is not the original one. In Homer they are 
scattered about at will. So with substantives. ‘‘Anastrophe is 
therefore no exception, but the original type’’? like τίνος ἕνεκα 
(Ac. 19:32). To quote Giles again, ‘between adverbs and prep- 
ositions no distinct line can be drawn.’’ As samples of cases in 
prepositions take παρ-ός (gen.), map-ai (dat.), mep-i (loc.), παρ-ἀ 
(instr.). It is unscientific to speak of adverbs which “‘may be 
used like prepositions to govern nouns’’‘ and then term them 
‘preposition adverbs” or “spurious prepositions.’’ Preposi- 
tions do not ‘govern’ cases, but more clearly define them. 
When adverbs do this, they are just as really prepositions as any 
others. These will be treated therefore in connection with the 
other prepositions. They are words like ἅμα, ἄνευ, ἔξω, ὀπίσω, ete. 

(b) ADVERBS AND ConyunctTions. ‘These are usually of pro- 
nominal origin like é-re (ace. plus re), οὗ (gen.), ὡς (abl.), ἀλλά 
(ace. plural), t-va (instr.), etc. Some conjunctions are so early 
as to elude analysis, like δέ, τέ, etc.6 But in most cases the 
history can be traced. Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 60) re- 
marks on the poverty of the N. T. Greek in particles, a pov- 
erty as early as the ᾿Αθηναίων Πολιτεία, of Aristotle, which is 
much barer than the N. T. These conjunctions and other par- 
ticles in the N. T. are cited by Blass: ἀλλά, Gua, ἄρα, ἄραγε, dpa, apa 
γε, &xpu(s), yap, γε, δέ, δή, δήπου, διό, διόπερ, ἐάν, ἐάνπερ, εἰ, εἴπερ, εἶτα, 
εἶτε, ἐπάν, ἐπεί, ἐπειδή, ἐπειδήπερ, ἐπείπερ (only as variation in Ro. 
3:30), ἔπειτα, ἕως, ἢ, ἦ OF εἶ μήν, ἤδη, ἡνίκα (ἤπερ Only variation in 
Jo. 12: 48), ἤτοι, ἵνα, καθά, καθάπερ, καθό, καθότι, καθώς, καί, καίπερ, 
καίτοι(γε), μέν, μενοῦνγε, μέντοι, μέχρι(ς) οὗ (μέχρι[5] variation for), μή, 
μηδέ, μήτε, μήτι, ναί, νή," ὅμως, ὁπότε, ὅπως, ὅταν, ὅτε, ὅτι, οὐ, οὐχί, οὐδέ, 
οὐκοῦν, οὖν, οὔτε, περ With other words, πλήν, πρίν, τε, τοι (in καίτοι, 
μέντοι, etc.), τοι-γαρ-οῦν, τοίνυν, ὡς, ὡσάν, ὡσεί, ὥσπερ, ὡσπερεί, ὥστε. 
Several of these occur only once (δήπου, ἐπειδήπερ, vn, ὁπότε, οὐ- 


1 Giles, Man., p. 341. Cf. also Krebs, Die Pripositionsadverbien in der 
spiteren hist. Gric., Tl. I, 1884. 

2 Giles, ib. On “Nouns used as Prep.” see Donaldson, New Crat., pp. 
478 ff. 3 Ib. 

4 Green, Handb., etc., p. 138. 5 Giles, Man., p. 348. 


) 


302 A GREEK GRAMMAR OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


κοῦν). But Blass has not given a complete list. Cf. also διότι, 
ὅθεν, ov, ὅποι, πότε, etc. Fifteen other Attic particles are absent 
from this N. T. list. The matter will come up again in ch. XXI. 

(c) ADVERBS AND INTENSIVE PARTICLES. Πέρ is an older form 
of wep-i. Usually, however, as with ye, the origin is obscure. 
Others used in the N. T. are δή, δήπου, μέν, τοί (with other par- 
ticles). See ch. XXI. 

(d) ApvERBS AND INTERJECTIONS. Interjections are often 
merely adverbs used in exclamation. So with ἄγε, δεῦρο, δεῦτε, ἔα, 
ἴδε, ἰδού, ova, οὐαί, ὦ. Interjections may be mere sounds, but they 
are chiefly words with real meaning. “Aye and ἴδε are both verb- 
stems and ἰδού is kin to ἴδε. The origin of the adverbs here used as 
interjections is not always clear. Οὐαί as in Mt. 11:21 (common 
in the LX X, N. T. and Epictetus) has the look of a dative, but one 
hesitates. As a substantive ἡ οὐαί is probably due to θλίψις or 
ταλαιπωρία (Thayer). Cf. chapters XII, v, and XVI, v, (e), for use 
of article with adverb, as τὸ νῦν. For the adverb like adjective, 
as ἡ ὄντως: χήρα (1 Tim. 5:5), see ch. XII, vi. In Lu. 12:49 zi 
may be an exclamatory adverb (accusative case), but that is not 
certain. Aedpo sometimes is almost a verb (Mk. 10:21). The rela- 
tive adverb ὡς is used as an exclamation in ws ὡραῖοι (Ro. 10: 15) 
and ὡς ἀνεξερεύνητα (Ro. 11:33). The interrogative πῶς is like- 
wise so employed, as πῶς δύσκολόν ἐστι (Mk. 10: 24), πῶς συνέχομαι 
(Lu. 12: 50), πῶς ἐφίλει αὐτόν (Jo. 11:36). Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T’. 
Gk., p. 258. Thus we see many sorts of adverbs and many ways 
of making them. | 


CHAPTER VIII 
CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 


I. Difficulty of the Subject. The discussion of the verb gives 
greater difficulty than that of the noun for two reasons especially. 
For one thing the declension (κλίσις) of nouns is more stable than 
the conjugation (συζυγία) of the verb. This difficulty applies to 
both the forms and the syntax of the νου. There is besides spe- 
cial difficulty in the Greek verb due to the ease and number of new 
verbal formations.?. Sanskrit and Greek can be compared with 
more ease than Greek and Latin. Giles* indeed calls the Latin 
verb-system ‘‘only a mutilated fragment” of the original parent 
stock, so that ‘‘a curious medley of forms” is the result, while in 
the syntax of the verb no two Indo-Germanic languages are fur- 
ther apart than Greek and Latin. Both noun and verb have 
suffered greatly in the ravages of time in inflection. It is in de- 
clension (cases) and conjugation (personal endings) that noun and 
verb mainly differ. ‘‘These suffixes [used for the present tense], 
however, are exactly parallel to the suffixes in the substantive, 
and in many instances can be identified with them.’’® 

II. Nature of the Verb. 

(a) VERB AND Noun. In itself verbwm is merely ‘word,’ any 
word, and so includes noun also. As a matter of fact that was 
probably true originally. In isolating languages only position and 
the context can determine a verb from a noun, and that is often 
true in English to-day. But in inflected tongues the case-endings 
and the personal endings mark off noun and verb. But in simple 
truth we do not know which is actually older, noun or verb; both 
probably grew up together from the same or similar roots.® 
Schoemann,’ however, is much more positive that ‘the first word 


1 Giles, Man., p. 403f. 2 Hirt, Handb., p. 332. 3 Man., p. 404. 
4 Steinthal, Zeitschr. fiir Vélkerpsych. etc., p. 351. Cf. Schleicher, Unter- 
scheidung von Nomen und Verbum etc., 4. Bd. der Abh. ἃ. phil. etc., 1865, 


p. 509. 5 Giles, Man., p. 424. 
6 Schroeder, Uber die form. Untersch. d. Redet. im Griech. und Lat., 1874, 
pp. 10 ff. 7 Die Lehre von den Redet. etc., 1864, p. 31. 


303 


304 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


which man spoke was essentially much more a verb than a noun.” 
But, whether the verb is the first word or not, it is undoubtedly 
the main one and often in the inflected tongue forms a sentence in 
itself, since the stem expresses the predicate and the ending the 
subject.!. It is worth noting also that by the verb-root and the 
pronominal root (personal endings) the verb unites the two ulti- 
mate parts of speech. The verb and noun suffixes, as already 
said, are often identical (Giles, Manual, etc., p. 424). In all 
sentences the verb is the main part of speech (the word par 
excellence) save in the copula (ἐστί) where the predicate is com- 
pleted by substantive or adjective or adverb (another link be- 
tween verb and noun). “A noun is a word that designates and 
a verb a word that asserts” (Whitney, Am. Jour. of Philol., xiii, 
p. 275). A man who does not see that “has no real bottom to his 
grammatical science.” 

(b) MEANING OF THE VERB. Scholars have found much diffi- 
culty in defining the verb as distinct from the noun. Indeed there 
is no inherent difference between nouns and verbs as to action, 
since both may express that.?, The chief difference lies in the idea 
of affirmation. The verb affirms, a thing not done by a noun ex- 
cept by suggested predication. Verbs indicate affirmation by the 
personal endings. Affirmation includes negative assertions also.3 
Farrar‘ cites also the German “abstract conception of existence” 
(Humboldt) and action (T'dtigkeitswort), but they do not fit the 
facts. Curiously enough many ancient grammarians found time 
to be the main idea in the verb. 

(c) Pure AND Hyprip Verss. The close kinship between 
nouns and verbs appears in the verbal nouns which partake of 
both. The infinitive is a verbal substantive, and the participle is 
a verbal adjective. There is also the verbal in —7os and —réos. 
Some of the properties of both verb and noun belong to each. 
They are thus hybrids. They are generally called non-finite 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 1. In the Sans. it is to be noted that the noun had 
an earlier and a more rapid development than the verb. The case-endings 
appear first in the Sans., the verb-conjugation in the Gk., though the personal 
endings are more distinct in the Sans. 2 Cf. Garnett, Philol. Ess. 

8. Cf. Gr. Gén. of Port Royal; Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 38. 

4 Ib. He considers the verb later than the noun because of its complex 
idea. Cf. Schramm, Uber die Bedeutung der Formen des Verbums (1884); 
Curtius, Die Bildung der Tempora und Modi im Griech. und Lat. (1846); 
Junius, Evolution of the Greek Verb from Primary Elements (1843); Lauten- 
sach, Verbalflexion der att. Inschr. (1887); Hogue, Irregular Verbs of Attic 
Prose (1889). 


ee EEE err ee 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 305 


verbs, because they do not make affirmation. They have no per- 
sonal endings. They fall short of being mere verbs, but they are 
more than the noun. The pure verb has personal endings and is 
thus finite (limited). The two must be kept distinct in mind, 
though they run together sometimes in treatment. The finite 
verb has person and number expressed in the personal ending.! 
The verbum finitum has modes while the verbum infinitum (in- 
finitive and participle) has no modes. 

III. The Building of the Verb. This is not the place for a full 
presentation of the phenomena concerning verb-structure. The 
essential facts as to paradigms must be assumed. But attention 
can be called to the fact that the Greek verb is built up by means 
of suffixes and affixes around the verb-root. So it was originally, 
and a number of such examples survive. Afterwards analogy, of 
course, played the main part. The oldest verbs are those which 
have the simple root without a thematic vowel like φη-μί or ἔ-βη-ν. 
This root is the ground floor, so to speak, of the Greek verb. On 
this root the aorist and present-tense systems were built by merely 
adding the personal endings. This was the simplest form of the 
verb. There is no essential difference in form between ἔ-φη-ν and 
é-orn-v. We call one imperfect indicative and the other second 
aorist indicative, but they are originally the same form.2 The 
term second aorist is itself a misnomer, for it is older than 
the so-called first aorist -ca or —a. The thematic stem (vowel 
added to root) is seen in verbs like -Auz-o/e. On this model the 
rest of the verb is built. So all Greek root-verbs are either non- 
thematic or thematic. The denominative verbs like τιμάτω are 
all thematic. On roots or stems then all the verbs (simple or 
compound) are built. The modes, the voices, the tenses all con- 
tribute their special part to the whole. The personal endings 
have to carry a heavy burden. ‘They express not only person 
and number, but also voice. There are mode-signs and tense-suf- 
fixes, but no separate voice suffixes apart from the personal 
endings. The personal pronouns thus used with the verb-root 
antedate the mode and tense suffixes. The Sanskrit preserves 
the person-endings more clearly than the Greek, though the Greek 
has a more fully developed system of modes and tenses than 
the later classical Sanskrit. It seems certain that these pro- 


1 Cf. Brug., Grundr., Bd. II, pp. 2, 837. On difference between finite and 
non-finite verbs see Curtius, Das Verbum d. griech. Spr., p. 1 f. 

2 Hirt, Handb., p. 368 f. Cf. also Giles, Man., pp. 425 ff. 

3 Donaldson, New Crat., pp. 570 ff. 


306 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


nominal suffixes, like --μι, --σι, —7, are not in the nominative, but 
an oblique case! connected with the stem: με, σε, τι (cf. demon- 
strative 76). But the subject of personal endings is a very exten- 
sive and obscure one, for treatment of which see the comparative 
grammars. There is a constant tendency to syncretism in 
the use of these personal endings. Homer has fewer than the 
Sanskrit, but more than Plato. The dual is gone in the N. T. 
and other endings drop away gradually. The nominative pro- 
noun has to be expressed more and more, like modern English. 

IV. The Survival of -μι Verbs. 

(a) A Cross Division. Before we take up modes, voices, 
tenses, we are confronted with a double method of inflection that 
cuts across the modes, voices and tenses. One is called the --μι 
inflection from the immediate attachment of the personal endings 
to the stem. The other is the —w inflection and has the the- 
matic vowel added to the stem. But the difference of inflection 
is not general throughout any verb, only in the second aorist and 
the present-tense systems (and a few second perfects), and even so 
the —y conjugation is confined to four very common verbs (ἵημι, 
ἵστημι, δίδωμι, τίθημι), except that a number have it either in the 
present system, like δείκ-νυ-μι (with νυ inserted here), or the aorist, 
like €By-v.2 The dialects differed much in the use of non-thematic 
and thematic verbs (cf. Buck, ‘‘The Interrelations of the Greek 
Dialects,’’? Classical Philology, July, 1907, p. 724). 

(6) THE OLDEST VERBS. This fact is a commonplace in Greek 
grammar. It is probable that originally all verbs were —u verbs. 
This inflection is preserved in optative forms like λύοιμι, and in 
Homer the subjunctive’ ἐθέλωμι, ἴδωμι, etc. The simplest roots 
with the most elementary ideas have the —u form.’ Hence the 
conclusion is obvious that the —uw conjugation that survives in 
some verbs in the second aorist and present systems (one or 
both) is the original. It was in the beginning λέγτο-μι with the- 
matic as well as φη-μί with non-thematic verbs.® 

(c) GRADUAL DISAPPEARANCE. In Latin the -μι ending is 
seen only in inquam and sum, though Latin has many athematic 
stems. In English we see it in am. Even in Homer the -μι 


1 Donaldson, New Crat., pp. 570 ff. Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 39. 

2 Cf. Hirt, Handb., pp. 355 ff.; Giles, Man., pp. 413 ff. 

a. Jann. ΠΡ τ Gra ps foot: 

4 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 51. 5 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 46. 

6 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 2. Cf. Clyde, Gk. Synt., 5th ed., 1876, p. 54; Riem. 
and Goelzer, Phonét., pp. 347 ff. 





CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 307 


forms are vanishing before the —w conjugation. Jannaris (Hist. 
Gk. Gr., p. 234) has an excellent brief sketch of the gradual 
vanishing of the —uw forms which flourished chiefly in pre-Attic 
Greek. The LXX MSS. show the same tendency towards the 
disappearance of —u. forms so noticeable in the N. T., the 
papyri and other representatives of the κοινή. See numerous 
parallel illustrations in Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 104-110. In 
the LXX the transition to —w verbs is less advanced than in the 
N. T. (Thackeray, Gr., p. 244) and the middle -- μι forms held on 
longest. In the κοινή this process kept on till in modern Greek 
vernacular εἶμαι is the only remnant left. In the Attic δείκνυμι, 
for instance, is side by side with δεικνύω. In the N. T. we find 
such forms as διδῶ (Rev. 3:9), ἱστῶ (Ro. 3:31, EKL), συνιστῶ (2 
Goris 7 BD): 

(ὃ N. T. Usacre as To -μἝτΈ͵ VerBs. The —uw verbs in the 
N. T. as in the papyri are badly broken, but still in use. 

1. The Second Aorists (active and middle). We take first the 
so-called second aorists (athematic) because they come first save 
where the present is practically identical. In some verbs only 
the second aorist is athematic, the stem of the verb having dropped 
the —u inflection. A new view! makes the second aorist some- 
times ‘‘a reduced root,” but this does not show that in the parent 
stock the old aorist was not the mere root. Analogy worked here 
as elsewhere. Kaegi? properly calls the old aorists of verbs like 
βάλλω (ἔ-βλη-το instead of the thematic and later ἐ-βάλ-ε-το) “ prim- 
itive aorists.”” In the early Epic the root-aorists and strong 
thematic aorists outnumber the o or weak aorists by three to one.’ 
The important N. T. —y verbs will now be considered. 

Baivw. Only in composition in N. T. (ἀνα--, προσ-ανα--, συν- 
ανα--, ἀπο-., dia—, ἐκ--, ἐμ--, κατα--, μετα--, Tapa—, προ-, συμ-). In the 
LXX itis rare in simplex. The papyri use it freely with nine 
prepositions.’ Note the common forms like ἀνέβη (Mt. 5:1). The 
“contract”? forms are in the imperative as in the Attic poets 
(εἴσβα, κατάβα) .Σ Mayser® gives no examples from the papyri, nor 
does the LX X have any (LXX only ἀνάβηθι, κατάβηθι, --βητε, --βήτω, 
--Στωσαν). So ἀνάβα (Rev. 4:1), avaBare (Rev. 11:12), κατάβα 
(Syrian class in Mk. 15 : 30), καταβάτω (Mt. 24:17; 27:42. Cf. 


1 Cf. King and Cookson, Prin. of Sound and Inflexion, 1888, pp. 225 ff. 
2 Gk. Gr., 1898, p. 245. 

3 Thompson, Hom. Gr., 1890, p. 127. 5 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 50. 
4 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 389. 6 Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 364 f. 

7 W.-Sch., p. 115. Cf. Veitch, Gk. Verb, p. 110. 


308 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT . 


also’ Mk. 13:15; 16.152; 11.17.51}. μετὰβα (Mier 17220) a On 
the other hand note the usual κατάβηθι (Mt. 27 : 40, etc.), μετά- 
βηθι (Jo. 7 : 8), προσανάβηθι (Lu. 14:10). The forms in --ἀτω, --ατε, 
--ἀτωσαν are like the Doric. 

Γινώσκω. This verb in the Ionic and κοινή yw. form is very 
common in John’s Gospel and the First Epistle. It is used in com- 
position with ἀνα--, δια--, ἐπι--, κατα--, προ-, the papyri adding still 
other compounds.! The N. T. shows the usual second aorist forms 
like ἔγνων (Lu. 16:4). What calls for remark is the second aorist 
subjunctive yvot instead of γνῷ. W. F. Moulton’s view? on this 
point is confirmed by the papyri® parallel in azodot and accepted 
by W. H. and Nestle. Analogy seems to have worked here to 
make yvot like dot. But Winer-Schmiedel (p. 115) cite yvot from 
Hermas, Mand. IV, 1,5 δῆ. It is in accordance with the contrac- 
tion of -ow verbs when we find forms like γνοῖ, δοῖ, etc., ὀῃ Ξε οἵ In- 
stead of 67=@. For yvot see Mk. 5:43; 9:30; Lu. 19:15. But 
see also γνῷ in Jo. 7:51; 11:57 (Ὁ has yvot); 14:31; Ac. 22 : 24 
(ἐπι-. But the MSS. vary in each passage. In the LXX the 
regular γνῷ occurs save in Judith 14:5, where B has ἐπιγνοῖ. 

Δίδωμι. This very common verb is frequently compounded 
(ava—, ἀντ--, ἀπο--, δια--, ἐκ--, ἔπι--, μετα--, παρα-, mpo—) as in the 
papyri.* The old indicative active appears only in παρέδοσαν in 
the literary preface to Luke’s Gospel (1 : 2). Elsewhere the first 
aorist forms in —xa (like ἧκα, ἔθηκα) sweep the field for both singu- 
lar and plural. These « forms for the plural appear in the Attic 
inscriptions in the fourth century B.c.° and rapidly grow. In the 
papyri Mayser’ finds only the « aorists. The other modes go 
regularly δός, δῶ, etc. The indicative middle occasionally, as 
the imperfect, has ε for o of the root. This is possibly due to 
proportional analogy (ἐξέδετο : ἐξεδόμην = ἐλύετο : EAXvdunv).2 These 
forms are ἀπέδετο (Heb. 12: 16), ἐξέδετο (Mk. 12:1; Mt. 21:33; 
Lu. 20:9). The usual form ἀπέδοσθε, etc., appears in Ac. 5:8; 
7:9. The subjunctive active third singular shows great varia- 
tion between δοῖ, δῷ (cf. yvot above), and δώῃ (especially in 
Paul’s Epistles). The LXX MSS. occasionally give —dot and 


1 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p.391. 2 W.-M., p. 360 note. 

3 Moulton, Prol., p. 55. Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 137, 325, 
for ὅπως dot. Cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, pp. 37, 436. 

4 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 392. ὃ Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 188 f. 

5 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 49. 7 Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 367 f. 

8 So W.-H., Notes on Orth., p. 167 f. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 121. For pap. exx. 
see Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 37. ® Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 49. 





CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 309 


even —67 by assimilation (Thackeray, Gr., p. 255f.).. For papyri 
examples see references under γινώσκω. Mark four times (all the 
examples) has rapadot according to the best MSS. (4: 29; 8 : 37; 
14: 10 1.) and John one out of three (13:2). Tisch. (not W. H.) 
reads ἀποδοὶ in 1 Th. 5:15, but all MSS. have ἀποδῷ in Mt. 
ΠΤ accept.6¢) m.Jo.15:71163 Ephicd 316 1 ΠΠ}..8: 
15 (ἀπο-). Most MSS. read δώῃ in Eph. 1:17 and 2 Tim. 2: 
25, in both of which places W. H. put δῴη (opt. for δοίη) in 
the text and δώῃ in the margin. The opt. δῴη appears in the 
LXX (Jer. 9 : 2) in the text of Swete. Con. and Stock, Sel. from 
LXX, p. 45, give δῴη twenty-nine times in LXX and δοίη three 
times as variant. They give an interesting list of other forms of 
δίδωμι and its compounds in the LXX. Hort! is doubtful about 
such a subjunctive in δώῃ except in the epic poets. Blass? is 
willing to take δώῃ, and Moulton® cites Boeotian and Delphian 
inscriptions which preserve this Homeric form. He adds that the 
subjunctive seems ‘‘a syntactical necessity” in Eph. 1:17 and 
2 Tim. 2:25. The opt. δῴη ΞΞ δοίη (cf. subjunctive 667 = δῷ) is with- 
Ouewarianqan ee bhes 216302 Tim. 11116718400 Blass® scouts 
the idea of a possible first aorist active ἔδωσα from ἵνα δώσῃ 
(Jo. 17:2 N°AC), δώσωμεν (Mk. 6 : 37, ND), on the ground that 7 
and εἰ, o and w so often blend in sound in the κοινή. The so-called 
future subjunctive will be discussed later (ch. XIX). 

Ἵημι. Not in simplex in N. T. (see p. 314 for details), but 
ἀφίημι is quite common (especially in the Gospels), and συνίημι 
less so. Besides a few examples occur also of dvinm, καθίημι, 
παρίημι. The papyri® use the various prepositions freely in com- 
position with imu. The common μὲ second aorists, like ἄφες (Mt. 
3:15), ἀφῇ (Mk. 12:19), ἀνέντες (Ac. 27:40), are found. In the 
indicative active, however, the form in —xa is used alone in both 
singular and plural, as ἀφήκαμεν (Mt. 19 : 27), ἀφήκατε (Mt. 28: 
23), ἀφῆκαν (Mk. 11:6). This is true of all the compounds of 
tinue in the N. T. as in LXX (Thackeray, Gr., p. 252). The 
form ἀφῆκες (Rev. 2:4) is on a par with the second person sin- 
gular perfect active indicative as accepted by W. H. in κεκοπίακες 
(Rev. 2:3), πέπτωκες (Rev. 2:5), εἴληφες (Rev. 11:.17),}. ᾿Αφήκαμεν 
is aorist in Mk. 10:28 as well as in its parallel Mt. 19:27 


1 Notes on Orth., p. 168. Cf. also W.-Sch., p. 121. 

2 Gr. of N. T.Gk., p.48f: 8 Prol.,p.55. Cf. Dittenb., Syll., 462. 17, ete. 
4 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 168. 5 Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 49, 212. 

6 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 398. | 

7 Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 166. The evidence is “nowhere free from 


310 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(cf. Lu. 18 : 28). So also as to συνήκατε in Mt. 13:51. The per- 
fect in —etka does not, however, occur in the N. T. nor in the LXX 
(cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 51), though the papyri have it 
(Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 331). 

Ἵστημι. This verb is used freely by itself, especially in the 
Gospels, and occurs in twenty prepositional combinations ac- 
cording to Thayer (ἀν--, ἐπ-αν--, ἐξ-αν--, av0—, ad—, δι--, ἐν--, EE-, ἐπ--, 
ἐφ--, κατ-εφ--, συν-εφ--, καθ--, ἀντι-καθ--, ἀπο-καθ--, μεθ--, παρ--, περι--; προ-, 
συν-)), going quite beyond the papyri in richness of expression.! The 
second aorist active indicative ἔστη (ἀπέστη, etc.) Is common and is 
intransitive as in Attic, just like ἐστάθη (cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., 
p. 50). The other forms are regular (στῶ, στῆθι, etc.) save that 
ἀνάστα (like ἀνάβα) is read in a few places (Ac. 9:11; 12:7; Eph. 
5:14), but στῆθι, ἀνάστηθι (Ac. 9 : 6, 34), ἐπίστηθι, στῆτε, ἀντίστητε, 
ἀπόστητε, ἀποστήτω.Σ Winer?® cites ἀπόστα, παράστα also from late 
writers and a few earlier authors for ἀνάστα. The LXX shows a 
few examples also.* 

‘Ovivynpr. This classic word (not given in the papyri, according 
to Mayser’s Grammatik) is found only once in the N. T., the sec- 
ond aorist opt. middle ὀναίμην (Phil. 20). - 

Τίθημι. The compounds of τίθημι in the N. T. (ava—, rpoo-ava-, 
ἀπο-, δια- , ἀντι-δια--, ἐκ--, ἔπι--, συν-επι--, KATA—, συν-κατα--, μετα--, πα- 
ρα--, περι-, προ--, προσ--, συν--, bro—) vie with those of ἵστημι and 
equal the papyri τ86ὸ ΤΠ first aorist active in --κα alone ap- 
pears (so LXX) in the indicative singular and plural as ἔθηκαν 
(Mk. 6 : 29), but the subjunctive in --θῶ (Mt. 22 : 44), imperative 
πρόσθες (Lu. 17:5). The middle has the regular second aorist 
ἔθετο (Ac. 19 : 21 and often). 

Φημί. If one is surprised to see this verb put under the list of 
second aorists, he can turn to Blass,® who says that it is “at once 


doubt,” some MSS. read ἔδωκες (Jo. 17:7 f.) and ἀφήκετε (Mt. 23 : 23), not to 
Say éwpaxes (Jo. 8: 57), ἐλήλυθες (Ac. 21:22, B also). Moulton (Prol., p. 52) 
considers —es a “mark of imperfect Gk.” For further exx. of this -es ending in 
the LXX and κοινή see Buresch, Rhein. Mus. etc., 1891, p. 222f. For inu 
and its compounds in the LXX see C. and §., Sel. fr. LXX, p. 45 f., showing 
numerous —w forms, ἀφῆκαν (Xen. ἧκαν), etc. 

1 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 398. 

2 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 168. 8 W.-M., p. 94. 

* Thack., Gr., p. 254. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 122f. On ἱστάναι and its compounds 
in the LXX see interesting list in C. and §., Sel. fr. LXX, p. 43 f., giving 
—w forms, transitive ἕστακα, etc. 5 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 411. 

δ Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 50. The verb is mentioned here to impress the fact 
that it is aorist as well as imperfect. 





CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 311 


imperfect and aorist.’”” It is common in the N. T. as aorist (Mt. 
4:7, for instance, ἔφη). It is not always possible to decide. 

2. Some --μι Presents. It is difficult to group these verbs ac- 
cording to any rational system, though one or two small groups 
(like those in --νυμι, --μι) appear. The presents are more com- 
mon in the N. T. than the aorists. The list is based on the un- 
compounded forms. 

Δείκ-νυ-μι. Already in the Attic δεικνύω is common, but Blass! 
observes that in the N. T. the middle-passive —u forms are still 
rather common. It is compounded with ἀνα--, ἀπο-, ἐν--, ἐπι--, ὑπο--. 
No presents (or imperfects) occur with ava— and ὑπο--. The word 
itself is not used very extensively. The form δείκνυμι is found 
once (1 Cor. 12:31), τ-όω not at all. So on the other hand δεικ- 
pues, occurs once (Jo. 2:18), —vs not at all. Δείκνυσιν is read by 
the best MSS. (Mt. 4:8; Jo. 5:20). The middle ἐνδείκνυνται ap- 
pears in Ro. 2:15. The —u participle active is found in Ac. 18: 
28 (ἐπιδεικνύς) and 2 Th. 2: 4 (ἀποδεικνύντα). The middle --μι par- 
ticiple is seen in Ac. 9:39; Tit. 2:10; 3:2 (-dpevos, etc.). In 
Heb. 6:11 the infinitive ἐνδείκνυσθαι is read, but δεικνύειν (Mt. 16: 
21 B-wva).2 The other N. T. verbs in -ὖμι (ἀπόλλυμι, ζώννυμι, ὑπο- 
ζώννυμι, ὄμνυμι, σβέννυμι, στρώννυμι, ὑποστρώννυμι, κτλ.) Will be dis- 
cussed in alphabetical order of the simplex. The inscriptions show 
these forms still in use (Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., Ὁ. 178). The 
verbs in —vuue were the first to succumb to the —w inflection. In 
the LXX the —uw forms are universal in the middle, but in the 
active the —-w forms are more usual.(Thack., Gr., p. 245). 

Δίδωμι. See under (d), 1, for list of compounds in the N. T. 
Attic Greek had numerous examples from the form διδότω (δίδου, 
ἐδίδουν, —ovs, —ov). This usage is extended in the N. T. as in the 
papyri’ to διδῶ (Rev. 3:9), though even here BP have δίδωμι. In 
Wisd. of Sol. 12 : 19 διδοῖς occurs, but Lu. 22 : 48 has the regular 
παραδίδως. Δίδωσι is common (in LXX, Ps. 37:21, διδοῖ appears) 
and διδόασιν in Rev. 17:13. The uniform imperfect ἐδίδου (Mt. 
15 : 36) is like the Attic. Hort observes that Mk. (15 : 23) and 
Ac. (4:33; 27:1) prefer ἐδίδουν. Jo. (19:3) has, however, édido- 
σαν and Acts once also (16:4). Δίδου (Attic present imperative) 
is read by some MSS. in Mt. 5:42 for δός. In Rev. 22:2 the 


1 Tb., p. 48. 

2 In the pap. both -ῦμι and --ω, but only -vya. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. 
Pap., p. 392. 

3 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 37. Cf. Deiss., B. S., p. 192. Mod. Gk. has 
δίδω. 


312 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


text has participle ἀποδιδοῦν for —dv (marg. —obls), while παραδι- 
δῶν is read by δὰ in Mt. 26:46 and Din Mk. 14:42, etc.1. The 
middle-passive forms in —ero (imperfect) from a present δίδω are 
like the aorist forms, which see above. So διεδίδετο (Ac. 4: 35) and 
παρεδίδετο (1 Cor. 11:23). So also subjunctive παραδιδοῖ is found 
only once (1 Cor. 15:24) and is probably to be rejected (BG), 
though the papyri amply support it.2. In the imperfect ἐδίδοσαν 
holds its place in the LXX, while in the present the —w forms 
generally prevail (Thackeray, Gr., p. 250). The LXX is quite 
behind the N. T. in the transition from —u to —w forms. 

Δύναμαι. The use of δύνῃ (Mk. 9: 22; Lu. 16:2; Rev. 2:2) in- 
stead of δύνασαι argues for the thematic δύνομαι. Elsewhere δύνασαι 
(Lu. 6 : 42, ete.). This use of δύνῃ is found in the poets and from 
Polybius on in prose (Thayer), as shown by inscriptions’ .and 
papyri.*’ Hort® calls it a “tragic” form retained in the κοινή. It 
is not surprising therefore to find B reading δύνομαι (also --όμεθα, 
—duevos) in Mk. 10:39; Mt. 19:12; 26:58; Ac. 4:20; 27:15; 
Is. 28: 20 (so δὲ in Is. 59:15). The papyri® give plenty of illus- 
trations also. MSS. in the LXX give δύνομαι and δύνῃ. 

Εἰμί. The compounds are with ἀπ--, ἐν--, ἐξ-- (only ἔξεστιν, ἐξόν), 
παρ--, συν--, συν-παρ-. The papyri’ show a much more extended use 
of prepositions. This very common verb has not undergone many 
changes, though a few call for notice. In the present indicative 
there is nothing for remark. The imperfect shows the middle 
ἤμην, ἤμεθα regularly (as Mt. 25:43; 23:30), as modern Greek 
uniformly has the middle present εἶμαι, etc., as well as imperfect 
middle. Cf. already in ancient Greek the future middle ἔσομαι. 
The use of ἤμην, seen in the papyri® and inscriptions? also, served 
to mark it off from the third singular ἦν. But examples of ἦμεν 
still survive (Ro. 7:5, οὔθ). Moulton! quotes from Ramsay"! 
a Phrygian inscription of εἶμαι for early fourth century a.p. He 
cites also the Delphian middle forms ἦται, ἔωνται, Messenian ἦνται, 


1 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 167. Cf. also W.-Sch., p. 121. 

2 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 37. 3. Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 177. 

4 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 355; Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 36. Cf. 
also Dieterich, Untersuch., p. 222; Schmid, Atticismus, IV, p. 597; Deiss., 
B.58., p. 193. 

5 Notes on Orth., p. 168. Cf. Lobeck, Phryn., p. 359 f. 

6 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 355; Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 36. 

7 Mayser, ib.,; p. 394. 

δ ipa: 9. Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 178. 

10 Prol., p. 56. Ὁ (M. shows) alone has ἦν in Ac. 20:18. 

11 Cities and Bish. of Phrygia, I], 565. 





CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 918 


Lesbian ἔσσο, as early instances of this tendency, not to mention 
the Northwest Greek.! The peculiar classical second person ἦσθα 
is found in Mk. 14:67; Mt. 26: 69, but elsewhere ἧς (Jo. 11: 21, 
32, etc.), the common form in the κοινή Ἦ τε (Ro. 6 : 20, for in- 
stance) is regular. So with the imperative ἴσθι (Mt. 2:13, etc.). 
Ἤτω (as 1 Cor. 16: 22) is less common? than the usual ἔστω (Gal. 
1:8). "Ἔστωσαν (never ὄντων nor ἔστων), as in Lu. 12:35, is a 
form found in Attic inscriptions since 200 B.c.4. Some of the pa- 
pyri even have ἤτωσαν" Mention has already (Orthography) been 
made of the irrational ν with the subjunctive 7 in the papyri,® as 
in ὅταν ἦν — δηλώσω. The use of ἔνι-ε ἔνεστι (as 1 Cor. 6:5; Gal. 
5. : 28, etc.) is an old idiom. "Ἐνιξξ ἐν and in modern Greek has 
supplanted ἐστί in the form εἶνε or εἶναι (so for εἰσί 4150). Cf. 
Sir. 37:2. Ν. Τ. has no example of imperative ἔστε. 

Εἶμι. Only in compounds (ἀπ--, εἰσ--, ἐξ--, ἐπ--, συν-). The pa- 
pyri® and the inscriptions? show only the compound forms. 
Blass!® indeed denies that even the compound appears in the 
popular κοινή, but this is an overstatement. The Attic em- 
ployed ἔρχομαι for the present indicative and kept εἶμι for the fu- 
ture indicative. The κοινή followed the Ionic (and Epic) in the 
use of ἔρχομαι for all the tenses to the neglect of εἶμι. In the 
N. T. only Luke and the writer of Hebrews (once) use these com- 
pound forms of εἶμι and that very rarely. "Amecus only occurs in 
the imperfect indicative (Ac. 17:10, ἀπήεσαν). Ἐϊΐσειμι appears 
four times, two in the present indicative (Ac. 3:3; Heb. 9:6), 
two in the imperfect indicative (Ac. 21:18, 26), while εἰσέρχομαι 
appears over two hundred times. ”"Eée.ue also occurs four times, 
all in Acts (13: 42; 17: 15; 20:7; 27:48), against a host of instances 
of ἐξέρχομαι. “Ee is read five times in Acts and all of them in 
the participle τῇ ἐπιούσῃ (Ac. 7: 26, etc.). Σύνειμι is found only in 
Lu. 8:4. B reads εἴσιθι in Ac. 9:6, not εἴσελθε. Blass! rather 


1°Prol.; p. 37. 

2 W.-Sch., p. 117: 

3 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 56. Both forms in pap. and inser. On juny, ἧς, 
ἤμεθα, ἤτω, ἔστωσαν in the LXX see C. and S., Sel. fr. LXX, p. 31 f. Thack., 
Gr., p. 256f. Beyond this the LXX goes very little. 

4 Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 191. 

5 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 436. 

6 Ib., p. 38. Cf. Gen. 6 : 17 EK, according to Moulton, Prol., p. 49. 

Cr ablass,.Gr oN. loGks p. bli Thack., p.' 257, 

8 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 355. 

9 Nachm., Maen. Inschr., p. 157. 1Grvof N.‘T: Gk., pp. 52; 54. 

HTb:;\p. 52. 


314 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


needlessly construes ἐξιόντων (Ac. 13 : 42) in the aoristic sense (so 
as to 17: 10, 15; 21:18, 26). Ἐΐμι is nearly gone from the LXX 
(Thackeray, Gr., p. 257). 

Ἐπίσταμαι. This verb occurs fifteen times in the N. T., chiefly 
in Acts (10 : 28, etc.) and always in the present tense.' 

Ζεύγνυμι. Only in the compound συ-ζεύγνυμι and in the aorist 
active alone, συνέζευξεν (Mk. 10:9; Mt. 19: 6). 

Ζώννυμι. The compounds are with ἀνα--, δια--, περι--, ὑπο--. 
Curiously enough the verb does not appear in Mayser, Nach- 
manson nor Schweizer, though Mayser (p. 397) does mention 
ζεύγνυμι, Which on the other hand the N. T. does not give save 
the one form above. But the uncompounded form is read in the 
N. T. only three times, one aorist indicative (Ac. 12:8), one future 
indicative (Jo. 21:18), and one imperfect (Jo. 21 : 18, ἐζώννυες, a 
form in - ὑω, not —vur). There is only one instance of the compound 
with ἀνα-- and that an aorist participle (1 Pet. 1:13). The three 
examples of διαΐζ., all in Jo. (18 : 4, etc.), yield no presents nor im- 
perfects. The same thing is true of the half-dozen instances of 
περιζ., aS Lu. 12:35. The LXX has περιζώννυται (Thackeray, 
Gr., p. 269). The one instance of ὑποζ. is in Ac. 27: 17 and shows 
the form in —vuut, ὑποζωννύντες. 

*Hyat. It is only in the compound form κάθημαι that this verb 
is seen in the N. T. and thus very frequently, twice with συν-- 
prefixed (Mk. 14:54; Ac. 26:30). It is usually the participle 
καθήμενος that one meets in the N. T. (as Mt. 9:9). The imper- 
fect is regularly ἐκάθητο, etc. (as Mt. 19 : 1), the future καθήσομαι 
(as Mt. 19 : 28). No —w forms appear in the present, though κάθῃ 
(Ac. 23 : 3) is a contract form like δύνῃ for κάθησαι (already in Hy- 
perides).2. The short imperative κάθου for κάθησο (as Jas. 2 : 3) 
is already in the LXX (cf. Mt. 22:44 from Ps. 110:1) and 
indeed in the late Attic (Blass, 7b.), though chiefly postclassical. 

Ἵημι. Like εἶμι this verb only appears in the N. T. in the 
compounded form (ἀν--, ἀφ--, καθ--, παρ--, ovv—-). The same thing 
appears to be true of the papyri as given by Mayser,* though fif- 
teen. combinations greet us in the papyri. But the papyri and 
the κοινή inscriptions have not yet furnished us with the τῷ 
formation with ἵημι compounds which we find in ἀφ-- and συνίημι 


1 Just so the pap., Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 395. 

2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 52. Cf. also for pap., Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, 
p. 38. For LXX see Thackeray, p. 272. 

3 W.-Sch., p. 118; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 177; Reinhold, De Graec., 
p. 89. _ * Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 398. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 315 


in the N. T.! and the LXX.2 But Philo? and the N. T. Apoc- 
rypha and early Christian writers* follow the LXX and the 
N. ΤΌ ’Avinue indeed has only ἀνιέντες (Eph. 6 : 9) in the present 
stem. So also καθίημι shows only καθιέμενον (--μένην) in Ac. 10:11; 
11:5, while παρίημι has no present, but only an aorist (Lu. 11: 
42) and a perfect passive (Heb. 12:12). ᾿Αφίημι is the form of 
the verb that is common in the N. T. In Rev. 2:20 ἀφεῖς is 
probably a present from ἀφέω." But Blass (p. 51, of N. 7. Gram- 
mar) compares the Attic adies and rides. Only ἀφίημι (Jo. 14: 
27) and ἀφίησι (Mt. 3:15) occur, but in Lu. 11 : 4 ἀφίομεν is from 
the Ionic adiw (cf. δίδω). So also in Rev. 11:9 ἀφίουσιν and in 
Jo. 20:23 marg. W. H. have ἀφίονται. Elsewhere ἀφίενται (Mt. 
9:2, etc.). In the imperfect ἤφιεν from adiw is read in Mk. 1: 34; 
11:16. ᾿Αφέωνται (Lu. 5 : 20, 23, etc.) is a perfect passive (Doric 
Areadian, Ionic).6 Cf. Ionic éwxa. Simcox (Language of the 
N. T., p. 38) quotes also ἀνέωνται from Herodotus. With συνίημι 
the task is much simpler. Blass’ sums it up in a word. In Ac. 
7:25 συνιέναι gives us the only undisputed instance of a —uw form. 
All the others are τω forms or have -w variations. However 
συνιέντος is correct in Mt. 18:19 and συνιέναι in Lu. 24:45. There 
is a good deal of fluctuation in the MSS. in most cases. W. H. 
read ouviovow (Mt. 13:13), συνίωσιν (Mk. 4:12), συνίων (Ro. 3: 
11). In 2 Cor. 10:12 W. H. read συνιᾶσιν after B. In the LXX 
only the compounded verb occurs, and usually the —u forms save 
with συνίημι (Thackeray, Gr., p. 250 f.). 

Ἵστημι. Cf. also ἐπ-ίσταμαι (see above) and στήκω (from ἕσ- 
τηκα, imperfect ἔστηκε In Rev. 12: 4, στέκω in modern Greek). 
For the list of compounds? see list of aorists (1). But the essen- 
tial facts can be briefly set forth. The —u form in the present 
stem has disappeared in the active voice save in καθίστησιν (Heb. 
7:28; 2 Pet. 1:8), συνίστημι (Ro. 16:1) and συνίστησι (2 Cor. 
10:18; Ro. 3:5; 5:8).° The middle (passive) forms retain the 
-μι inflection regularly with ἵστημι and its compounds (ἀν--, ἀφ-, 
ἀυθ--, ἐξ--, ἐφ-- , προ--, auy—), aS καθίσταται (Heb. 5:1), περιίστασο 

1 Mayser, ib., p. 354; Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 167. 

2 W.-Sch., p. 123. Herod. is cited for the use of ἐξίει and μετίει as —w presents. 

3 Ib. 4 Reinhold, De Graec., p. 94. 

5 So Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 167; W.-Sch., p. 123; Hatz., Einl., pp. 309, 334. 

δ᾽ Moulton, Prol., p. 38 f. 

7 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 51. He gives the MS. variations and parallels in 
Hermas and Barn. See further A. Buttmann, Gr., p. 48. 


8 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 398. 
9 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 168; Blass, Gr. of N. T., p. 48. 


316 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(2 Tim. 2: 16).!| Two —w forms supplant the —w conjugation of 
ἵστημι and its compounds, that in —aw and that in --ἀνω, though 
usually the MSS. vary greatly between the two.? In 1 Cor. 13:2 
NBDEFG read μεθιστάναι, though W. H. follow ACKL in μεθι- 
στάνειν The form in —dw is found in various MSS. for ἱστάω (as 
ἱστῶμεν Ro. 3:31), ἀποκαθ-- (Mt. 9:12 Rec.), ἐξιστάω, καθιστάω, 
μεθιστάω, συνιστάω, but is nowhere accepted in the W. H. text, 
though Hort‘ prefers συνιστᾷν to συνιστάνειν in 2 Cor. 3:1. In 
2 Cor. 4:2 a threefold division occurs in the evidence. For συνι- 
atavovres we have ABP (so W. H. and Nestle), for συνιστάντες 
NCD*FG, for συνιστῶντες DDOEKL.® The form in --άνω is uniformly 
given by W. H., though the form in —4w comes from Herodotus 
on and is frequent in the LXX.° But the —mw forms hold their 
own pretty well in the LXX (Thackeray, Gr., p. 247). The form 
in —4vw may be compared with the Cretan στανύειν and is found 
in the late Attic inscriptions.’ Instances of the form in --άνω in 
the W. Hi text: aretAct! 1576748295017. 15 1) Cormis= 2 aco 
8.11; 52125 6: 45010c1 2518 Gale? ΣΙ δ. hors: S16 elo Oe 
Mk. 9:12 W. H. (not so Nestle) accept the form ἀποκατιστάνει after 
B, while ND read ἀποκαταστάνει (cf. Cretan craviw). D has this 
form also in Ac. 1:6 and 17:15. 

Ketpat. This defective verb is only used in the present and 
imperfect in the N. T. as in the papyri,® and with a number of 
prepositions in composition like the papyri also. The prepositions 
are dva—, συν-ανα--, ἀντι--, ἀπο-, ἔπι--, KaTa—, Tapa—, Tept—, προ-- ‘The 
regular —u forms are always used, and sometimes as the passive 
of τίθημι, as περίκειμαι (Ac. 28:20; Heb. 5:2). For ἀνάκειμαι only 
the participle ἀνακείμενος appears (so Mt. 9 : 10) save once ἀνέκειτο 
(Mt. 26:20) and twice with συν-- (Mt. 9:10=Mk. 2:15). In 
Lu. 23:53 ἦν κείμενος follows the Attic, but NB have jv τεθειμέ- 
vos in Jo. 10:41. So in the LXX τίθημι partially replaces κεῖμαι 
(Thackeray, Gr., pp. 255, 272). 

Kpépapat. This verb is used as the middle of the active κρεμάν- 
νυμι (this form not in N. T.) and does not appear in Mayser’s list 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T., p. 49. 

2 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 168; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 49. 

3 Here Hort (Notes, etc., p. 168) differs from Westcott and prefers --άναι. 

4 Tb. | 5° Blass; Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 48. 

6 Ib. W.-Sch., p. 122. 

7 Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 177. For many -vw verbs in mod. Gk. see 
Thumb, Handb., p. 133 f. 

8 Mayser, Gr. ἃ. griech. Pap., pp. 354, 399. For the Byz. and mod. Gk. 
usage see Dieterich, Unters., p. 223. 9 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 51. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) liye 


for the papyri. The form! κρέμαται is read in Mt. 22:40 and the 
participle κρεμάμενος(ν) in Gal. 3:18; Ac. 28:4. In Lu. 19:48 ΝΒ 
(so W. H. and Nestle) read é&expéuero, an --ὦ form and. the only 
compound form of the verb in the N. T. The other forms are 
aorists which come from an active present κρεμάννυμι, —avviw, --ἀω 
or —af¢w. They are κρεμάσαντες (Ac. 5:30) and κρεμασθῇ (Mt. 18: 
6). But none of these presents occurs in the N. T. Cf. Veitch, 
Greek Verbs, p. 343 f., for examples of the active and the middle. 
So also no present of κεράννυμι (compound ovy-) is found in the 
N. T., but only the perfect passive (Rev. 14:10) and the aorist 
active (Rev. 18 : 6). 

Μίγνυμι. The only —y form is the compound συν-ανα-μίγνυσθαι 
(1 Cor. 5:9, 11) and so 2 Th. 3 : 14 according to W. H., instead of 
συν-ανα-μίγνυσθε. Wlsewhere, as in the papyri,”? the N. T. has only 
the perfect passive (Mt. 27: 34) and the aorist active (Lu. 18 : 1). 

Οἴγνυμι. This verb does not appear in the N. T. in the simple 
form, but always compounded with ἀν-- or éi-av-. Besides it is 
always an —w verb as in the papyri? and the LXX.‘ It is worth 
mentioning here to mark the decline of the —w forms. 

"OddAvpt. Only in the common ἀπ-- and once with συν-απ-- (Heb. 
11:31). In the active only the —w forms are found as ἀπολλύει 
(Jo. 12:25), ἀπόλλυε (Ro. 14:15). But in the middle (passive) 
only the --μι forms® meet us, as ἀπόλλυται (1 Cor. 8: 11), ἀπώλλυντο 
(1 Cor. 10:9). So the LXX. 

Ὄμνυμι. A half-dozen examples of the present tense of this 
verb occur in the N. T. All but one (ὀμνύναι, Mk. 14:71) belong 
to the --ὠα inflection, as ὀμνύει (Mt. 23 : 21 f.). The Ptolemaic pa- 
pyri also have one example of ὄμνυμι, the rest from ὀμνύω. The 
LXX sometimes has the --μι form in the active and always in the 
middle (Thackeray, Gr., p. 279). Neither πήγνυμι (aorist Heb. 
8:2) nor προσπήγνυμι (aorist Ac. 2: 23) appears in the present in 
the N. T. 

Πίμπλημι. No present tense in the N. T., though a good many 
aorists, save the compound participle ἐμπιπλῶν, from the —w verb 
πάω. Mayser’ gives no papyri examples. LXX has -w form 
usually. 


1 In the LXX the active goes over to the -w class. Thack., Gr., p. 273. 
2 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 403. 

3. Tb., p. 404. And indeed the old Attic ἀνοίγω, Meisterh., p. 191. 

ae hack ον Ὁ). 211: 

5 So the pap. Mayser, Gr., p. 852; Thackeray, p. 246. 

6 Mayser, ib., pp. 351 f., 404. 

7 Ib., p. 406. 


318 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Πίμπρημι. The simple verb occurs once only, πίμπρασθαι (Ac. 
28:6) according to W. H.! This is the only instance where a 
present occurs at all in the N.T. The papyri give no light as yet. 
No simplex in the LXX, but ἐνεπίμπρων in 2 Mace. 8:6 (Thack- 
eray, Gr., p. 249). 

ἱῬήγνυμι. The compounds are with δια--, repi—, rpoo—. No pres- 
ents appear save in the simple verb and διαρ--. With dap. only the 
—w forms are used as διερήσσετο (Lu. 5:6), διαρήσσων (Lu. 8 : 29). 
But we have ῥήγνυνται (Mt. 9:17) and ῥήσσει (Mk. 9:18). May- 
ser gives no papyri examples of the present. 

‘Povvupt has no presents at all in the N. T., but only the per- 
fect passive imperative ἔρρωσθε (Ac. 15 : 29). 

Σβέννυμι. This verb has only three presents in the N. T. 
and all of the —w form, one active σβέννυτε (1 Th. 5:19, Tisch. 
ζβενν.), two middle σβέννυται (Mk. 9 : 48) and σβέννυνται (Mt. 25 : 
8). The LXX has only —uw forms and in the more literary books 
(Thackeray, Gir., p. 284). 

Στρώννυμι. The compounds are with κατα--, ὑπο-. ‘There are 
only two present stems used in the N. T., ἐστρώννυον (Mt. 21 : 8) 
and ὑποστ. (Lu. 19 : 36). Thus the —u form is wholly dropped as 
in the papyri? and the LXX.? 

Τίθημι. For the list of compounds see Aorist (1). This verb has 
preferred the —u form of the present stem as a rule in the κοινή. 
The inscriptions‘ do so uniformly and the papyri® use the —w in- 
flection far less than is true of δίδωμι. In the present indicative D 
has τίθι (τίθει) for riOnor® (Lu. 8:16). In the imperfect ἐτίθει is read 
twice (Ac. 2 : 47; 2 Cor. 3 : 18) from τιθέω, as already in the Attic. 
So likewise ἐτίθουν (as in Attic) twice (Ac. 3: 2; 4:35), but the best 
MSS. have ἐτίθεσαν in Mk. 6:56 (NBLA) and Ac. 8:17 (NAC, 
though B has -οσαν and C --εἰσαν). The reading of Β in Ac. 8:17 
(ἐτίθοσαν) calls for a present τίθω which the papyri supply against 
the idea of Winer-Schmiedel,® as παρατιθόμενος (BM 239), zapa- 
κατατίθομαι (B.U. 326).° Good cursives show that the late language 
used τιθέω in the present (Mk. 10:16; 15:17). Cf. ὑποτιθοῦσα in 
second century papyrus (B.U. 350).!° In the LX X --μὶ forms pre- 
vail in the present and imperfect (Thackeray, Gr., p. 250). 

1 Tisch. reads ἐμπιπρᾶσθαι from πιπράω. Nestle agrees with W. H. 

2 Mayser, Gr., p. 352. 8 Thacks Gr:,pz286: 

Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 156; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 176. 
Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 352f. 1 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 167. 
Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 49. 55. 9511} 


Deiss., Β. 5.,. p. 192 f.; Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 37. 
° Ib. Mod. Gk. has θέτω. 


4 
5 
6 
9 


_ 





CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 319 


Φημί. The only N. T. compound is with συν--, none in the pa- 
pyri according to Mayser.' In the papyri φάσκω (lengthened 
form) is usually employed for the participle and infinitive? of 
φημί. The participle is so used in the N. T. (Ac. 24:9; Ro. 1: 
22). Σύνφημι appears only once (Ro. 7:16). The — inflection 
is uniform in φημί both in the present and the imperfect (aorist). 
The only forms in the N. T. are φημί (1 Cor. 7 : 29), φησίν (Mt. 
13 : 29), φασίν (Ro. 3:8), and the common ἔφη (Mt. 4:7). It is 
regular —uw in the LXX. 

Χρή. This impersonal verb had a poetic infinitive χρῆναι of the 
—w inflection, but Veitch (p. 627) and L. and S. get it from χράω. 
At any rate χρή is found only once in the N. T. (Jas. 3 : 10), δεῖ 
having supplanted it. Mayser does not find it in the papyri nor 
Nachmanson and Schweizer in the inscriptions. 

3. Some —u Perfects. There are only three verbs that show the 
active perfects without (x)a in the N. T. (mere root, athematic). 

Θνήσκω. The compounds are ἀπο-- (very common), συνταπο- 
(rare). The uncompounded verb occurs nine times and forms 
the perfect regularly as an —w verb (τέθνηκα), save that in Ac. 14: 
19 DEHLP read τεθνάναι instead of τεθνηκέναι, but the —uw form 
is not accepted by W. H. The N. T. has always τεθνηκώς, never 
τεθνεώς. In the LXX these shorter second perfect forms occur a 
few times in the more literary books (Thackeray, Gr., pp. 253, 270). 
They show “‘a partial analogy to verbs in —u”’ (Blass, Gr., p. 50). 

Οἶδα is a —w perfect in a few forms (ἴσμεν, ἴστε) from root ιδ-- (ef. 
Latin vid-eo, Greek εἶδον). The word is very common in the N. T. 
and σύνοιδα is found twice (Ac. 5: 2; 1 Cor.4:4). The present per- 
fect indicative like the papyri® usually has οἶδα, οἶδας, οἶδε, οἴδαμεν, 
—ate, —acw, which was the Ionic inflection and so naturally pre- 
vailed in the κοινή. Three times indeed the literary Attic ἴστε ap- 
pears (Jas. 1:19; Eph. 5:5; Heb. 12:17). The passage in James 
may be imperative instead of indicative. In Ac. 26 : 4 ἴσασιν (lit- 
erary Attic also) is read. The imperfect also runs ἤδειν, ἤδεις, etc. 
Ἤιδεισαν (Mk. 1:34; 14: 40) is like ἱστήκεισαν (Rev. 7: 11). The 
other modes go regularly εἰδῶ (Mt. 9:6), εἰδέναι (1 Th. 5: 12), 
εἰδώς (Mt. 12:25). The LXX usage is in accord with the N. T. 
Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 278. 

Ἵστημι. See Aorist (1) for compounds. The second perfect is 
in the N. T. only in the infinitive ἑστάναι (Lu. 18 : 25; Ac. 12 : 14; 


1 Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 355. 2 Ib. So inscr., Nachm., p. 157 
3 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 372. 
4 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 114f. Neither οἶσθα nor ἤδεισθα appears in the N. T. 


320 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


1 Cor. 10 : 12) and the participle ἑστώς (Mt. 20 : 3, 6, etc.) though 
ἑστηκώς (—-w form) also sometimes (Mk. 13:14; 15: 35, etc.), ἑστῶσα 
(1 Cor. 7 : 26; 2 Pet. 3 : 5), ἑστός (Mt. 24: 15; Rev. 14: 1) although 
ἑστηκός also (Rev. 5 : 6 text, W. H. marg. —ws). The same variation 
occurs in the papyri.! Curiously enough the earlier LX X books 
show less of the short perfect than the later ones and the N. T. 
Thackeray (Gr., p. 253) suggests an “Atticistic reversion” for a 
while. The form ἕστακα (papyri also) belongs to the —w form as 
well as the late present στήκω from the perfect stem. These -- μι 
perfects of ἵστημι are always intransitive, while ἕστηκα is intransi- 
tive and ἕστακα is transitive? This in brief is the story of the --μι 
verbs in the N. T.° The new transitive perfect ἕστακα 1s common 
in the κοινή from second century B.c. onwards. Cf. Schweizer, 
Perg. Inschr., p. 185; Mayser, Gr., p. 371. j 

V. The Modes (ἐγκλίσεις). The meaning and use of the modes 
or moods belongs to syntax. We have here to deal briefly with 
any special items that concern the differentiation of the modes 
from each other by means of mode-signs. There is no clearly 
proper method of approaching the study of the verb. One can 
begin with tense, voice and then mode or vice versa. The first is 
probably the historical order to a certain extent, for the matter is 
complicated. Some tenses are later than others; the passive voice 
is more recent than the other two, the imperative as a complete 
system is a late growth. Since no purely historical treatment is 
possible by reason of this complicated development, a practical 
treatment is best. There are reasons of this nature for taking 
up modes first which do not apply to syntax. The two main 
ideas in a verb are action and affirmation. The state of the action 
is set forth by the tense, the relation of the action to the subject 
by voice, the affirmation by mode. Tense and voice thus have 
to do with action and mode with affirmation. Mode deals only 
with the manner of the affirmation. The same personal endings 
used for voice limit the action (hence finite verbs) in person and 
number. | 

(a) THE NuMBER oF THE Moops or Mopss (Modi). This is 
not so simple a matter as it would at first appear. Modern gram- 
marians generally agree in declining to call infinitives, participles 
and the verbal adjectives in --τός and —réos moods. Some refuse 
to call the indicative a mood, reserving the term for the variations 


1 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 370 f. 2 Ib. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 119. 
5. See Hoffmann, Die griech. Dial., Bd. II, pp. 572 ff., for —u verbs in North 
Achaia, For the “strong” perfects, like γέγονα, see vu, (9), 2. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 921 


from the indicative as the normal verb by means of mode-signs. 
Thus Clyde! thinks of “only two moods, viz. the subjunctive 
and the optative, because, these only possess, in combination with ᾿ 
the personal endings, a purely modal element.’ There is point 
in that, and yet the indicative and imperative can hardly be 
denied the use of the term. Jannaris? admits three moods; in- 
dicative, subjunctive and imperative. He follows Donaldson? in 
treating the subjunctive and optative as one mood. Others, like 
Monro,‘ find the three in the subjunctive, optative and impera- 
tive. Once again five moods are seen in early Greek by Riemann 
and Goelzer®: the indicative, injunctive, subjunctive, optative, 
- imperative. On the injunctive see Brugmann, Griechische Gram- 
matik, p. 3832, though he does not apply the term mode to the 
indicative. So Hirt, Handbuch, p. 421f. Moulton® admits this 
primitive division, though declining to call the indicative a mode 
save when it is a “modus tirrealis.”’ The injunctive is no longer 
regarded as a separate mood, and yet it contributed so much to 
the forms of the imperative that it has to be considered in an his- 
torical review. The indicative can only be ruled out when it is 
regarded as the standard verb and the moods as variations. Cer- 
tainly it is best to let the indicative go in also. The modern 
Greek, having no optative, has a special conditional mode (ὑποθε- 
mun). Cf. Sanskrit. Indeed, the future indicative is considered 
by some grammarians as a separate mode. Cf. Thompson, 
Syntax of Attic Greek, p. 494; Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 151. 
Thumb accepts the four modes in modern Greek (Handbook, 
p.1 15). 

(b) THE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE Moops. ‘These are not 
absolute, as will be seen, either in form or in syntax. The indica- 
tive and the imperative blend in some forms, the subjunctive 
and the indicative are alike in others, the injunctive is largely 
merged into the imperative and subjunctive, while the subjunc- 
tive and optative are closely akin and in Latin blend into one. 
Greek held on to the optative with separate values to each 
mood.’ Moulton® indeed despairs of our being able to give the 
primitive root-idea of each mood. That subject belongs to 


1 Gk. Synt., p. 62. Cf. Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 417. 

2 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 179. 4 Hom. Gr., p. 49. 

3 New Crat., p. 617 f. 5 Phonét., p. 455. 

6 Prol., p. 164f. Farrar (Gk. Synt., p. 45) refers to Protagoras as the one 
who first distinguished the moods. 

7 Giles, Man., p. 459. 8 Prol., p. 164. 


ΤΩΣ A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


syntax, but the history of the mode-forms is in harmony with 
this position. As with the cases so with the moods: each mood 
has fared differently in its development and long history. Not 
only does each mood perform more functions than one, but 
the same function may sometimes be expressed by several! 
moods. The names themselves do not cover the whole ground 
of each mood. The indicative is not the only mood that indi- 
cates, though it does it more clearly than the others and it is 
used in questions also. The subjunctive not merely subjoins, but 
is used in independent sentences also. The optative is not merely 
a wish, but was once really a sort of past subjunctive. The im- 
perative has the best name of any, though we have to explain 
some forms as ‘‘permissive”’ imperatives, and the indicative and 
subjunctive, not to say injunctive, invade the territory of the im- 
perative. “It is probable, but not demonstrable, that the indica- 
tive was the original verb-form, from which the others were 
evolved by morphological changes”? (Thompson, Syntax of Altic 
Greek, Ὁ. 494). The origin of the mode-signs cannot yet be ex- 
plained. 

(c) THE INDICATIVE (ὁριστικὴ ἔγκλισις). There is indeed little 
to say as to the form of the indicative since it has no mode-sign. 
It is the mode that is used in all the Indo-Germanic languages 
unless there is a special reason to use one of the others. In fact 
it is the normal mode in speech. It is probably the earliest 
and the one from which the others are derived. Per contra it 
may be argued that emotion precedes passionless intellection. 
The indicative continues always to be the most frequent and per- 
sists when others, like the injunctive and optative, die. It is the 
only mode that uses all the tenses in Sanskrit and Greek. In the 
Sanskrit, for instance, the future is found only in the indicative (as 
in Greek save in the optative in indirect discourse to represent 
a future indicative of the direct) and the perfect appears only in 
the indicative and participle, barring many examples of the other 
modes in the early Sanskrit (Vedas). In the Sanskrit the modes are 
commonest with the aorist and the present.2 And in Greek the 
imperfect and past perfect never got beyond the indicative. The 
future barely did so, never in the subjunctive till the Byzantine 
period. The perfect subjunctive and optative, not to say impera- 
tive, were always a rarity outside of the periphrastic forms and 

1 Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 62. Cf. Kohlmann, Uber die Modi des griech. und 


des lat. Verbums (1883). 
2 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 201. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 323 


in the κοινή have practically vanished.!. Thus we can clearly see 
the gradual growth of the modes. In modern English we have 
almost dropped the subjunctive and use instead the indicative. 
In the modern Greek the indicative survives with as much vigor 
as ever. The N. T. peculiarities of the indicative can best be 
treated under Syntax. It may be here remarked, however, that 
besides the regular indicative forms a periphrastic conjugation 
for all the tenses of the indicative appears in the N. T. The 
present is thus found as ἐστὶν προσαναπληροῦσα (2 Cor. 9:12), the 
perfect as ἐστὶν πεπραγμένον (Ac. 26 : 26), the imperfect as ἦν διδά- 
σκων (Lu. 5:17), the past perfect as ἦσαν προεωρακότες (Ac. 21: 29), 
even the aorist as ἦν βληθείς (Lu. 23:19), the future as ἔσεσθε λα- 
λοῦντες (1 Cor. 14:9), the future perfect as ἔσομαι πεποιθώς (Heb. 
2:13). This widening of the range of the periphrastic conjuga- 
tion is seen also in the LXX. Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 195. 

(ὦ THe SuBJUNCTIVE (ὑποτακτική). The function of the sub- 
junctive as of the other modes will be discussed under Syntax. 
Changes come in function as in form. Each form originally had 
one function which varied with the course of time. But the bond 
between form and function is always to be noted.2, The German 
grammarians (Blass, Hirt, Brugmann, ete.) call this the conjunc- 
tive mode. Neither conjunctive nor subjunctive is wholly good, 
for the indicative and the optative both fall often under that 
technical category.* It is in the Greek that mode-building reaches 
its perfection as in no other tongue.*— But even in the Greek sub- 
junctive we practically deal only with the aorist and present 
tenses, and in the Sanskrit the subjunctive rapidly dies out save 
in the first person as an imperative.’ In Homer ἴμεν is indicative® 
and ἴομεν is subjunctive so that non-thematic stems make the 
subjunctive with the thematic vowel o/e. Thematic stems made 
the subjunctive with a lengthened form of it w/n. Cf. in the Ionic, 
Lesbian, Cretan inscriptions’ forms like ἀμείψεται. The same thing 
appears in Homer also in the transition period.’ Jannaris? in- 
deed calls the aorist subjunctive a future subjunctive because he 


1 See discussion bet. Profs. Harry and Sonnenschein in Cl. Rev., 1905-6. 
Cf. also La Roche, Beitr. zur griech. Gr., 1893; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 197. 

2 For contrary view see Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 1. 

8 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 45 f. 

“1 ΙΓ Ba. 11 p, 40: 5 Giles, Man., p. 458 f. 

6 Ib., p. 459. In the Boeotian dial. the subj. does not appear in simple 
sentences (Claflin, Synt. of Boeotian, etc., p. 73) 

7 Riem. and Goelzer, Phonét., p. 456 f. 

8 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 49. * Hist. Gk. ΟΥ pel79. 


324. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


conceives of the aorist as essentially past, a mistaken idea. The 
subjunctive does occur more freely in Homer than in the later 
Greek, partly perhaps because of the fact that the line of dis- 
tinction between it and the indicative (especially the aorist sub- 
junctive and the future indicative) had not been sharply drawn.! 
Add to this the fact that ποιήσῃ and ποιήσει came to be pronounced 
exactly alike and one can see how the confusion would come again. 
Cf. ἵνα δώσει (δώσῃ) in the N. T. MSS.2. On the short vocal ending 
of the subjunctive and its connection with the indicative one may 
recall ἔδομαι, πίομαι, φάγομαι in the N. T., futures which have a 
strange likeness to the Homeric subjunctive ἴομεν. They are really 
subjunctives in origin. It is still a mooted question whether the 
future indicative is always derived from the -aorist subjunctive 
or in part corresponds to the Sanskrit sya. The only aorist 
subjunctives that call for special comment in the N. T. are the 
forms yvot and δοῖ, for which see this chapter, tv, (d), 1.4 There are 
parallels in the papyri as is there shown. The form ὄψησθε in Lu. 
13 : 28 (supported by AL, etc., against ὄψεσθε, BD) is probably a 
late aorist form like ἔδωσα (δώσῃ) rather than the Byzantine future 
subjunctive.’ As already pointed out, the examples in N. T. MSS. 
of the Byzantine future subjunctive are probably due to the 
blending of o with w, εἰ with ῃ, ε with n, etc. N. T. MSS., for in- 
stance, show examples of ἀρκεσθησώμεθα (1 Tim. 6:8), γνώσωνται 
(Ac. 21: 24), γενήσησθε (Jo. 15:8), δώσωσιν (Lu. 20:10; Rev. 4: 
9), ebpnowow (Rev. 9 : 6), ζήσηται (Mk. 5 : 23), ἥξωσιν (Rev. 3 : 9), 
καυθήσωμαι (1 Cor. 18:3), κερδηθήσωνται (1 Pet. 3:1), πορεύσωμαι 
(Ro. 15: 24), σωθήσηται (Ro. 11: 26), etc. It is to be admitted, 
however, that the Byzantine future subjunctive was in use at the 
age of our oldest Greek N.T. MSS. Cf. Winer-Schmiedel, p. 107. 
Hort dismisses them all (Appendix, ‘‘Notes on Orthography,” 
p. 172). The present subjunctive διδοῖ is parallel to dot. No ex- 


1 Sterrett,; Hom. 1]., Dial. of Homer, p. 27 (1907). Cf. Moulton, The Suffix 
of the Subj. (Am. Jour. of Philol., 10, 185 f.); La Roche, Die conj. und opt. 
Formen des Perfects (Beitr. I, pp. 161 ff.). 

2 Cf. already in the Attic inscr. the spelling of the subj. in - ει. Meisterh., 
Att. Inscr., p. 166. For this phenomenon in the pap. see Mayser, Gr. ἃ. 
griech. Pap., p. 324. ; 

δ. Cf. Henry, Comp. Gr. of Gk. and Lat., Elliott’s transl., 1890, p. 115 f. and 
note; Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 459. 

* Cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 37, and 1904, p. 111, for subjs. ἀποδοῖ, 
érvyvot in the pap. 

δ Cf. ἀρξησθε in Lu. 13 : 25, but ἄρξεσθε (BEG, etc.) and ἄρεησθε (NAD, etc.) 
in verse 26. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 320 


ample of the periphrastic present subjunctive appears in the 
N.T. In Gal. 4:17 (iva ζηλοῦτε) the contraction of on is like that of 
the indicative oe,! unless indeed, as is more probable, we have here 
(cf. also 1 Cor. 4 : 6, φυσιοῦσθε) the present indicative used with ἵνα 
as in 1 Jo. 5: 20 (γινώσκομεν). In Gal. 6:12 ACFGKLP read ἵνα μὴ 
διώκονται. Cf. Ro. 14:19. Cf. Homer. The perfect subjunctive 
does not exist in the N. T. save in the second perfect εἰδῶ (ἵνα 
εἰδῶμεν, 1 Cor. 2: 12) and the periphrastic form as ἢ πεποιηκώς (Jas. 
5:15. Cf. πεποιθότες ὦμεν, 2 Cor. 1:9) and usually in the passive 
as ἦ πεπληρωμένη (Jo. 10 : 24). In Lu. 19 : 40 Rec. with most MSS. 
read κεκράξονται (LXX). In the papyri ἢν sometimes is subjunctive 
=. Cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 38, 1904, p. 108; Prolegom- 
ena, pp. 49, 168. He cites ὅσα ἐὰν ἦν in Gen. 6:17E. But the 
modern Greek constantly uses ἐάν with the indicative, and we find 
it in the N. T. and papyri (Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 203 ff.). 
Some of the papyri examples may be merely the indicative with 
ἐάν, but others undoubtedly give the irrational ν. In the LX X the 
subjunctive shows signs of shrinkage before the indicative with 
ἐάν, ὅταν, iva (Thackeray, Gr., p. 194). 

(ὁ THe Oprative (εὐκτική). Like the subjunctive the opta- 
tive is poorly named, as it is much more than the wishing mood. 
As Giles? remarks, difference of formation is more easily discerned 
in these two moods than difference of meaning. In the Sanskrit 
the subjunctive (save in first person) gave way before the 
optative, as in Latin the optative largely (sim originally op- 
tative) disappeared before the subjunctive.* The Greek, as 
already stated, is the only language that preserved both the 
subjunctive and the optative,t and finally in the modern 
Greek the optative has vanished, μὴ γένοιτο being merely ‘the 
coffin of the dead optative.”® It is doubtful if the optative was 
ever used much in conversation even in Athens (Farrar, Greek 
Syntax, p. 142), and the unlearned scribes of the late Greek blun- 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 48. But in 1 Cor. 16 : 2 we have regularly εὐο- 
δῶται (Marg. εὐοδωθῇ). Hort (Notes on Orth., pp. 167, 172) is uncertain whether 
εὐοδῶται is perf. ind. or subj. (pres. or perf.). He cites παραζηλοῦμεν (1 Cor. 
10 : 22) and διαβεβαιοῦνται (1 Tim. 1 : 7) as possible pres. subjs. 

2 Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 458. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 337, for list 
of works on optative. 

3 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 202. Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 503 f. 

4 Giles, ib., p. 459. On the blending of subj. and opt. in Ital., Germ. and 
Balto-Slav. tongues see Brug., Kurze vergl. Gr., 2. TL, p. 585. Cf. the Byz. 
Gk. mingling of subj. and ind. in Hatz., Einl., p. 216 f. 

5 Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 84. 


326 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


dered greatly when they did use it (Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 
204). Moulton (Prol., p. 240) agrees with Thumb that the opta- 
tive was doomed from the very birth of the κοινή, and its disappear- 
ance was not due to itacism between ov and ῃ, which was late. 
Clyde,! however, suggests that the blending of sound between ot 
and 7 had much to do with the disappearance of the optative. 
But apart from this fact the distinction was never absolutely 
rigid, for in Homer both moods are used in much the same way.? 
And even in the N. T., as in Homer and occasionally later, we 
find an instance of the optative after a present indicative, οὐ παύο- 
μαι εὐχαριστῶν ἵνα dan (Eph. 1:17, text of W. H., subj. δώῃ or δῷ 
in marg., question of editing). Jannaris* calls the Greek optative 
the subjunctive of the past or the secondary subjunctive (cf. Latin). 
Like the indicative (and originally the subjunctive) the non-the- 
matic and thematic stems have a different history. The non-the- 
matic stems use en (ve) and the thematic oc (composed of o and ὃ). 
The o aorist has a-+ce besides the form in -ea. This two-fold 
affix for the optative goes back to the earlier Indo-Germanic 
tongues* (Sanskrit γᾷ and 7). The optative was never common in 
the language of the people, as is shown by its rarity in the Attic 
inscriptions.®> The Boeotian dialect inscriptions show no optative 
in simple sentences, and Dr. Edith Claflin reports only two ex- 
amples in subordinate clauses. The optative is rare also in the 
~ inscriptions of Pergamum.’ The same thing is true of the pa- 
pyri.’ In the Ν. T. the future optative no longer appears, nor does 
the perfect. The classic idiom usually had the perfect subjunctive 
and optative in the periphrastic forms. Examples of the peri- 
phrastic perfect optative survive in the papyri,! but not in the 
N.T. There are only sixty-seven examples of the optative in the 
N.T. Luke has twenty-eight and Paul thirty-one (not including 
Eph. 1:17), whereas John, Matthew and James do not use it at all. 
Mark and Hebrews show it only once each, Jude twice and Peter 
four times. The non-thematic aorist appears in the N. T. some- 
times, as δῴη (perhaps by analogy). So W. H. read without reser- 
vation in-2.Th. 3:16; Ro. 15:5: "20 Cima 6a) See ieee 


1 Gr.S.,p.85. 2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 219. 3 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 179. 

4 Riem. and Goelzer, Phonét., p. 461. Cf. K.-Bl., Bd. II, p.40 f.; Brug., Gk. 
Gr., pp. 337 ff. 5 Meisterh., Att.-Inschr., p. 166. 

6 Synt. of Boeot. Dial. Inscr., pp. 77, 81. 

7 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 191. 

8 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 326. 9 K.-BI., Bd. IT, p. 99. 

10 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 327. 


Se ee, 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 327 


preferred text in Eph. 1:17; 2 Tim. 2: 25, but in Jo. 15:16; Eph. 
3:16, W. H. read δῷ (subjunctive). In Eph. 1:17 the margin has 
δώῃ (subjunctive) also.t. The inscriptions? and the papyri® show 
the same form (—@yv instead of —oinv). In Eph. 1:17 Moulton4 
considers δώῃ (subjunctive) absolutely necessary in spite of the 
evidence for δῴη (optative). But see above. The aorist optative 
in —a is the usual form, as κατευθύναι (1 Th. 3:11), πλεονάσαι καὶ 
περισσεύσαι (1 Th. 3:12), καταρτίσαι (Heb. 13:21), etc., not the 
Molic-Attic —ee. So also ποιήσαιεν (Lu. 6:11), but ψηλαφήσειαν 
(Ac. 17: 27) according to the best MSS. (B, etc.).2 Blass®* com- 
ments on the fact that only one example of the present optative 
appears in the simple sentence, viz. εἴη (Ac. 8:20), but more 
occur in dependent clauses, as πάσχοιτε (1 Pet. 3:14). The opta- 
tive is rare in the LXX save for wishes. Thackeray, Gr., p. 193. 

(f) TH IMPERATIVE (προστακτική). The imperative is a later 
development in language and is in a sense a makeshift like the 
passive voice. It has no mode-sign (cf. indicative) and uses only 
personal suffixes.’ These suffixes have a varied and interesting 
history. 

1. The Non-Thematic Stem. An early imperative was just 
the non-thematic present stem.® In the imperative the aorist is 
a later growth, as will be shown directly. Forms like torn, δείκνυ 
are pertinent. 

2. The Thematic Stem. Cf. aye, λέγε. This is merely an in- 
terjection (cf. vocative doye).2 This is the root pure and simple 
with the thematic vowel which is here regarded as part of the 
stem as in the vocative Nove. The accent εἰπέ, ἐλθέ, εὑρέ, ἰδέ, λαβέ 
was probably the accent of all such primitive imperatives at the 
beginning of a sentence.!? We use exclamations as verbs or nouns." 


Hort, intr, to Nate Gk: p. 168. Cf. LXX, 

2 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 191. 

3 Mayser, Gr.d. griech. Pap., p. 326 f.; Cronert, Mem. Gr. Hercul., p. 215 f.; 
Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 111 f. Aot also appears in pap. as opt. as well as 
subj. 

4 Prol., p. 55. Cf. Blass’ hesitation, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 49 f. 

5 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 114. Inthe LXX the form in —ee is very rare. Cf. Hel- 
bing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 68 ἢ. The LXX has also -οισαν, --αισαν for 3d plu. Cf. 
Thack., Gr., p. 215. Opt. is common in 4 Macc. 

Gri of N. Ty Gk:,:p 290: 8 Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 464. 

7 K.-BL, Bd. II, p. 41. - 9 Ib., p. 269. 

10 Tb., p. 464. Cf. Brug., Grundr., I, ὃ 958; Riem. and Goelzer, Phonét., 
p. 359. It is coming more and more to be the custom to regard the thematic 
vowel as part of the root. Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 415. 

11 Moulton, Prol., p. 171 f. 


328 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


In Jas. 4:13 we have ἄγε νῦν οἱ λέγοντες, an example that will il- 
lustrate the origin of aye. Note the common interjectional use 
of ἴδε (so N. T.). Cf. also accent of λάβε. The adverb δεῦρο (Jo. 
11:43, Λάζαρε δεῦρο ἔξω) has a plural like the imperative in --τε 
(Mt. 11:28, δεῦτε πρός με πάντες of κοπιῶντες). 

3. The Suffix -θι. The non-thematic stems also used the suf- 
fix 0c (cf. Sanskrit dhi, possibly an adverb; cf. “you there!”’). So 
γνῶθι for second aorist active, ἴσθι for present active, φάνηθι, λύ- 
θητι for second and first aorist passive. In the N. T. sometimes 
this -#c is dropped and the mere root used as in avaBa (Rev. 4: 
1), werd Ba (Mt. 17: 20), ἀνάστα (Eph. 5:14; Ac. 12:7) according 
to the best MSS.2. The plural ἀνάβατε (Rev. 11:12) instead of 
ἀνάβητε is to be noted also. The LXX MSS. exhibit these short 
forms (ἀνάστα, ἀπόστα, but not avaBa) also. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. 
Sept., p. 70; Con. and Stock, Sel. from LXX, p. 46. See ἔμβα, 
κατάβα, ete., in Attic drama. But ἀνάστηθι (Ac. 8 : 26), ἐπίστηθι 
2 Tim. 4:2), μετάβηθι (Jo. 7:3), κατάβηθι (Lu. 19:5), προσανάβηθι 
(Lu. 14:10) occur as usual. In the papyri —& has practically 
disappeared save in ἴσθι. 

4. The Suffix -rw. It is probably the ablative of the demon- 
strative pronoun (Sanskrit tad). It is used with non-thematic 
(ἔστω) and thematic stems (Aeye-7w). The Latin’ uses this form for 
the second person also (agito). In the case of ἔστω (Jas. 1:19) 
the N. T. has also ἤτω (Jas. 5:12).5 The form καταβάτω (Mt. 24: 
17) has the unlengthened stem, but ἐλθάτω is like the first aorist 
ἐπιστρεψάτω. The N. T. like the κοινή generally® has the plural only 
in twoav which is made by the addition of σαν to Tw. Cf. ἔστωσαν 
(Lu. 12:35). The middle σθω (of uncertain origin)’ likewise has 
the plural in the N. T. in σθωσαν. So προσευξάσθωσαν (Jas. 5 : 14). 
This is true of the plural of both present and aorist as in papyri 
and inscriptions. So the LXX cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 69 f. 

5. The Old Injunctive Mood. It is responsible for more of the 
imperative forms than any other single source. ‘The injunctive 


1 Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 341. 2 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 168. 

3 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 327. 

4 Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 466. Cf. Brug., Gk. Gr., p. 341. 

5 So pap. and late inser., Moulton, Prol., p. 56. 

6 Cf. for pap. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 327. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., 
p. 343. It is after ii/B.c. that -τωσαν completely supplants —yrwr. Cf. 
Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 107. Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 149. Schweizer, 
Perg. Inschr., p. 167. 

’ Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 343 (he cfs. ἑπέσθω with ἑπέσθαι); Hirt, Handb. ete., p. 
430. Giles (Comp. Philol., p. 467 f.) gets it from τω by analogy of re and σθε. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 329 


was simply an imperfect or aorist indicative without tne aug- 
ment.’”! So λαβοῦ corresponds to ἐ-λάβεσο, λάβεσθε Was ἐ-λάβεσθε, 
λήφθητε Was ἐ-λήφθητε, λάβετε Was ἐ-λάβετε.Σ So σχές (ἔ-σχες) May 
be compared with €)ves (θίγες with €-Ovyes), but δός, és, θές Brug- 
mann considers of uncertain origin, possibly subjunctive. Forms 
like λύετε may be injunctive (é-Avere)* or merely the indicative.’ 
Note the difficulty of deciding on imperative and indicative in 
forms like ἐραυνᾶτε (Jo. 5:39), πιστεύετε (Jo. 14:1), ἴστε (Jas. 1: 
19). But in these cases, except Jo. 5:39, we probably have the 
imperative. In the case of ἴστε the N. T. indicative would be 
oidare.© In the N. T. κάθου (Jas. 2:3) is the shorter form of 
κάθησο, though not by phonetic processes. The injunctive survives 
to some extent in the Sanskrit and borders on the subjunctive 
and the imperative and was specially common in prohibitions.” 
It consists of the bare stem with the personal endings. 

6. Forms in --σαι. ‘These, like βάπτισαι (Ac. 22:16), are prob- 
ably just the infinitive sigmatic aorist.8 Cf. δεῖξαι. Cf. also Latin 
legimint with the Homeric infinitive λεγέμεναι." The infinitive is 
common in the Greek inscriptions in the sense of an imperative. 
In the N. T. as in the papyri this use is not infrequent. So 
χαίρειν (Jas. 1:1), στοιχεῖν (Ph. 3:16), μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι (2 Th. 
3:14). In modern Greek instead of the imperative in —cac the 
form λύσου occurs with the sense of λύθητι.1" 

7. The Form in --σον (λῦσον). It is difficult of explanation. It 
may be injunctive or a verbal substantive.” The N. T. has εἰπόν 
(Mt. 4:3) rather than εἰπέ (Mt. 8:8) in about half the instances 
in W. H.8 This is merely in keeping with the common κοινή cus- 
tom of using first aorist endings with second aorist stems. The 
form εἰπόν is traced to the Syracusan dialect."* | 

8. First Person. The Sanskrit used the first person subjunctive 
as imperative of the first person. Cf. English “charge we the foe.” 
The Greek continued this idiom. But already in the N. T. the 
use of the imperative ἄφες (cf. modern Greek ἄς and third person 
subjunctive) is creeping in as a sort of particle with the subjunc- 
tive. So ἄφες ἐκβάλω (Mt. 7:4). Cf. English “let”? with infini- 

1 Moulton, Prol., p. 165. Ὁ Brug., Griech.'Gr., p. 332. * Ib. * Ib. 

5 Hirt, Handb., p. 429 f. δ W.-Sch.,p.119. 7 Moulton, Prol., p. 165. 

8 Riem. and Goelzer, Phonét., p. 372. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 345. 

9 Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 468; Hirt, Handb., p. 430; Wright, Comp. Gk. 
Gr., p. 334. 10 Moulton, Prol., p. 179 f. 

11 VY. and D., Handb., p. 81. Cf. Dieterich, Unters., p. 205. 


122 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 345; Hirt, Handb., p. 427. 
18 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 164. 1 K.-Bl., Bd. 11, p. 45. 


330 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


tive. Cf. δεῦτε ἀποκτείνωμεν in Mt. 21:38. Besides aye, δεῦτε we 
may have ὅρα with the subjunctive (Mt. 8 : 4), βλέπετε with future 
indicative (Heb. 3: 12). 

9. Prohibitions. Here the aorist subjunctive with μή held its 
own against the aorist imperative quite successfully. In the 
Sanskrit Veda the negative md is never found with the impera- 
tive, but only with the subjunctive.t Later the Sanskrit uses the 
present imperative with md, but not the aorist. This piece of 
history in the Greek? is interesting as showing how the impera- 
tive is later than the other modes and how the aorist imperative 
never won its full way into prohibitions. However, in the N. T. 
as in the inscriptions and papyri, we occasionally find the aorist 
imperative with μή in 3d person. So μὴ καταβάτω (Mt. 24:17). 

10. Perfect Imperative. In the Sanskrit the imperative is 
nearly confined to the present tense. The perfect imperative is 
very rare in the N. T. (only the two verbs cited) as in all Greek. 
We find ἔρρωσθε (Ac. 15: 29; in 23:30 W. H. reject éppwoo) and 
πεφίμωσο (Mk. 4:39). The perfect imperative also occurs in the 
periphrastic form as ἔστωσαν περιεζωσμέναι (Lu. 12 : 35). 

11. Periphrastic Presents. Other periphrastic forms of the im- 
perative are ἴσθι εὐνοῶν (Mt. 5 : 25), ἴσθι ἔχων (Lu. 19 : 17), μὴ γίνεσθε 
ἑτεροζυγοῦντες (2 Cor. 6 : 14) and even ἴστε γινώσκοντες (Eph. 5: δ). 

12. Circumlocutions. But even so other devices (see Syntax) 
are used instead of the imperative, as the future indicative (aya- 
πήσεις, Mt. 5:43); ἵνα and the subjunctive (Eph. 5 : 33); a ques- 
tion of impatience like οὐ παύσῃ διαστρέφων (Ac. 13 : 10), ete. 

VI. The Voices (διαθέσεις). 

(a) TRANSITIVE AND INTRANSITIVE. The point is that “tran- 
sitive” is not synonymous with “active.” Transitive verbs may 
belong to any voice, and intransitive verbs to any voice. Take 
ἐδίδαξα, ἐδιδαξάμην, ἐδιδάχθην, Which may be transitive in each voice. 
On the other hand εἰμί, γίνομαι, ἔλύθην are intransitive. The same 
verb may be transitive or intransitive in the same voice, as ἄγω. 
A verb may be transitive in Greek while intransitive in English, 
as with καταγελάω and vice versa. This matter properly belongs 
to syntax, but it seems necessary to clear it up at once before we 
proceed to discuss voice. Per se the question of transitiveness 
belongs to the idea of the verb itself, not to that of voice. We 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 240. 

? Tb.; ef. also Delbriick, Synt. Forsch., IV, p. 120. Hence Delbriick argues 
that the aorist imper. did not come into use until after the pres. imper. The 
imper. was originally only positive, not negative. 


κῶν ἐμὰ ὡς, μι μιν i eer 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (ῬΗΜΑ) . 991 


actually find Green! making four voices, putting a neuter (οὐδέ- 
τερον) voice (using active and middle endings) on a par with the 
others! The Stoic grammarians? did speak of a neuter voice as 
neither active (κατηγόρημα ὀρθόν) nor passive (ὕπτιον), meaning the 
middle (μέση). Jannaris*? confounds transitiveness with voice, 
though he properly says (p. 356) that ‘‘the active voice is usually 
transitive,” i.e. verbs in the active voice, not the voice itself. 
Even Whitney‘ speaks of the antithesis between transitive and 
reflexive action being effaced in Sanskrit. Was that antithesis 
ever present? Farrar’ speaks of verbs with an “active meaning, 
but only a passive or middle form,” where by ‘‘active’’ he means 
transitive. Even the active uses verbs which are either transi- 
tive (ἀλλοπαθής) or intransitive (αὐτοπαθής). So may the other 
voices. If we clearly grasp this point, we shall have less difficulty 
with voice which does not deal primarily with the transitive idea. 
That belongs rather to the verb itself apart from voice.6 On 
transitive and intransitive verbs in modern Greek see Thumb, 
Handb., p. 112. 

(Ὁ) THE NAMES OF THE VoicES. They are by no means good. 
The active (évepyerixy) is not distinctive, since the other voices ex- 
press action also. This voice represents the subject as merely act- 
ing. The Hindu grammarians called the active parasmai padam 
(‘a word for another,’) and the middle (μέση) adtmane padam (‘a 
word for one’s self’).?. There is very little point in the term mid- 
dle since it does not come in between the active and the passive. 
Indeed reflexive is a better designation of the middle voice if 
direct reflexive is not meant. That is rare. The middle voice 
stresses the interest of the agent. Cf. Moulton, Prolegomena, 
p.155f. In truth we have no good name for this voice. Passive 
(παθητική) is the best term of all, for here the subject does experi- 
ence the action even when the passive verb is transitive, as in 
ἐδιδάχθην. But this point encroaches upon syntax. 


1 Handb. to the Gk. of N. T., p. 55. 

2 Cf. Dion. Thr., p. 886. Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 40. 

ΕΓ Ξυ Gk. Gri, -p. 179. 

4 Sans. Gr., p. 200. 

5 Gk. Synt., p. 41. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 467 f. 

6 Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 476: “The distinction between the transitive and 
intransitive meanings of the active voice depends upon the nature of the root 
in each case.” 

7 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 200. Cf. also Brug., Kurze vergl. Gr., IT, p. 492. 
See also Clark, Comp. Gr., p. 182, for the meaningless term “middle.” It is 
as active as the “active” voice. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 119. 


332 <A. GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(c) ΤῊΝ Revative AGE oF THE Voices. It is a matter of doubt 
as between the active and middle. The passive is known to be a 
later development. The Sanskrit passive is the yd class.1 In 
Homer the passive has not reached its full development. The pas- 
sive future occurs there only twice. The aorist middle is often used 
in passive sense (βλῆτο, for instance).2 That is to say, in Homer 
the passive uses all the tenses of the middle with no distinct forms 
save sometimes in the aorist. In later Greek the future middle (as 
τιμήσομαι) continued to be used occasionally in the passive sense. 
The aorist passive in fact used the active endings and the future 
passive the middle, the passive contributing a special addition in 
each case (n, θη, no, Ono). Some languages never developed a 
passive (Coptic and Lithuanian, for instance), and in modern 
English we can only form the passive by means of auxiliary verbs. 
Each language makes the passive in its own way. In Latin no 
distinction in form exists between the middle and the passive, 
though the middle exists as in potior, utor, plangor, etc. Giles® 
thinks that the causative middle (like διδάσκομαι, ‘get taught’) is 
the explanation of the origin of the Greek passive. Cf. βάπτισαι 
(Ac. 22:16). It is all speculation as between the active and mid- 
dle. An old theory makes the middle a mere doubling of the active 
(as μα-μιΞ- μα). Another view is that the middle is the original 
and the active a shortening due to less stress in accent, or rather 
(as in τίθεμαι and τίθημι) the middle puts the stress on the reflexive 
ending while the active puts it on the stem. But Brugmann® 
considers the whole question about the relation between the per- 
sonal suffixes uncertain. Of one thing we may be sure, and that 
is that both the active and the middle are very old and long 
antedate the passive. 

(ἃ) THE So-caALLED “ DEPONENT” VERBS. These call for a 
word (cf. ch. XVII, 1m, (k)) at the risk of trespassing on syntax. 
Moulton’ is certainly right in saying that the term should be ap- 
plied to all three voices if to any. The truth is that it should not 
be used at all. As in the Sanskrit® so in the Greek some verbs 
were used in both active and middle in all tenses (like λύω) ; some 
verbs in some tenses in one and some in the other (like βαίνω, 


1 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 275; Thumb, Handbuch d. Skt., pp. 394 ff. 

2 Sterrett, Hom. 1]., Dial. of Hom., p. 27. 4 Clyde, Gk. Syn., p. 55. 

δ᾽ Comp. Philol., p. 477. 5 Moulton, Prol., p. 152. 

6 Griech. Gr., p. 346. Cf. Kurze vergl. Gr., II, p. 599. Cf. Giles, Comp. 
Philol., p. 419. 

7 Prol., p. 153. 8 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 200. 





CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 999 


βήσομαι) ; Some on one voice only (like κεῖμαι). As concerns voice 
these verbs were defective rather than deponent.! Note also the 
common use of the second perfect active with middle verbs (γίνομαι, 
γέγονα). A number of verbs sometimes have the future in the 
active in the N. T. which usually had it in the middle in the older 
Greek. These are: ἀκούσω (Jo. 5:25, 28, etc., but ἀκούσομαι, Ac. 
17:32), ἁμαρτήσω (Mt. 18:21), ἀπαντήσω (Mk. 14:13), ἁρπάσω 
(Jo. 10:28), βλέψω (Ac. 28 : 26), γελάσω (Lu. 6:21), διώξω (Mt. 
23 : 34), ζήσω (Jo. 5 : 25), ἐπιορκήσω (Mt. 5 : 33, LXX), κλαύσω (Lu. 
6: 25), κράξω (Lu. 19:40), παίξω (Mk. 10 : 34), ῥεύσω (Jo. 7 : 38), 
σιωπήσω (Lu. 19:40), σπουδάσω (2 Pet. 1:15), συναντήσω (Lu. 22: 
10). But still note ἀποθανοῦμαι, ἔσομαι, ζήσομαι, θαυμάσομαι, λήμψο- 
μαι, ὄψομαι, πεσοῦμαι, πίομαι, τέξομαι, φάγομαι, φεύξομαι, etc. Cf. 
Blass, Gr. of Ν. T. Gk., p. 42 ἴ.; Winer-Schmiedel, p. 107; Moul- 
ton, Prol., Ὁ. 155. See Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 89 f.; Thackeray, 
pp. 231 ff., for illustrations in the LXX. The term “deponent’”’ 
arose from the idea that these verbs had dropped the active 
voice. Verbs do vary in the use of the voices in different stages 
of the language. 

(ec) THe PasstvE SUPPLANTING THE Mippie. In Latin the 
middle and passive have completely blended and the grammars 
speak no more of the Latin middle. Greek indeed is the only 
Kuropean speech which retains the original middle form and 
usage.? In fact, when we consider other tongues, it is not strange 
that the passive made inroads on the middle, but rather that 
there was any distinction preserved at 811... In most modern lan- 
guages the middle is represented only by the use of the reflexive 
pronoun. The Greek itself constantly uses the active with re- 
flexive pronoun and even the middle. Jannaris® has an interest- 
ing sketch of the history of the aorist and future middle and 
passive forms, the only forms where the two voices differ. As 
already remarked, the old Greek as in Homer® did not distinguish 
sharply between these forms. In Homer the middle is much 
more common than in later Greek,’ for the passive has no distinct 
form in the future and not always in the aorist. In. the modern 
Greek the middle has no distinctive form save λύσου (cf. λῦσαι) 


1 Brug., Kurze vergl. Gr., p. 598; Moulton, Prol., p. 153. 
2 Hirt, Handb., p. 334; Moulton, Prol., p. 154. 

8 Delbriick, Synt. Forsch., Bd. IV, p. 69. 

4 Clyde, Gk. Synt., p..55. 5 Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 362 ff. 
6 Sterrett, Hom. 1]., Hom. Dial., p. 27. 

7 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 7. 


334 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


and this is used as passive imperative second singular.! Else- 
where in the aorist and future the passive forms have driven out 
the middle. These passive forms are, however, used sometimes 
in the middle sense, as was true of ἀπεκρίθη, for instance, in the 
Ν. Τ. The passive forms maintain the field in modern Greek and 
appropriate the meaning of the middle. We see this tendency at 
work in the N. T. and the κοινή generally. Since the passive used 
the middle forms in all the other tenses, it was natural that in 
these two there should come uniformity also.2 The result of this 
struggle between the middle and passive in the aorist and future 
was an increasing number of passive forms without the distinc- 
tive passive idea.? So in Mt. 10 : 26 (μὴ φοβηθῆτε αὐτούς) the pas- 
sive is used substantially as a middle. Cf. the continued use of 
τιμήσομαι as future passive in the earlier Greek as a tendency the 
other way. The history of this matter thus makes intelligible 
what would be otherwise a veritable puzzle in language. Here is 
a list of the chief passive aorists in the N. T. without the passive 
idea, the so-called ‘‘deponent”’ passives: ἀπεκρίθην (Mt. 25:9 and 
often, as John, Luke alone having Attic ἀπεκρίνατο also, Ac. 3 : 12), 
διεκρίθην (Ro. 4 : 20), συνυπεκρίθην (Gal. 2:13), ἀπελογήθην (Lu. 21: 
14, but see 12:11), ἠγαλλιάθην (Jo. 5:35), ἐγενήθην (Mt. 6: 10, 
but also ἐγενόμην often, as Ac. 20:18); cf. γέγονα and γεγένημαι, 
ἐδεήθην (Lu. 5:12); ἠγέρθην (Lu. 24 : 34), ἠδυνάσθην (Mk. 7 : 24, 
as New Ionic and LX X) and ἠδυνήθην (Mt. 17 : 16), διελέχθην (Mk. 
9 : 34), ἐθαυμάσθην (Rev. 13:3, but passive sense in 2 Th. 1:10), 
ἐθαμβήθην (Mk. 1:27), ἐνθυμηθείς (Mt. 1 : 20), μετεμελήθην (Mt. 21: 
32), ἐφοβήθην (Mt. 21:46), εὐλαβηθείς (Heb. 11:7), etc. For the 
LXX usage see Thackeray, p. 238. The future passives without 
certain passive sense are illustrated by the following: ἀνακλιθήσο- 
μαι (Mt. 8:11), ἀποκριθήσομαι (Mt. 25:37), ἐπαναπαήσεται (Lu. 
10:6), θαυμασθήσομαι (Rev. 17:8), κοιμηθήσομαι (1 Cor. 15:51), 
ἐντραπήσονται (Mk. 12:6), μεταμεληθήσομαι (Heb. 7 : 21), φανήσομαι 
(Mt. 24 : 30), φοβηθήσομαι (Heb. 13:6). But we have γενήσομαι, 
δυνήσομαι, ἐπιμελήσομαι, πορεύσομαι. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gr., p. 
44 f.; Winer-Schmiedel, p. 108. For the rapid development of this 
tendency in later Greek see Hatzidakis, Hinl., p. 192 f. See Hel- 
bing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 97-100, and Thackeray, p. 240 f., for simi- 
lar phenomena in the LXX. These so-called deponents appear 
in modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 113). Cf. ch. XVII, rv, (e). 


1 Thumb, Handb., p. 111. So mod. Gk. has only two voices; V. and D., 
Handb., to Mod. Gk., p. 81. 2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 362. 
3 Ib. Κοινή exx. are numerous, like ἡδέσθην, ἐνεθυμήθην, ἐπορεύθην, ἐφοβήθην, etc. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 990 


(5) THe ῬΕΒΒΟΝΑΙ, Enpinas. They are probably pronominal,! 
though Brugmann? does not consider the matter as clear in all 
respects. One point to note is the heavy burden that is placed 
upon these endings. They have to express voice, person and num- 
ber, everything in truth that has to do with the subject. Mode 
and tense are indicated otherwise. There was a constant ten- 
dency to slough off these personal endings and get back to the 
mode and tense-stems. Hence δίδωμι becomes δίδω (papyri) in 
late Greek. Λέγω was originally λέγομι.3 

(g) Cross-Divisions. These personal endings have two 
cross-divisions. The active and middle have a separate list, the 
passive having none of its own. Then there is another cleavage 
on the line of primary and secondary tenses in the indicative, i.e. 
the unaugmented and the augmented tenses. The subjunctive 
mode falls in with the primary endings and the optative uses the 
secondary endings. But the first person active singular of the 
optative has one primary ending (as λύοιμι). But may it not be 
a reminiscence of the time when there was no distinction between 
subjunctive_and optative? The imperative has no regular set of 
endings, as has already been shown, and does not fall in with 
this development, but pursues a line of its own. As a matter of 
fact the imperative always refers to the future. 

(h) THe ActivE Enpincs. They have received some modifica- 
tion in the N. T. Greek. The imperative can be passed by as 
already sufficiently discussed. The disappearance of the --μι 
forms in favour of the -w inflection has been carefully treated 
also, as ἀφίομεν (Lu. 11:4). The subjunctive dot and optative δῴη 
have likewise received discussion as well as the optative --οαι and 
—eve. But some interesting points remain. 

The use of -οσαν instead of —ov is very common in the LXX (as 
Jer. 5 : 23, 26) and was once thought to be purely an Alexandrian 
peculiarity (Simcox, Language of the N. T., p. 37). For the 
LXX phenomena see Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 65-67; Con. and 
Stock, Sel. from the LXX, p. 32f. The LXX is the principal 
witness to the -οσαν forms (Thackeray, Gr., p. 195), where they 


1 Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 53. 2 Gk. Gr., p. 346. 

3 Cf. Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 54. The same thing has happened in Eng. 
where the loss is nearly complete save 2d and 3d pers. sing. 

4 Τ is not worth while here to take time to make a careful discussion of each 
of these endings. For the hist. treatment of them see Brug., Griech. Gr., 
pp. 345 ff.; Giles, Comp. Philol., pp. 413 ff.; Riem. and Goelzer, Phonét., pp. 
348 ff. 


336 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


are exceedingly frequent (ib., pp. 212 ff.). It is not so abundant 
outside of the LX X, but the Boeotians used it for the imperfect 
and optative.! Mayser? has found more examples of it in the 
Tebtunis Papyri, both aorist and imperfect, than Moulton’ had 
discovered. The inscriptions also show 10... In the N. T. the con- 
tract verb ἐδολιοῦσαν (Ro. 3:13) is a quotation from the LXX. 
In Jo. 15 : 22, 24, the imperfect εἴχοσαν has to be admitted. In 
2 Th. 3:6 παρελάβοσαν is read by NAD and W. H. put it in 
the margin. The text παρελάβετε is supported by BFG. This 
use of the —e inflection may be compared with the use of τω-σαν 
in the imperative. In the modern Greek it is common with con- 
tract verbs (cf. LXX) like ἐδολιοῦσαν above. The modern Greek 
ἐρωτοῦσα is a new formation (Thumb, Handb., p. 171) modelled 
after it. 

Blass® needlessly hesitates to accept —av in the present perfect 
instead of the usual --ἄσι, and even Moulton® is reluctant to ad- 
mit it for Paul and Luke, preferring to regard it ‘‘a vulgarism 
due to the occasional lapse of an early scribe.’’ It is certainly 
not a mere Alexandrianism as Buresch’ supposed. _The ending . 
-αντι in the Doric usually dropped v and became —ac in Attic, but 
the later Cretan inscriptions show —ay after the analogy of the 
aorist... The Alexandrian κοινή followed the Cretan. The papyri 
examples are very numerous? and it is in the inscriptions of Per- 
gamum!? also. Hort (Notes on Orthography, p. 166) considers it 
“curious,” but has to admit it in various edses, though there is 
always some MS. evidence for -ἂᾶσι. Thackeray (Gr., pp. 195, 
212) thinks that in some instances -αν with the perfect is gen- 
uine in the LXX. The earliest examples are from Lydia, zapei- 
ληφαν (246 B.c.) and. ἀπέσταλκαν (193 B.c.). Cf. Dieterich, Unters., 
p. 235f. The N. T. examples are ἀπέσταλκαν (Ac. 16 : 36), -yéyo- 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 33. Cf. Dieterich, Unters., p. 242. 

Ἐπ Ὁ} ΡΤΙΘΟΠ ΠΗ, ΠΡ 9.0. 

3 Prol., p. 52; Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 36, 1904, p. 110. 

4 Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 148; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p.166. See fur- 
ther Dieterich, Unters., p. 242 f. Cf. Deiss., B.8., p. 191; W.-Sch., p. 112 f. 


δα ΟΝ ΕΠ Gk p. Abe SSProl Oa. 
7 Τέγοναν und anderes Vulgiirgriechisch, Rhein. Mus., 1891, pp. 193 ff. Cf. 
Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 36. 5. K.-BL, Bd. II, p. 48 f. 


9 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 323f. “A fair show in the papyri,” 
Moulton, Prol., p. 52. 

10 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 107. Thumb (Hellen., p. 170) rightly denies 
that it is merely Alexandrian. For LXX exx. (ἑώρακαν, πέπρακαν, etc.) see Hel- 
bing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 67. 





CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 337 


vay (Ro. 16:7; Rev. 21:6), ἔγνωκαν (Jo. 17:7), εἴρηκαν (Rev. 19: 
3), εἰσελήλυθαν (Jas. 5:4), ἑώρακαν (Lu. 9:36; Col. 2:1), πέπτωκαν 
(Rev. 18:3), τετήρηκαν (Jo. 17:6). On the other hand the Western 
class of documents (NADN Syr. Sin.) read ἥκασιν in Mk. 8:3 
instead of εἰσίν. But it is in the LXX (Jer. 4: 16), and Moulton! 
finds ἥκαμεν in the papyri. The form of ἥκω is present, but the 
sense is perfect and the κ lends itself to the perfect ending by an- 
alogy. 

Another ending that calls for explanation is the use of —es in- 
stead of —as in the present perfect and the first aorist (in —xa es- 
pecially). Hort considers the MS. evidence ‘‘scanty”’ save in 
Revelation. ‘The papyri give some confirmation. Moulton? 
cites ἀφῆκες, ἔγραψες, etc., from “uneducated scribes” and thinks 
that in Revelation it is a mark of “imperfect Greek.’ Deiss- 
mann? finds the phenomenon common in a “badly written private 
letter”? from Faytim. Mayser* confirms the rarity of its occur- 
rence in the papyri. In the inscriptions Dieterich® finds it rather 
more frequent and in widely separated sections. In Mt. 23 : 23 
B has ἀφήκετε; in Jo. 8:57 B has éwpaxes; in Jo. 17:7 and in 
17:8 B has ἔδωκες ; once more in Ac. 21:22 B gives ἐλήλυθες.Σ Τί 
will hardly be possible to call B illiterate, nor Luke, whatever 
one may think of John. D has ἀπεκάλυψες in Mt. 11:25." W. H. 
accept it in Rev. 2:3 (κεκοπίακες), 2:4 (ἀφῆκες), 2:5 (πέπτωκε), 
11:17 (εἴληφες), all perfects save ἀφῆκες. It is rare in the LXX 
(Thackeray, Gr., p. 215); found in A (Ex. 5: 22, ἀπέσταλκες) and 
in ἔδωκες (izek. 16:21; Neh. 9:10). The modern Greek has it 
as in ἔδεσα, —es (Thumb, Handb., p. 152). 

We have both ἦσθα (Mt. 26:69) and ἧς (Mt. 25:21). The form 
in τθα is vanishing (Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., Ὁ. 166). Cf. also 
Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 321. The papyri have οἶδας, as 
N. T., and ἔφης. But see —uw Verbs. 

Much more common is the use of the first aorist endings —a, 
—as, etc., with the second aorist stem and even with the imperfect. 
This change occurs in the indicative middle as well as active. 
This matter more technically belongs to the treatment of the 


1 Prol., p. 53. Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 169. The N. T. does not follow 
illiterate pap. in putting --ασι to aorist stems (Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 36). 

25 ΤῸ Prol. pabe2. 

ΞΡ 192. 4 Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 321. 

’ Unters. etc., p. 239. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 46, cites Apoll., Synt., 
J, 10, p. 37, as saying that εἴρηκες, ἔγραψες, Ὑραψέτω, etc., gave the grammarians 
trouble. § Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 46. 7 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 1138. 


338 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


aorist tense, as the —a is part of the tense-stem, but it is also con- 
veniently discussed here. The Attic already had εἶπα, ἔπεσα, ἤνεγκα. 
The Attic inscriptions indeed show écxa, εὑράμην and even the 
imperfects ἤλπιζα, epepa.! This tendency towards uniformity 
spread in the κοινή somewhat extensively.2 Moulton? finds the 
strong aorists with —a chiefly in “uneducated writing” in the 
papyri, but common in general. This process of assimilation of 
the strong with the weak aorist was not yet complete. Blass® 
thinks it an “intermediate”? form already in the ancient Greek 
which spread in the κοινή. Cf. the liquid form ἤγγειλα. But both 
the strong and the weak aorists appear in the N. T. Thackeray 
(Gr., p. 195; οἵ. also pp. 210 ff.) notes that the --αν termination 
was finally extended to all past tenses, though in the LXX the 
imperfect forms are due to later copyists. In the modern Greek 
we note it regularly with κατέλαβα, ἤθελα, εἶχα, etc. (Thumb, 
Handb., pp. 152, 160, ete.).. Hort® has a detailed discussion of the 
matter in the N. T. This mixture of usage is shown in εἶπα and 
εἶπον. The —a form is uniform with endings in --τ (εἴπατε, εἰπάτω, 
εἰπάτωσαν). Both εἰπόν and εἰπέ occur. We have ἀπειπάμεθα (2 
Cor. 4:2) and προείπαμεν (1 Th. 4:6). The participle is usu- 
ally —av, but sometimes εἴπας. Both εἶπας and εἶπες, εἶπον and 
εἶπαν meet us. We always have the ἤνεγκα inflection save in the 
infinitive and the imperative. And even here we once have ἀνε- 
νέγκαι (1 Pet. 2:5) and once also προσένεγκον (Mt. 8:4 BC). So 
also with ἔπεσα we have the weak or first aorist inflection in the 
indicative and imperative plural πέσατε (Lu. 23 : 30; Rev. 6: 16). 
But in these two examples Hort’ (against W. H.) favours πέσετε 
on MS. grounds (NABD, NBC). In Lu. 14:10; 17:7 ἀνάπεσε is 
correct. The other forms that are accepted by W. H. are ἔβαλαν 


1 Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 183 f. 

2 Dieterich, Unters., p. 237 f. For the inscr. see Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., 
p. 181 f.; Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 166 f. 

3 Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 86. Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 368 f. 

4 1b. Cf. Deiss., B.S., p. 190 f. 

5 Grwof N. T. Gk., p. 45. The LXX is in harmony with this tendency also. 
Is it Cilician according to Heraclides? W.-Sch., p. 111 note. Cf. in Hom. 
forms like #£ovro, ἐβήσετο, where the sec. aorist endings go with the first aorist 
stem (Sterrett, Hom. 1]., N. 42). 

6 Notes on Orth., p. 164 f. See also Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 45; W.-Sch., 
p. 1111. The LXX MSS. tally with the N. T. in the use of -a. Cf. Helbing, 
Gr. d. Sept., pp. 62-65; C. and S., Sel. fr. LXX, p. 35 f. 

7 Notes on Orth., p. 164. Moulton (Prol., p. 51) speaks of “the functionally 
useless difference of ending between the strong and the weak aorist.’”’ 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 339 


once (Ac. 16:37); ἐπέβαλαν twice (Mk. 14 : 46; Ac. 21 : 27); εἶδαν, 
εἴδαμεν in a few places (Mt. 13:17; Lu. 10: 24; Mt. 25: 37, etc.); 
the indicatives ἀνεῖλαν (Ac. 10:39), ἀνείλατε (Ac. 2 : 23), ἀνείλατο 
(Ac. 7:21), εἵλατο (2 Th. 2:18), ἐξειλάμην (Ac. 23 : 27), ἐξείλατο 
(Ac. 7:10; 12 : 11); εὗραν once (Lu. 8 : 35, or ἀνεῦραν), εὕραμεν once 
(Lu. 28 : 2), and εὑράμενος once (Heb. 9 : 12); the imperatives ἔλ- 
dare, ἐλθάτω uniformly, both ἦλθαν and ἦλθον, once ἀπῆλθα (Rev. 
10:9), regularly ἤλθαμεν (Ac. 21:8). There are many other ex- 
amples in various MSS. which W. H. are not willing to accept, 
but which illustrate this general movement, such as ἀπέθαναν (Mt. 
8 : 32, etc.), ἔλαβαν (Jo. 1:12), ἐχάβαμεν (Lu. 5:5), ἐλάβατε (1 Jo. 
2 : 27), ἐξέβαλαν (Mk. 12: 8), ἔπιαν (1 Cor. 10 : 4 D), ἔφυγαν (Lu. 8: 
34 D), κατέφαγαν (Mk. 4:4 10), συνέσχαν (Ac. 7:57 D), γενάμενος 
(Lu. 22:44), etc. But let these suffice. Moulton! is doubtful 
about allowing this —a in the imperfect. But the papyri support 
it as Deissmann? shows, and the modern Greek® reinforces it also 
as we have just seen. W. H. receive εἶχαν in Mk. 8:7; Ac. 28:2 
(παρεῖχαν); Rev. 9:8; εἴχαμεν in 2 Jo. 5. But D has εἶχαν in Jo. 
15 : 22, 24; δὶ has ἔλεγαν in Jo. 9: 10; 11:36, etc. There is a dis- 
tinct increase in the use of the sigmatic aorist as in ἡμάρτησα 
(Mt. 18 : 15), ὄψησθε (Lu. 18 : 28). It appears already in the LX X 
(Thackeray, Gr., p. 235). But see further under vu, (d). 

The past perfect has the --εἰν forms exclusively as uniformly in 
the κοινή. So εἱστήκεισαν (Rev. 7: 11), ἤδεισαν (Mk. 14: 40), πε- 
ποιήκεισαν (Mk. 15:7). So the LXX. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., 
p. 68. But the imperfect ἐξήεσαν (Ac. 17:15) is to be observed. 

(1) THe MippLte Enpines. These call for less remark. Βού- 
λει (Lu. 22 : 42) is the only second singular middle form in —e., for 
ὄψῃ (Mt. 27 : 4) displaces ὄψει. The inscriptions® sometimes show 
βούλῃ. Blass® regards βούλει a remnant of literary style in Luke, 

1 Prol., p. 52. So Buresch, Rhein. Mus., 46, 224. Hort (Notes on Orth., 
p. 165) needlessly considers ἐκχέετε (Rev. 16:1) a second aorist imper. instead 
of the present. Cf. ἐξέχεαν (usual form in Rev. 16:6). Cf. W.-Sch., p. 111. 
But κατέχεεν (Mk. 14:3) is the usual Attic aorist. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 55. 

2 B.S., p. 191, ἔλεγας, ete. 

3 Cf. Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 36; Geldart’s Guide to Mod. Gk., p. 
272 note. 

4 With rare variations in the inser. and pap. Moulton, Prol., p. 53. Cf. 
Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 320 ff. 

5 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 168. Cf. also Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 
328. The pap. do not show οἴει and ὄψει, but only βούλει. 

6 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 47. For οἴῃ, ὄψῃ, and βούλῃ in LX X MSS. see Helbing, 


Gr. ἃ. Sept., p. 60 f.; C. andS., Sel. fr. LX X, p.33f. Bin the LXX shows a 
fondness for —e forms (itacism). Cf. Thack., Gr., p. 217. 


340 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


but the papyri also have βούλει. The occasional use of δύνῃ (Mk. 
9 : 22 f.) has been discussed under —u Verbs. It appears only 
once in the LXX, but the ‘‘poetic and apparently Ionic” ἐπίστῃ 
is more frequent (Thackeray, Gr., p. 217). Cf. also κάθου (Jas. 2: 3) 
as LXX and κάθῃ (Ac. 23:3). On the other hand we have φάγεσαι 
and πίεσαι (Lu. 17:8). This revival of the use of --σαι parallel with 
-μαι, --ται in the perfect of vowel verbs in the vernacular amounts 
to a “πον formation” in the view of Blass.'.- So Moulton, Prol., 
p. 54f. To call this revival a “survival” is “antediluvian philol- 
ogy.” In the LXX πίεσαι is universal and φάγεσαι outside of the 
Pentateuch where φάγῃ holds on (Thackeray, p. 218). The --σαι 
form is universal in modern Greek. The love of uniformity made 
it triumph. But see Contract Verbs for further discussion. The 
middle form ἤμην (Mt. 25:35) and ἤμεθα (Mt. 23 : 30) is like the 
κοινή generally and the modern Greek εἶμαι. Cf. also ἔσομαι. For 
é&édero (Mt. 21:33) with loss of root o and w inflection (thematic 
e) see --μι Verbs. Cf. also ἐξεκρέμετο (Lu. 19:48). The LXX has 
—evro for —ovro (Thackeray, p. 216). 

(7) Passtve Enpines. As already observed, the passive voice 
has no distinctive endings of its own. The second aorist passive, 
like ἐ-φάνη-ν, is really an active form like ἔ-βη-ν (€-¢avn-v is the 
proper division). Cf. Latin tacé-re. So é-xapn-v from χαιρέω. The 
first aorist in -θὴην seems to have developed by analogy out of 
the old secondary middle ending in —@ns (é-60-0ns) parallel with 
oo (Sanskrit thds).2 The future passive is a late development 
and merely adds the usual co/e and uses the middle endings. 
The ending in -θὴην is sometimes transitive in Archilochus,’ as 
the middle often is, and perhaps helps to understand how in the 
κοινή these forms (first aorist passive) are so often transitive (‘de- 
ponents’’) as in ἀπεκρίθην, ἐφοβήθην, etc. The second aorist passive 
as noticed above is really an active form. So the passive forms 
have a decidedly mixed origin and history. There is nothing 
special to note about these passive endings in the N. T. save the 
increased use of them when even the passive idea does not exist. 
In some verbs σ is inserted contrary to Attic practice. So κέκ- 
λεισται (Lu. 11:7), λέλουσμαι (Heb. 10:22). It is a common 
usage in the LXX (Thackeray, Gr., pp. 219ff.). See also vu, 


1 Gr. of N. ΠΣ Gk., p. 47. Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 328. 

2 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., pp. 410, 427. 

3 Ib., pp. 411, 422. On “Passive Formations” see Hadley, Ess. Phil. and 
Crit., p. 199. On the strong passive forms in LXX see C. and S., Sel. fr. LXX, 
p. 41. 4 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 411. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 941 


(σ), 9. In Rev. 8:12; 18:23, W. H. print φάνῃ (first aorist 
active, cf. ἐπιφᾶναι in Lu. 1:79) rather than the passive φανῇ. 
Note ἐκφύῃ (Mt. 24:32, but Rec. ἐκφυῇ, though ἐκφύῃ in Mk. 
18 : 28), συνφυεῖσαι (Lu. 8:7) and παρεισεδύησαν (Ju. 4) for ἔδυν 
(Rec. Mk. 1:32) which the LXX _ retains (Thackeray, Gr., p. 
235). In the LXX, when a verb had both first and second aorist 
passive forms, the first disappeared (zb., p. 237). But see vu, (d), 
for further discussion. 

(k) Contract VERBS. The use of --σαι was mentioned above. 
It appears! in καυχᾶσαι (1 Cor. 4:7; Ro. 2:17, etc.) and ὀδυνᾶσαι 
(Lu. 16:25) where ae regularly contracts into a. See χαρίεσαι 
(=-etoar) P. Oxy. 292 (A.D. 25). 

Verbs in -aw. The confusion with verbs in —ew is already seen 
in the Ionic (Herodotus). The LXX in general preserves the dis- 
tinction between —aw and —ew verbs, but NAB occasionally have 
the confusion (Thackeray, Gr., p. 241). In the modern Greek the 
blending is complete. One conjugation is made up, some forms 
from —aw, some from —ew (Thumb, Handb., p. 169 f.). The N. T. 
MSS. vary. W. H. receive ἠρώτουν in Mt. 15 : 25 (NBCD), but 
ἠρώτων in Mk. 4:10 though --οὺν is here supported by NC and by 
single MSS. elsewhere. Hatzidakis (Hinl. in d. Neug., p. 128 f.) 
considers ἠρώτουν due to Ionic influence. In Mt. 6:28 we have 
κοπιοῦσιν in B 33, but W. H. reject it, as they do νικοῦντι in Rev. 
2:7, 17; 15:2, and κατεγέλων (Lu. 8: 53).2 In Mk. 14:5 W. H. 
read ἐνεβριμῶντο (NC --οὖντο) and in Jo. 11: 38 ἐμβριμώμενος(Ν αὶ 
—ovpevos). So there is a variation as to ἡττῶνται (2 Pet. 2 : 20) 
from ἡττάομαι and ἡσσώθητε (2 Cor. 12:18) from ἑσσόω after the 
analogy of é\acoow.2 W. H. print ζῆν (Ro. 8:12). This is a 
matter of much dispute with the editors, but it is more than 
doubtful if W. H. are correct. On the other side see Winer- 
Schmiedel* and Moulton. But both ζάω (Ro. 8:12) and xpdo- 
μαι (1 Tim. 1:8) have the 7 contraction rather than a (-Ἴω 
verbs, Moulton, Prol., p. 54). In Ro. 7:9 B even has ἔζην for 
ἔζων. But the κοινή uses χρᾶσθαι, though not in the N. T.6 Paul 


1 Cf. Mayser, Gr. ἃ. griech. Pap., p. 328, for χαριεῖσαι. The LXX (1 Ki. 14: 
6 A) shows ἀπεξενοῦσαι. The only certain instance in the LXX is κτᾶσαι (Sir. 
6:7). See Thack., p. 218. Cf. further Hatz., Einl., p. 188. 

2 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 166. 

3 Ib. Moulton (Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 36) cites ἐνίκει and τιμοῦντες from pap. 

4 Pp. 42, 116 note. 

5 Prol., p. 54. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p.61. The pap. support ζῆν, not ζῇν. 
Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 347. So in general the pap. are in harmony 
with N. T. usage here, Mayser, pp. 346 ff. 6 Moulton, Prol., p. 54. 


342 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


has χρῆται (pres. subj.) in 1 Tim. 1:8. Elsewhere also the a 
forms prevail in the κοινή as in διψᾶν and πεινᾶν. So πεινᾷ (1 Cor. 
11:21), πεινᾶν (Ph. 4:12), διψᾷ (Ro. 12:20) as subjunctive (so 
πεινᾷ same verse). The LXX keeps Attic ζῆν and χρῆσθαι, but 
διψᾶν and πεινᾶν (Thackeray, Gr., p. 242).! 

Verbs in —ew sometimes show forms in —-aw. So ἐλλόγα in Phil. 
18, ἐλλογᾶται in Ro. 5:18, ἐλεᾶτε in Ju. 22, 23, and ἐλεῶντος in 
Ro. 9:16, but ἐλεεῖ in Ro. 9:18. LXX has both forms. The 
κοινή usually has the —ety forms.? For further examples of this 
confusion between —aw and —ew in LXX and isolated N. T. MSS. 
see Winer-Schmiedel.*? In 1 Cor. 11:6 all editors print ξυρᾶσθαι 
(cf. κείρασθαι just before), though in 1 Cor. 11: 5 ἐξυρημένη and ξυρή- 
σονται (Ac. 21 : 24) probably come from éupéw.* Cf. éaw, ἐάσω. 

Contraction does not always take place with ee in verbs in —ew, 
In Lu. 8:38 W. H. follow BL in giving ἐδεῖτο, but Hort® admits 
that it is not free from doubt. Blass’ and Moulton’ consider 
ἐδέετο correct and the contraction a mere correction, and it is sup- 
ported by the LXX and papyri. AP even have ἐδεεῖτο. In Rev. 
16:1 ἐκχέετε is undoubtedly right and ἐξέχεεν in 16:2, but note 
ἐκχεῖται (Mt. 9:17). In Mk. 14:3 κατέχεεν is to be noticed also 
(cf. Attic aorist). On the other hand in Jo. 3:8 note πνεῖ, ἐξέπλει 
(Ac. 18:18), πλεῖν, ἀποπλεῖν (Ac. 27:1f.). In the LXX these 
words appear now one way, now the other. δέω (‘to bind’), pew 
have no ee forms in the N. T. W. H. accept in text only ἐξουθενξω 
in all the dozen examples in the N. T. (as Lu. 18 : 9, ἐξουθενοῦντας), 
but in Mk. 9:12 they have ὃ instead of @.!° Observe also ἀφέων- 
ται (Liu. 5 : 20, etc.) instead of ἀφῶνται or the regular ἀφεῖνται. In 
the N. T., W. H. give ἐρῥέθη (Gal. 3:16; Mt. 5:21, etc.), but 
Hort! thinks the Attic ἐρρήθη should appear always in Matthew. 

Verbs in —ew have two knotty problems. In Gal. 4:17 ζηλοῦτε 
and 1 Cor. 4 : 6 φυσιοῦσθε are regular if indicative. But if they are 
subjunctive, the contraction on is like the indicative oe (cf. indica- 


1 W.-Sch., p. 116 note. Cf. karnpayévos (Mt. 25: 41). 

2 Hatz., Einl., p. 128f. Moulton (Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 110) cites φρονῶντες and 
per contra ἀγαποῦντες from pap. §’ P. 117 note. 

4 Hort (Notes on Orth., p. 166) prefers ξύρασθαι after Plut. and Lucian. 

5 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 116 f. See further on this mixing of contract verbs, Mayser, 
Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 349. The LX X MSS. show much the same situation as 
to contract verbs that we find in the N. T. and the pap. Helbing (Gr. ἃ. Sept., 
pp. 110-112) gives the facts in detail. 

6. Notes on Orth., p. 166. 9 Cf. Thack., Gr., pp. 242ff.; W.-Sch., p. 115 note. 

7 Gr. of. NiT. Gk., p..4@, 49. Hort, Notes*on, Orth:2p1166: 

8 Prol., p. 54. 1 Ib. BD always have it. 





CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 343 


tive and subjunctive of -ow verbs). So Blass! and Moulton.’ 
Hort? doubts the indicative here. If εὐοδῶται (1 Cor. 16:2) be 
regarded as a present subjunctive no problem in contraction is 
raised.4 But in Col. 4:17 we have the subjunctive in ἵνα πλη- 
pots as in Attic for both indicative and subjunctive. In Ro. 
3:13 ἐδολιοῦσαν is the common LXX form in -ocav. The other 
point is the infinitive in --οῦν or -otv. W. H. give -οῖν for 
this infinitive everywhere except πληροῦν in Lu. 9:31. Cf. -ἂν 
and -ἣν in W. H. Blass® considers the --οὖν termination ‘hardly 
established for the N. T.” since even in the N. T. the evidence is 
“small,” though “οὗ good quality’? Hort contends.” In Mt. 138: 
32 κατασκηνοῖν is supported by BD (in Mk. 4:32 by B), in 1 Pet. 
2:15 φιμοῖν has N, and in Heb. 7:5 ἀποδεκατοῖν has BD. Moul- 
ton® finds no support earlier in date than B save one inscription 
cited in Hatzidakis (Hinl., p. 193) and one papyrus of second cen- 
tury A.D. Mayser® likewise finds no infinitive in --οῖν till after 
first century A.D. and gives some references for this late infinitive 
form. It looks as if the case will go against W. H. on this point. 
The form is probably due to some late grammarian’s refinement 
and is linguistically unintelligible. 

Πιεῖν is often contracted (sounded finally τ, then 1) into πεῖν 
(so W. H., Jo. 4:7, 9, etc.) and in some MSS. (δὲ 8/9 times) into 
wiv. But πιεῖν is the Syrian reading (Mt. 20 : 22, etc.).° Con- 
traction in —aw, —ew, —ow verbs, of course, takes place only in the 
present, imperfect and present participle. 

VII. The Tenses (xpdvot). 

(a) THe TERM TENSE. It is from the French word temps, 
‘time,’ and is a misnomer and a hindrance to the understanding 
of this aspect of the verb-form. Time does come finally to enter 
relatively into the indicative and in a limited way affects the op- 
tative, infinitive and participle. But it is not the original nor the 
general idea of what we call tense." Indeed it cannot be shown of 


(τ ΟΝ, 1 Gk.,.p.48. Cf; K.-BI., Bd. II, p. 587. 

ΠΟΙ DOs 3 Notes on Orth., p. 171 f. 

4 Moulton, Prol., p. 54. Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 167. 

5 Hort, ib., p. 166. 6 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 48. 

7 Notes on Orth., p.166. 

8 Prol., p. 53. Cf. Nestle (Am. Jour. of Theol., July, 1909, p. 448) for 


-μαστιγγοῖν in Coptic. 9 Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 349; Raderm., p. 74. 
10 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 170. 
1 Cf. Delbriick, Grundl. d. griech. Synt., Bd. IV, p. 80; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 
469 f.; Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p.481 f. See Swete, O. T. in Gk., p. 305, 
for remarks about tenses in the LXX. 


344 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


any verb-form that it had originally any reference to time. We 
must therefore dismiss time from our minds in the study of the 
forms of the tenses as well as in the matter of syntax. It is too 
late to get a new name, however. 

(b) CoNFUSION IN NAMES. The greatest confusion prevails in 
the names given to the various tenses. The time idea appears in 
the names present, past perfect and future. The state of the ac- 
tion rules in the names aorist, imperfect and perfect. Thus it is 
clear that the time idea did not prevail with all the names that 
the grammarians used. In the indicative, indeed, in the past three 
tenses appear, in the present two, in the future one (sometimes 
two). In the other modes as a rule only three tenses are found; 
in truth, in the subjunctive, optative and imperative practically 
only two are in common usage, the aorist and the present. 

As a matter of fact there are nine possible tenses for each 
voice in the indicative: the aorist present, the imperfect pres- 
ent, the perfect present, the aorist past, the imperfect past, the 
perfect past; the aorist future, the imperfect future, the perfect 
future. These ideas do occur. In the past the distinction is 
clear cut. In the present no sharp line is drawn between the 
aorist and durative (unfinished or imperfect) save when the peri- 
phrastic conjugation is used or when Aktionsart comes in to 
help out the word itself. In the future, as a rule, no distinction 
at all is made between the three ideas. But here again the peri- 
phrastic conjugation can be employed. As a rule the future is 
aoristic anyhow. For further discussion see Jannaris, Hist. Gk. 
Gr., p. 180; Farrar, Greek Syntax, p. 120, and the references there 
to Harris’ Hermes, Harper’s Powers of the Greek Tenses, and 
H. Schmidt’s Doctrina Temporum Verbi Graeci et Latini. The 
modern Greek preserves as distinct forms the aorist, present, im- 
perfect; the future, the perfect and past perfect using periphrastic 
forms. Mr. Dan Crawford reports 32 tenses for Bantu. 

(c) Tue VerB-Root. There were originally two types of verb- 
roots, the punctiliar and the durative. The tense called aorist 
(ἀόριστος, ‘undefined action’) is due to the use of the punctiliar 
verbs (the idea of a point on a line). The present tense comes 
out of the durative verb-root. But it is worth repeating that 
tenses are a later development in the use of the verb.! 

Hence it was natural that some verbs never developed a pres- 
ent tense, like εἶδον, and some made no aorist, like ὁράω. The de- 
fective verbs thus throw much light on the history of the tenses. 

1 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 482 f. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 345 


Out of these two ideas grew all the tenses. Each language had its 
own development. Some aorists in Sanskrit had no presents, like 
the Greek εἶπον. Each tense in the Greek pursued its own way. 
It is a complex development as will be seen. The idea of com- 
paring the aorist to a point and the present to a line is due to 
Curtius, but it has since been worked out at length.! Instead of 
saying “irregular” verbs, Delbriick (Vergl. Syntax, Tl. II, p. 256) 
speaks of ‘‘several roots united to one verb.” 

This Aktionsart or kind of action belongs more specifically to 
syntax.2 But it is not possible to make a modern study of the 
tense formations without having clearly in mind this important 
matter. It will come out at every turn. Along with the various 
tense-suffixes which came to be used to express the tense-distinc- 
tions as they were developed there remains also the meaning of 
the verb-root itself. This is never to be left out of sight. Prepo- 
sitions also enter into the problem and give a touch much like a 
suffix (perfective). So θνήσκειν is ‘to be dying’ while ἀποθανεῖν is ‘to 
die’ and ἀποτεθνηκέναι is ‘to be dead.’ Cf. ἔχει, and ἀπέχει, ἔφαγον 
and κατέφαγον. But more of this in Syntax. The point here is 
simply to get the matter in mind. 

(d) Tue Aorist TENSE (ἀόριστος χρόνος). It is not true that 
this tense was always the oldest or the original form of the verb. 
As seen above, sometimes a durative root never made an aorist 
or punctiliar stem. But the punctiliar idea is the simplest idea 
of the verb-root, with many verbs was the original form, and logic- 
ally precedes the others. Hence it can best be treated first. This 
is clearer if we dismiss for the moment the so-called first aorists and 
think only of the second aorists of the —« form, the oldest aorists. 
It is here that we see the rise of the aorist. Henry* has put this 
matter tersely: ‘‘The ordinary grammars have been very unfortu- 
nate in their nomenclature; the so-called second perfects are much 
more simple and primitive than those called first perfects; the same 
is the case with the second aorists passive as contrasted with the 
first aorists,” etc. The same remark applies to second aorists active 
and middle. The non-thematic second aorists represent, of course, 


1 Cf. Mutzbauer, Grundl. der Tempuslehre (1893); Delbriick, Grundl. d. 
griech. Synt., II, pp. 13 ff.; Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 470 ff.; Giles, Man. of Comp. 
Philol., p. 480 f.; Moulton, Prol., pp. 108 ff. 

2 Thumb (Handb., p. 123) likewise feels the necessity of a word about 
Aktionsart under Morphology. 

3 Comp. Gr. of the Gk. and Lat., Elliott’s transl., 1890, p. 105 f. note. Cf. 
Leo Meyer, Griech. Aoriste, 1879, p. δ΄. 


346 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the most primitive form. The survivals of these forms in the 
N.T. have been discussed under —u Verbs. The difference between 
the strong aorist (both thematic and non-thematic) and similar 
presents is syntactical and not formal.! The point is that the 
strong aorists and the corresponding presents represent the simple 
stem of the verb. Brugmann? indeed treats them together. It 
is not possible to make an etymological distinction between the 
imperfects ἔφην, ἔγραφον and the aorists ἔστην, ἔφυγον. The im- 
perfect, of course, differs from the present only in the augment 
and secondary endings.* The kinship between the aorist and 
present stems is further shown in reduplication. Reduplication 
in the aorist, as ἤγαγον, is supposed to be originally causative.’ 
Cf. the use of it with inceptive presents like γι(γ)νώσκω. The 
aorist was quite common in the older Sanskrit, but is rare in the 
later language.’ Cf. the blending of the aorist and the present 
perfect forms in Latin. The strong aorist (both non-thematic 
and thematic) is far more common in Homer than in the later 
Greek.6 Indeed in the modern Greek the strong aorist has well- 
nigh vanished before the weak aorist.’ 

As often, the grammars have it backwards. The so-called sec- 
ond is the old aorist, and the so-called first is the late form of the 
verb. This weak form of the aorist has a distinct tense-sign, σ, 
the sigmatic aorist. The o (-ca) was not always used, as with 
liquid verbs,’ like ἔστειλα. This sigmatic aorist appears also 
in the Sanskrit. The distinction was not always observed be- 
tween the two forms, and mixed aorists of both kinds occur in 
Homer, like ἤξοντο, ἤνεικα. No wonder therefore that uniformity 
gradually prevailed at the expense of the strong aorist in two 
ways, the disuse of the strong aorist (so #£a) and the putting of 
first aorist endings to the second aorist stems, as εἶπα, éoxa. 

The « aorists in the indicative (ἔδωκα, ἔθηκα, ἧκα) continued to 
hold their own and to be used usually in the plural also. An ex- 


1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 268. 
2 Ib. Cf. also Riem. and Goelzer, Phonét., pp. 396, 410, 414. So K.-BI., I, 


ΡῈ 3. Cf. Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 453 f. 
4 So Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 308. Cf. Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 371. Cf. K.-BL., 
II, p. 30f., for list. 5 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 298. 


6 See interesting lists in Sterrett’s Il., N. 38 ff. 

7 V. and D., Handb. etc., Ὁ. 79 f. 

8 K.-BL., II, p. 102 f. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 313; Delbriick, Grundl., 
etc., IV, pp. 75 ff. Hartmann (De aoristo secundo, 1881, p. 21) makes too 
much distinction between the second and first aorists. 

9 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 313. 10 Sterrett, Hom. 1]., N. 42. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 347 


tension of this usage (after the analogy of the perfect) is seen in 
the Byzantine and modern Greek! form ἐλύθηκα for ἐλύθην. 

There is one more aorist form, the aorist passive. As already 
shown, the so-called second aorist passive (-ην), like ἐφάνην, ἐχάρην, 
is merely the second aorist active. The so-called first aorist 
passive in -θην is a Greek creation after the analogy of the old 
Indo-Germanic.* Homer makes little use of either of these pas- 
sive aorists, but the second is the more frequent with him and the 
form in -θην is very rare.* 

If this emphasis upon the aorist forms seem unusual to modern 
students, they may be reminded that in English we have only 
two tenses (apart from the periphrastic conjugation) and that they 
are usually punctiliar, as “I sing,” “I sang.’? One is a present 
aorist, the other a past aorist.2 We do not here enter into the 
Aktionsart of the aorist (whether ingressive, constative or effec- 
tive). That belongs to syntax. 

The inscriptions agree with the development shown above in 
the aorist and support the N. T. phenomena.’ Mayser® gives a 
careful discussion of the papyri development. In brief it is in 
harmony with what has already been observed. The non-the- 
matic strong aorist is confined to a few verbs like βῆναι, γνῶναι, 
δοῦναι, δῦναι, θεῖναι, πρίασθαι, στῆναι. The x aorists are used ex- 
clusively in both singular and plural. The thematic strong aorist 
is disappearing before the weak sigmatic aorist. 

In the N. T. the « aorists ἔδωκα, ἔθηκα, ἀφῆκα occur always ex- 
cept that Luke (1:2 in the literary introduction) has παρέδοσαν. 
Elsewhere ἐδώκατε (Mt. 28 : 85), ἔθηκαν (Mk. 6: 29), adnxare (Mt. 
23:23), etc., and quite frequently. The LXX also nearly 
always has x with these aorists in the plural.’ 

The non-thematic aorists in the N. T. are not numerous. The 
list is found in the discussion of —ue verbs and includes ἀνέβην, 
ἔγνων, ἔστην, ἔφην, ὠνάμην, and all the forms of δοῦναι, εἶναι and 
θεῖναι save the indicative active. 


1 V. and Ὁ. Handb., etc., p. 81, but in particular Thumb, Handb., p. 144. 

2 Cf. K.-BL., II, p. 93 f. 3 Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 399 f. 

4 Sterrett, Hom. Il., N. 42 f. 

5 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 126. Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 45. 

6 Munro, ib., p. 47. 

7 Cf. Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., pp. 180 ff.; Nachm., Magn. Inschr., pp. 
162 ff.; Meisterh., Att. Inschr., pp. 181, 185, 187. 

8 Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 358-370. 9 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 119. 

10 See Helbing, Gr. d.Sept., p.94 f., for similar exx. in the LXX, and Thack., 


Gr., p. 255. 


348 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


The thematic strong aorist in the N. T. shows the two develop- 
ments noted above. The use of —a instead of —ov with the strong 
aorist-stem is very common. See this chapter, νι, (ἢ), for N. T. list 
like ἔβαλαν, etc. The MSS. vary much in the matter.! The other 
change is the increased use of the sigmatic aorist. Here again 
Blass? has a careful presentation of the facts. *EBiwoa (1 Pet. 
4: 2) is a case in point instead of the old Attic ἐβίων. So is ἐβλά- 
στησα (Mt. 13:26; Heb. 9:4; Jas: 5:18) rather than ἔβλαστον. 
Both éyaunoa (Mt. 5 : 32) and éynua (Mt. 22 : 25) occur. Cf. Hel- 
bing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 93f., and Thackeray, Gr., pp. 233 ff., for 
LXX illustrations. 

Ἢ ἕα occurs a few times instead of the common ἤγαγον, as ἐπάξας 
(2 Pet. 2:5), ἐπισυνάξαι (Lu. 13:34). Blass justifies it as appear- 
ing at least in dialects, LX X and late writers.’ It is part of the 
tendency towards the sigmatic aorist. Likewise ἁμαρτήσω is slip- 
ping in beside ἁμάρτω (Mt. 18:15; Ro. 5:14, 16, ef. verse 12). 
Blass finds it in Emped., LX_X, Lob., Phryn., 732. W.H. accept 
éovoev (Mk. 1: 32 on the authority of BD (NA, etc., ἔδυ). Luke in 
Ac. 24:21 has the reduplicated aorist ἐκέκραξα like the LXX, but 
usually the N. T. has the late form ἔκραξα as in Mt. ὃ : 29 (ἔκραξαν), 
though once the Attic ἀνέκραγον appears (Lu. 28 : 18). Once Luke 
(Ac. 6:2) has καταλείψαντας, a form that Blass* finds in Herm., 
Vis. VIII, 3. 5, and Mayser® observes ἀντειλῆψαι in the papyri. 

"Ovnobe (Lu. 13 : 28) finds a parallel in an old Homeric aorist 
ὠψάμην (Winer-Schmiedel, p. 109). In Rey. 18:14 the Text. Rec. 
(without any known authority) has an aorist form εὕρησα. So in 
Jas. 4:13 some MSS. have ἐμπορευσώμεθα. Indeed some verbs have 
dropped the strong aorist form entirely like βιόω, βλαστάνω, ἐγείρο- 
μαι, κτείνω. See careful discussion of Winer-Schmiedel, p. 109 f. 
MSS. frequently read δώσῃ, δώσωμεν, etc., as if from an aorist ἔδωσα, 
as Jo. 17:2; Rev. 4:9. Cf. Winer-Schmiedel, p. 120. Cf. Hel- 
bing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 90 f., for LX-X examples that further parallel 
these illustrations. 

Conversely is to be noted a new strong aorist ἀνέθαλον (Ph. 4: 
10) which Blass® takes in a causative sense (ἀνεθάλετε τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ 
φρονεῖ»). 

Verbs in --ὼ make the aorist both in σ and ἕξ. Most of these 


1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 45 f. > Ib: p.. 43. 

5. Ib. Mayser (Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 369) finds it in the pap. as well as 
ἀγαγῆσαι. 

4 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 48. Cf. καταλείψῃ Mk. 12:19 x. 

5 Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 370. 6 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 43. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 949 


verbs have dental stems in Attic, but some have guttural. Hence 
the o forms prevail till to-day. The LXX agrees with the N. T. 
(Thackeray, Gr., p. 222f.). So ἐνύσταξαν (Mt. 25:5), ἐμπαῖξαι 
(Mt. 20:19), ἐπεστήριξαν (Ac. 15:32); but on the other hand 
ἐστήρισεν (LU. 9:51), ἥρπασεν (Ac. 8:39), ἡρμοσάμην (2 Cor. 11:2), 
cadrions (Mt. 6: 2).: The tendency in the papyri and the in- 
scriptions on the whole is towards the use of o and not & with 
the verbs in -fw.? Cf. Barrifw, λογίζομαι, νομίζω, ete. 

Like καλέω and τελέω 3 we have e in ἐφορέσαμεν (1 Cor. 15:49) and 
ἐρρέθη (Mt. 5 : 21), but εὐφόρησα (Lu. 12 : 16), ῥηθέν (Mt. 1 :-22) and 
ἐπεπόθησα (1 Pet. 2:2). Cf. also ἤνεσα, ἤρκεσε, ἐμέσαι. Cf. ἐπείνασα 
(Mt. 4: 2), but διψήσω, though D has —a—in Jo. 6: 35 and N in Rev. 

The liquid verbs in —aivw and —aipw generally retain ἃ even when 
not preceded by e orcas in Attic. So ἐβάσκανα (Gal. 3:1); once κερ- 
dav (1 Cor. 9: 21), elsewhere —noa; ἐξεκάθαρα (1 Cor. 5:7); ἐλεύκαναν 
(Rev. 7:14); éonuava (Rev. 1:1); ἐπιφᾶναι (Lu. 1:79). In Rev. 8:12 
and 18 : 23 note φάνῃ, not φανῇ. The κοινή begins to use —ava and 
—apa with all verbs, and it is well-nigh universal in modern Greek. 
The LXX agrees with the N. T. (Thackeray, Gr., p. 223). A few 
—nva forms survive in modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 140 f.). 

The second aorist passive has a few late developments of its 
own. This substitution of the second aorist passive for the first 
is a favorite idiom in the N. Τ. The κοινή shows likewise fond- 
ness for the --ν formations.> This is true of the inscriptions® and 
the papyri.’ This development is directly the opposite of that in 
the case of the second and first aorist active and middle. It has 
already been observed that in Homer the passive aorist is very 
rare. Perhaps the increase in the use of —yv forms is partly due 
to the general encroachment of aorist passive forms on the middle, 
and this is the simplest one. The Attic, of course, had many such 
forms also. Here are the chief N. T. examples: ἠγγέλην (ἀπ--, 
ἀν--, δι-, κατ--, Lu. 8 : 20, etc.) is in the LXX and the papyri; 
ἠνοίγην (Mk. 7:35, ete.), but ἠνοίχθησαν also (Rev. 20:12); ἡρ- 
πάγην (2 Cor. 12:2, 4), but the Attic ἡρπάσθη (Rev. 12:5); διο- 
ρυγῆναι is read by some MSS. in Mt. 24:48; διετάγην (Gal. 3 : 19), 
ὑπετάγην (Ro. 8 : 20, etc.), but the Attic διαταχθέντα (Lu. 17: 9 f.); 

1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 105. 

2 Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 360ff., for careful discussion and 
references for further research. 

3 So rovéw and dopéw(e) in the LXX. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 105. 

4 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 43. 5 Cf. Schmid, Atticismus, IV, p. 594 f. 


6 Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 171; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 190 f. 
7 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 381 f. Cf. Reinhold, De Graec., p. 76 f. 


390 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


κατεκάην (Rev. 8:7; 1 Cor. 3:15), but Attic ἐξεκαύθησαν (Ro. 1: 
27); κατενύγην (Ac. 2:37); ἐκρύβην (Jo. 8:59). So also ἐφύην in- 
stead of ἔφυν follows the analogy of éppinv (Heb. 2:1) and ἐχάρην 
(Lu. 22:5). Thus we have ἐκφυῇ (Mk. 13: 28)! and συμφυεῖσαι 
(Lu. 8: 6-8). Forms like ἐπλήγην (Rev. 8:12) and ἐφάνην (Mt. 
1:20) are Attic. On the other hand the poetical ἐκλίθην (Mt. 
14 : 19 ἀνακλιθῆναι) has displaced the Attic ἐκλίνην. ᾿Απεκτάνθην oc- 
casionally appears (as in Mk. ὃ : 31 and Rev. six times) where the 
Attic would have ἀπέθανον, and ἐτέχθην (Lu. 2 : 11) when the Attic 
would usually have ἐγενόμην. Both ἐγενήθην (Mt. 6:10 and often 
in 1 Th.) and ἐγενόμην (Mt. 7:28) are common, as ἠδυνήθην (Mt. 
17: 16) and ἐδυνάσθην (Mk. 7: 24). The many aorist passives in 
the deponent sense have already been noticed under VI, (6). 

(6) THE PRESENT TENSE (ὁ ἐνεστὼς χρόνος). The present 
indicative, from the nature of the case, is the most frequent in 
actual use and hence shows the greatest diversity of develop- 
ment. Brugmann? finds thirty-two distinct ways of forming the 
present tense in the Indo-Germanic tongues and thirty of them 
in the Greek. But some of these represent very few verbs 
and for practical purposes a much simpler classification is suf- 
ficient.2 Unfortunately the grammars by no means agree on the 
simplification. As samples see Giles, Man. of Comp. Phailol., p. 
425f.; Hadley and Allen, p. 122 f.; Monro, Homeric Grammar, 
p. 9; Riemann and Goelzer, Phonétique, pp. 394 ff.; Kiihner-Blass, 
II, pp. 88 ff. In simple truth the facts are so varied that they 
lend themselves to many combinations more or less artificial. 
One of the most satisfactory is that of Monro, who has the his- 
torical instinct at least in his arrangement. 

1. The Root Class. This is the simple non-thematic present 
like φημί. This is the logical one to put first, as with the aorist 
like ἔ-βη-ν. This class is disappearing in the N. T. though δύνα- 
μαι, εἰμί, εἶμι In Composition (εἰσ--, ἐξ--), κάθ-η-μαι, κεῖ-μαι, κρέμα-μαι 
appear. 

2. The Non-Thematic Ieduplicated Present. So δί-δω-μι, t-- 
μι, ἵεσστη-μι, κί-χρη-μι, ὀνίνη-μι, πίμ-πλη-μι, τί-θητμι. It was never a 
very large class, but holds on in the N. T. And -w forms are 
common with these verbs. 


1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 110, for exx. in Jos. and LXX. Cf. also Helbing, Gr. d. 
Sept., p. 95f. MSS. simply read --φυη. 

2 Grundr., II, pp. 886-1330. In Hom. the same root will form a present in 
several ways, as ἔχω, ἴσχω, ἰσχάνω. Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 40. 

3 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 423. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 901 


3. The Non-Thematic Present with --να-- and -νυ-- So in the 
N. T. ἀμφι-έ-ννυ-μι, ἀπ-όλ-λυ-μι, δείκ-νυ-μι, ζεύγ-νυ-μι, ζών-νυ-μι, κατ- 
ἀγ-νυ-μι, κερά-ννυ-μι, κορέ-ννυ-μι, κρε-μά-ννυ-μι, μίγ-νυ-μι, ὄμ-νυ-μι, πήγ- 
νυ-μι, ῥήγ-νυ-μι, σβέ-ννυ-μι, στρώ-ννυ-μι, but these all have more 
commonly the —w forms.! 

4. The Simple Thematic Present. So λέγω, bw. This was a 
constantly increasing class at the expense of the —ye verbs. It 
had several branches also including root-verbs like ἄγω, γράφω, 
a strengthened vowel like πείθ-ω (71), λείπ-τω (Aut), φεύγτω (vy), 
σήπω, THKW, τρώγω, θλίβω, πνΐγω, etc., Hadley and Allen’s “strong 
vowel class,’? and the many contract denominative verbs like 
τιμάτω, φιλέ-ω, ἀξιότω. But see the ε Class for these contract verbs. 
New verbs were added to this list from nouns and some also from 
verb-stems, ypenyopé-w from the old perfect ἔγρήγορα (this tense 
never in the N. T.),? στήκτω (Mk. 11:25) from ἕστηκα (modern 
Greek στέκω). In Lu. 1:24 περιέκρυβεν is probably imperfect, 
not aorist, from κρύβω (κρύπτω). Cf. ἐκρύβην ὃ The LXX shows 
these new presents from perfect stems (Thackeray, Gr., p. 224 f.). 

5. The Reduplicated Thematic Present. So γίνομαι (γίγντ-ο-μαι, 
Ἐηγι-γέν-ομαι), πίπτ-ω (Ἔπι-πέτ-ω), TiKT-w (*TL-TEK-w), --γν--, -πτ--, —KT-, 
being weak forms of -γεν-, -πετ--, —rex-. The N. T. has also 
isxt-w from ἴσχω (*ot-céx-w). 

6. The Thematic Present with a Suffix. There are five (ει, -ν, 
-σκ, --τ, -θ). Each of these divisions furnishes a number of verbs. 

_(a) The c class. It is very large. This suffix is used to make 
verbs from roots and substantives. It is probable® that originally 
the suffix was—-y.. It is thought that contract verbs in —aw, --εω, 
—ow, etc., originally had this ὁ as 7 or y which was dropped.’ It 
is thus the chief way of forming denominative verbs and is pre- 
eminently a secondary suffix.2 Some of these verbs are causative, 
some intensive, some desiderative.? The special Greek desidera- 
tive in --σείω does not appear in the N. T., but forms like κοπιάω 
are found. In particular, forms in —ifw become so common that 
they no longer have an intensive, iterative or causative force,!® 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 48. ? Gr., p. 122. 

** Blass, Groot NL. Gk., p. 40. 

4 Ib., p. 41. The LXX MSS. show both ypnyopéw and στήκω. Cf. Helbing, 
Gr. d. Sept., p. 82. 

b(t Blass. Griof N:.T. Gk.; p. 41: 

6 Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 34; Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 380. 

7 Hirt, ib., p. 383 f. 8 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 440. 

9 Ib., pp. 445 ff. On the whole subject of contract verbs see Jann., Hist. 
Gk. Gr., pp. 207 ff. 10 Jann., ib., p. 222. 


BDZ A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


but are used side by side with the older form, as βάπτω, βαπτίζω; 
paivw, ῥαντίζω, etc. In all the --ζω forms the « has united with a 
palatal (guttural) or lingual (dental), a matter determined by the 
aorist or future. So φυλάσ-σω is from φυλάκ-)ω, φράζω from φράδ- 
yo. Other familiar combinations are ὁ and δ, as Bad-jw= βάλλω, ¢ 
with v by transposition, as dav-jw=daivw, « with p likewise, as 
ἄρ-)ω Ξ- αἴρω. In καίω and κλαίω the v has dropped between a and t. 
In the N. T. verbs in —aivw, —aipw have -ἄνα, —apa in the first aorist 
active as already shown under the aorist tense (α). ᾿Αμφιάζω (Lu. 
12:28) is an example of a new present for ἀφιέννυμι. Cf. also 
ἀποκτεννόντων (Mt. 10:28) in some MSS. for the older ἀποκτείνω, 
yyw, -ν)ω. See Blass! for the variations in the MSS. at many 
places in the N. T. with this word. So ἐκχύννω (Mt. 26 : 28, etc.) 
in the best MSS. for ἐκχέω. Only in Mt. 9:17 we have ἐκχεῖται 
from ἐκχέω and in Rev. 16:1 ἐκχέατεξ in some MSS. 

(8) The v class is also well represented in the N. T. with the- 
matic stems. It takes various forms. There is the v alone, as 
κάμτνω, —av AS ἁμαρτ-άνω, —ve AS ἀφε-ικ-νέο-μαι. Sometimes the ν is 
repeated in the root, as λαμβάνω (AaB), μανθάνω (ual), τυγχάνω (τυχ). 
In the κοινή (so LXX and N. T.) this inserted ν (u) is retained 
in the aorist and future of λαμβάνω (ἔλήμφθην, λήμψομαι) contrary 
to literary Attic. So the papyri. | 

(y) The ox class. It is commonly called inceptive,? but Del- 
briick* considers these verbs originally terminative in idea, while 
Monro® calls attention to the iterative idea common in Homer 
with the suffix --σκε, —-cxo. The verbs with ox may be either with- 
out reduplication, as βό-σκω, θνήτ-σκω, ἱλά-σκομαι, φά-σκω, Or with 
reduplication as γι(γ)νώ-σκω, di-da-oxw (for δι-δάχ-σκω), μι-μνήτσκω, 
πά-σχω (for πάθ-σκω). Cf. ἀρέ-σκω, γαμ-ίσκω, ynpa-oKw, εὑρ-ίσκω, 
μεθύ-σκω. Reduplication is thus a feature with root-verbs (non- 
thematic) like δί-δωτμι and thematic like γί(γ)νο-μαι as well as 
the ox class. For reduplication in the aorist and the perfect 
see (h). The iterative idea of some of these ox verbs suits well the 
reduplication. 

(6) The τ class. It is not a very numerous one (about 18 
verbs), though some of the verbs are common. The verb has 


1 Gr. of N.T. Gk.,p. 41. The LXX has these new presents. Thack., p.225. 

2 Blass, ib. The LXX MSS. illustrate most of these peculiarities of verbs 
in the present tense. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 82-84. 

® Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 436. 

4 Grundr., IV, p. 59. Cf. Brug., Grundr., II, § 669. 

5 Hom. Gr., p. 34. 


Pi GW ΩΝ 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 909 


always a labial stem like ἅπ- τω, βάπ-τω, τύπ-τω. The root may end 
in β as in καλύπ-τω, 7 AS IN τύπ-τω, OY d aS iN βάπ-τω. It is even 
possible that πτ may represent an original zy (cf. iota class). 

(ε) The θ class. Cf. ἀλήτθω, ἔσ-θω, κνήτθω, νήτθω in the present. 
The modern Greek has developed ‘many new presents on the 
basis of the aorist or the perfect (Thumb, Handb., p. 148). 

(f) THe Futur TENSE (ὁ μέλλων χρόνος). The origin of this 
tense has given rise to much discussion and some confusion. 
Vincent and Dickson! even say that the first aorist is derived 
from the o future! Like the other tenses there has been a de- 
velopment along several lines. No general remark can be made 
that will cover all the facts. As already remarked, the future 
tense is fundamentally aoristic or punctiliar in idea and not dura- 
tive or linear. The linear idea can be accented by the periphrastic 
form, as ἔσεσθε λαλοῦντες (1 Cor. 14:9). Cf. also Mt. 24:9; Lu. 
1:20; 5:10; Mk. 18:25. But as a rule no such distinction is 
drawn. The truth is that the future tense is a late development 
in language. In the Sanskrit it is practically confined to the in- 
dicative and the participle, as in the Greek to the indicative, in- 
finitive and participle (optative only in indirect discourse, and 
rarely then, not at all in N. T.). And in the Rigveda the sya 
form occurs only some seventeen times.?, The Teutonic tongues 
have no future form at all apart from the periphrastic, which ex- 
isted in the Sanskrit also.* In the modern Greek again the future 
as a distinct form has practically vanished and instead there 
occurs θά and the subjunctive or θέλω and the remnant of the in- 
finitive, like our English ‘shall’ or “will.”’* Giles® thinks it un- 
certain how far the old Indo-Germanic peoples had developed a 
future. 

Probably the earliest use of the future was one that still sur- 
vives in most languages. It is just the present in a vivid, lively 
sense projected into the future. So we say “I go a-fishing”’ as 
Simon Peter did, ὑπάγω ἁλιεύειν (Jo. 21:3). The other disciples 
respond ἐρχόμεθα καὶ ἡμεῖς σὺν σοί. This usage belongs to the realm 
of syntax and yet it throws light on the origin of the future tense. 
So Jesus used (Jo. 14:3) the present and future side by side (épxo- 


1 Handb. of Mod. Gk., p. 82. 

2 Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 401. 

3 Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 446; Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 333 f. 

4 Thumb, Handb., pp. 161 f., 173. 

5 Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 446. On the whole subject of “Indo-European 
Futures” see Hadley, Ess. Phil. and Crit., pp. 184 ff. 


354 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


μαι καὶ mapadnuyoua). We have seen already that a number of 
aorists and presents like φη-μί had identically the same root and 
with no original distinction. That is, the durative idea was not 
distinguished from the aoristic or punctiliar. It is not strange, 
therefore, to see a number of these roots with primary endings (cf. 
subj. and opt. aorists) used as futures without any tense-sufhx at 
all. Some were originally either present or future in sense (cf. 
ἔρχομαι above), others came to be used only as future. These 
verbs appear in Homer naturally, as βίομαι, ἔδομαι, εἶμι, πίομαι, etc.} 
Cf. N. T. φάγομαι. It is possible that those with variable vowel 
like éoua may really be the same form as the Homeric subjunc- 
tive (like ἴομεν as opposed to ἴμεν).Σ Πίομαι is common in Attic 
(N. T.) and is from aorist root (€.-ov). The form φάγομαι (LXX 
and N. T.) is analogous (aorist, ἔφαγον). The Attic used χέω as 
future also, but LXX and N. T. have χεῶ (Blass, Gr. of N. T. 
Gk., Ὁ. 42). Cf. Helbing, Gr. ἃ. Sept., p. 88, for LXX illustra- 
tions to the same effect. The LXX has the classic ἔδομαι; not in 
the N. T. (Thackeray, p. 231). 

It used to be said that the o future was merely a variation of 
the Sanskrit sya, the y or j sound disappearing in the Greek. 
This gave a simple explanation of the o futures. But a rival the- 
ory has been advanced which derives the o future from the o 
aorist.2 The frequency of the aorist subjunctive in Homer with 
κέ (ἄν) in principal clauses much like the future indicative in Attic, 
and the absence of a future passive, not to say future optative, in 
Homer give some colour to this contention.* Thus δείξω and the 
Latin dixo would be identical in form and meaning.’ But Brug- 
mann® has perhaps solved the problem by the suggestion that 
both explanations are true. Thus γράψω he derives from the 
aorist subjunctive γράψω, a mixed tense with a double origin. 
The use of —ovo/e in the Doric lends weight to the derivation of 
these verbs at least from the sya (Sanskrit) type.’ Hirt® re- 
gards ceo/e (Doric) as a combination of the o future and the e 
future (liquid verbs, for instance) and considers it a new Greek 
formation. This Doric future therefore may be as old as any, 


1 Sterrett, Hom. 1]., N. 38. 

* Giles, Man., p. 447. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 184; Riem. and Goelzer, 
Phonét., p. 438. 

3 Ib., p. 446. Cf. also Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 401 f. 

4 Sterrett, Hom. ΠῚ N. 27. 5 Giles, Man., p. 446. 

6 Griech. Gr., p. 320. This position is accepted by K.-BL., II, p. 105. 

wtb Ὁ 05: 8 Handb. etce., p. 408 f. 





CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 900 


if not the oldest suffix, in fact the really distinctively future 
suffix. In the N. T. this Doric form survives in zecoduac! (Mt. 
10:29). ‘Péw has ῥεύσω (Jo. 7:38), κλαίω has κλαύσω (Lu. 6 : 25), 
while φεύγω has φεύξομαι (Jo. 10:5). The other forms common 
in Attic have no future in the N. T. This mixed? origin of the 
future (partly aorist subj., partly Indo-Germ. sto) shows itself 
in the Aktionsart of the tense. So Moulton notes προάξω (Mk. 
14:28) as durative, but ἄξει (1 Th. 4:14) as aoristic. Cf. 
Thumb, Handb., p. 123. 

Thus we may gain further light? on the Ionic-Attic future of 
verbs in -ifw. It is like the Doric —ceo/e. So we have --ισέω, drop- 
ping o we get —1éw=-14. These verbs in —-ifw are very common in 
the later Greek. In the N. T. the usage varies between this form 
of the future and the aoristic form in -co/e. The LXX, like the 
Ptolemaic papyri (Thackeray, p. 228), has usually --τῶ in first sin- 
gular and so μετοικιῶ (Ac. 7:43) and παροργιῶ (Ro. 10 : 19), both 
quotations. Elsewhere W. H.‘ prefer the forms in --ἰσω, and Blass® 
thinks that in the original passages of the N. T. the --ἰσω forms 
are genuine. So the forms in —ice (like βαπτίσει) are uniform in 
the N. T. (Lu. 3:16) save καθαριεὶ (Heb. 9:14) and διακαθαριεῖ 
(Mt. 3:12).6 MSS. vary between ἀφοριεῖ and —ica, φωτιεῖ and 
-ἰσει, χρονιεῖ and —ioe. Cf. Blass.?. So in Eph. 6:8; Col. 3:25, 
the MSS. vary between κομιεῖται and κομίσεται. Some MSS. read 
κομιούμενοι In 2 Pet. 2: 13.8 All editors® accept κομιεῖσθε in 1 Pet. 
5:4. The active plural W. H."” print as --ἰοῦσι always (as μακα- 
ριοῦσιν, Lu. 1:48) save in γνωρίσουσιν (Col. 4:9). 

The syncopated futures" from the dropping of o do not survive 
in the N. T. in καλέσω, τελέσω Which always retain the o. So even 
ἀπολέσω (Mt. 21:41), though ἀπολῶ is common in the LXX and 


1 And this πεσοῦμαι is possibly not from πετ-σοῦμαι, but a change οἵ τ to σ. 
Cf. K.-Bl., II; p. 107; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 322; Hirt. Handb., p. 404. 
Henry (Comp. Gr. of Gk. and Lat., p. 116) considers the Doric future to be the 
affix of the future twice over, as σεσο, ceo. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 149. 5. 10 -Β᾽ Lips 1064; 

4 Notes on Orth., p. 163. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 356. 

δ᾽ Gr. of N..T. Gk., p. 42. 

6 Ib. But Blass (ib.) prefers ἐγγιεῖ (Jas. 4:8). 

7 Ib. See Helbing, Gr. ἃ. Sept., pp. 84 f., 87 f., for the LX X exx. of verbs 


in --ζω. 
8 Tb. 10 Tb. 
9 Notes on Orth., p. 163. 11 Giles, Man., p. 446 f. 


12. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 41 f. Brug. (Griech. Gr., p. 321) considers this 
a new formation after the aor. subj. suffix. The LXX keeps o. Cf. Helbing, 
Gr. d. Sept., p. 86; Thack., Gr., p. 230. 


356 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


is quoted once in the N. T. (1 Cor. 1:19). However, the middle 
ἀπολοῦμαι is the N. T. form (Lu. 5:37) like ἀποθανοῦμαι. ᾿Ελαύνω 
has no future in the N. T. The N. T., like the LXX, has a future 
form ἀφελῶ (Rev. 22 : 19) from the aorist εἷλον of aipéw. 

The liquid verbs in ἃ, ν, p present few problems. They belong 
to the aorist subjunctive type of formation.1. Here again we have 
syncopation of the o. Verbs like βάλλω (βαλῶ), μένω (μενῶ), αἴρω 
(ἀρῶ) form the future with the variable vowel o/e added to the 
stem without o in the N. T. as in the earlier Greek. 

Blass? has shown that in the N. T. the future active has largely 
displaced the future middle with verbs that were defective in the 
active voice. These futures are as follows: ἁμαρτήσω (Mt. 18 : 21), 
ἀπαντήσω (Mk. 14:18), ἁρπάσω (Jo. 10 : 28), βλέψω (Ac. 28 : 26), 
γελάσω (Lu. 6:21), διώξω (Mt. 23 : 34), κλαύσω (Lu. 6 : 25), κράξω 
(Lu. 19:40 NBL), παίξω (Mk. 10: 34), ῥεύσω (Jo. 7 : 38), σπουδάσω 
(2 Pet. 1:15), συναντήσω (Lu. 22:10). We see this tendency al- 
ready in the LXX (Thackeray, Gr., p. 231f.). On the other 
hand the future middle alone occurs with ἀποθανοῦμαι (Jo. 8 : 24), 
γνώσομαι (1 Cor. 4:19), λήμψομαι (Mt. 10:41), ὄψομαι (Mt. 24: 30), 
πεσοῦμαι (Doric, Mt. 10 : 29), πίομαι (Mk. 10 : 39), φάγομαι (Lu. 14 : 
15), φεύξομαι (Jo. 10:5). Χαρήσομαι (Lu. 1:14) Blass* regards as 
Attic future from the aorist (ἐχάρην) as compared with the future 
χαιρήσω from the present. Both ἀκούσω (Jo. 5:25) and ἀκούσομαι 
(Ac. 21 : 22, chiefly in the Acts) are found, and ζήσω (Jo. 5 : 25) 
and ζήσομαι (Jo. 11 : 25). 

The so-called second future passive as seen in the case of χαρήσο- 
μαι above is really just the middle ending with o put to the aorist 
active stem. There is no difference in form or sense between 
βή-σο-μαι and σταλ-ή-σο-μαι save the -η-- which was really a part 
of the active stem of these verbs.’ The point is that fundamentally 
these so-called second future passives are really future middles 
corresponding to active aorists like the future middles and pres- 
ents above (λήμψομαι, for instance). This point is made clearer 
by the fact that the Doric® used only active endings like avaypa- 
φησεῖ (not —erar). Homer, besides,.only has one second future pas- 
sive (μυγήσομαι, really middle) and none in -θΘησ-- ὁ Instead he uses 
the middle future as later Greek continued to do with verbs like 
τιμήσομαι. Cf. γενήσομαι from é-yev-ounv. Some verbs indeed used 
both this second future passive like φανήσομαι (Mt. 24 : 30) which 


1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 321. 4 Giles, Man., pp. 410, 427. 
2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 42. 5 Ib., p. 447. 
3 Ib., p. 43. 6K -Bl il spit. 





CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 357 


is punctiliar and φανοῦμαι (1 Pet. 4:18) which may be durative 
like the Attic as Moulton! argues. So παύσονται (1 Cor. 13: 8) 
and ἐπαναπαήσεται (Lu. 10:6). Cf. also ἀνοιγήσομαι (Mt. 7:7), 
ἁρπαγήσομαι (1 Th. 4:17), φανήσομαι (Mt. 24 : 30), ὑποταγήσομαι 
(1 Cor. 15:28), ψυγήσομαι (Mt. 24 : 12), χαρήσομαι (Lu. 1:14, see 
above). 

The first future passive so-called is built upon the distinctively? 
Greek aorist in -θη--- It is unknown to Homer, as stated above, 
and, like the second aorist passive, is aorist in origin and idea. 
Here again the Doric used the active endings? like συναχθησοῦντι. 
This later form in --θησ-- grew continually in usage over the merely 
middle form like τιμήσομαι. But the passive future did not always 
have the passive sense, as has been shown in the case of ἀνακλιθή- 
σομαι (Mt. 8:11), ἀποκριθήσομαι (Mt. 25 : 37), etc.4 ’Ανοιχθήσομαι 
also appears in Lu. 11:9f. in some MSS. As an example of the 
usual forms in the N. T. take γνωσθήσομαι (1 Cor. 14:7). Only 
μνησθήσομαι (not μεμνήσομαι) and σταθήσομαι (not ἑστήξω) appear in 
thesNeTs 

For a periphrastic future passive expressing continuance see 
ἔσεσθε μισούμενοι (Mt. 10 : 22).6 This is naturally not a very com- 
mon idiom for this tense, though the active periphrastic future 
is less infrequent as already shown. 

(g) THe Perrecr ΤΈΝΒΕΒ (τέλειοι ypovol). 

1. The Name. It does fairly well if we do not think of time in 
connection with the tense, a mistake that Clyde makes.? The 
completed state does not of itself have reference to present 
time. That comes later and by usage in the indicative alone in con- 
trast to past and future. Originally the perfect was merely an in- 
tensive or iterative tense like the repetition of the aoristic present.® 

2. The Original Perfect. The Greek perfect is an inheritance 
from the Indo-Germanic original and in its oldest form had no 
reduplication, but merely a vowel-change in the singular.® Indeed 
οἶδα (Sanskrit véda, Latin vidi, English wot) has never had re- 
duplication.’ It illustrates also the ablaut from ιὃ-- to οιδ-- in the 
singular, seen in Sanskrit and Gothic also.!! Cf. Latin capio, 
cépi (a to δ). Note also κεῖ-μαι in the sense of τέ-θει-μαι. 


1 Prol., p. 150. ἤν προ dL 

2 Giles, Man., pp. 420, 447. 8 Giles, Man., p. 449. 

3 Ib., p. 447. 9 Hirt, Handb. etc., pp. 406, 410. 
4 See vi, (6), in this chapter. 10 Giles, Man., p. 449. 

§ Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 86, 1 Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 410. 


6 Ib., p. 204. 


358 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


But the vowel-change characteristic of the original perfects is 
seen in other verbs which did use reduplication. Reduplication 
will receive separate treatment a little later, as it pertains to the 
present and aorist tenses also. It may be here remarked that the 
reduplicated form of some iterative presents doubtless had some 
influence in fastening reduplication upon the perfect tense. Note 
the English “mur-mur” (Greek yoy-yifw, ap-ap-icxw), where the 
syllable is doubled in the repetition. It was a natural process. 
A number of these reduplicated forms with the mere change in the 
vowel appear in the N. T. This so-called second perfect, like the 
second aorist, is a misnomer and is the oldest form.!'’ In Homer 
indeed it is the usual form of the perfect.?, These old root-perfects, 
old inherited perfect forms according to Brugmann,* persist in 
the κοινή and are reasonably common in the papyri,’ the inscrip- 
tions® and the N. T. They are of two classes: (1) real μὲ per- 
fects without any perfect suffix, like ἑστάναι (Ac. 12:14); (2) 
second perfects in —a, like γέγονα, λέλοιπα. As N. T. examples 
may be mentioned ἀκήκοα (Ac. 6:11), γέγονα (1 Cor. 13: 1)), εἴωθα 
(Lu. 4:16), γέγραφα (Jo. 19:22), οἶδα (Jo. 10:4), ὄλωλα (ἀπ--, 
Mt. 10:6), ete. These forms are found in the LXX. Cf. Hel- 
bing, Gr. ἃ. Sept., p. 103; Thackeray, Gr., Ὁ. 2521. But the xown 
gave up the shorter (without —a) forms of the plural indicative 
active perfect of ἵστημι (ἕσταμεν, ἕστατε, ἑστᾶσιν). See this chapter, 
Iv, (ὦ), 3, for details. 

3. The x Perfect. This is a new type created by the Greek lan- 
guage of which no adequate explanation has yet been offered. The 
Attic inscriptions already had the « form (Meisterhans, p. 189 f.). 
It is apparently at first in the singular, as in ἕστηκα (pl. ἕσταμεν), etc.® 
One might think that just as ἥκω has a perfect sense like κεῖμαι and 
finally had a few perfect forms’ (like ἥκασιν), so by analogy some 
x verbs became the type and analogy did the rest. But Giles® ob- 
serves that the stems of the twelve or fourteen x perfects in Homer 
all end in a vowel, a liquid or a nasal, not one in x. And then the 


1 Riem. and Goelzer, Phonét., p. 445. 

2 Sterrett, Hom. Il, N. 48. So γέγονα, εἴωθα, λέλοιπα, πέποιθα, etc. 

2 Gk. Grp. 929. 

4 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 372 ff. 

5 Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 159 f. 

6 Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 412 f. 

7 In the LXX ἥκαμεν, ἥκατε, ἥκασιν occur. The pap. add καθηκυίας, ἡκότων, 
ἡκέναι. Wackern., Theol. Literaturzeit., 1908, p. 38. Cf. Helbing, Gr. ἃ. Sept., 
Ρ. 103 f.; Thack., Gr., p. 269. The pap. show the perfect forms in the plural. 
Mayser, p. 372. 8 Man., p. 450. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 909 


three x aorists (ἔδωκα, ἔθηκα, ἧκα) call for explanation. But per 
contra there are some perfects in Homer which have x stems like δέ- 
dopka, ἔοικα, τέτηκα, etc. So that after all analogy may be the true 
explanation of the « perfects which came, after Homer’s time, to 
be the dominant type in Greek. But the —xa perfects are rare in 
Homer. The examples are so common (δέδωκα, etc.), in the κοινή 
as in the classic Greek, as to need no list. Note ἕστηκα intransi- 
tive and ἕστακα transitive. 

4. The Aspirated Perfects. They are made from labials and 
palatals (¢, x) and are absent from Homer. Even in the early 
classical period they are confined to πέπομφα and τέτροφα.: Ho- 
mer did use this aspirate in the peculiar middle form like τετρά- 
dara.2 He has indeed τέτροφα from τρέφω ὃ and probably just here, 
we may see the explanation by analogy of τέτροφα from rpérw 
and so of all the aspirated forms. An important factor was the 
fact that x, y, x were not distinguished in the middle perfect 
forms. Asa Ν. T. example of this later aspirated perfect take 
προσενήνοχα (Heb. 11:17). Cf. also εἴληφα, πέπραχα, τέταχα. 

5. Middle and Passwe Forms. It is only in the active that 
the perfect used the «x or the aspirated form (¢, x). We have 
seen already that in the κοινή some active perfect forms drop the 
distinctive endings and we find forms like ἑώρακαν and éwpaxes. 
Helbing (Gr. d. Sept., pp. 101-103) gives LX X examples of root- 
perfects like éppwya, «x perfects like τέθεικα, ἕστηκα and transitive 
ἕστακα, aspirated perfects like éppnxa. The middle and passive 
perfects did use the reduplication, but the endings were added 
directly to this reduplicated stem as in λέτλυ-μαι. On the history 
of the ending --κα see Pfordten, Zur Geschichte des griechischen 
Perfectums, 1882, p. 29. 

6. The Decay of the Perfect Forms. In the Sanskrit the per- 
fect appears in half the roots of the language, but in the later 
Sanskrit it tends more and more to be confused with the mere 
past tenses of the indicative (aorist and imperf.) and grows less 
common also. In the Latin, as is well known, the perfect and 
the aorist tenses blended. In wide and dedi we see preserved® 
the old perfect and in dia we see the old aorist. The Greek 
of the Byzantine period shows a great confusion between the per- 
fect and the aorist, partly due to the Latin influence.’ Finally 


1 Giles, Man., p. 451. 5 Whitney, Sans. Gr., pp. 279, 295 f. 
2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 325. 6 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 451. 
3 Sterrett, Hom. Il., N. 48. 7 Moulton, Prol., p. 142. 


4 Giles, Man., p. 451. 


360 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW. TESTAMENT 


in the modern Greek vernacular the perfect form is lost save in 
the perfect passive participle like κεκλημένος. The perfect active 
is now made with ἔχω and the passive participle (ἔχω δεμένο) 
or with ἔχω and a root similar to the third singular aorist sub- 
junctive (ἔχω δέσει or δέσῃ). Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 161. The 
‘ only « perfect in modern Greek is εὕρηκα, “the only certain rem- 
nant of the ancient perfect”’ (vb., p. 148). Cf. ἔχε με παρῃτημένον 
(Lu. 14:18). Cf. also πεπωρωμένην ἔχετε τὴν καρδίαν ὑμῶν (Mk. 
8:17). This is much like the English perfect in reality, not like 
the Greek ἔχω and aorist participle (like ἔχω ἀκούσας). Cf. Sonnen- 
schein, Greek Grammar, Syntax, 1894, p. 284. The perfect pas- 
sive in modern Greek vernacular is formed like ἔχω λυθῆ (—e) or 
λελυμένος εἶμαι But we are in no position to throw stones at the 
Greeks, for we in English have never had a perfect save the peri- 
phrastic form. How far the perfect and the aorist may have be- 
come confused in the N. T. in sense is a matter of syntax to be 
discussed. later.? 

7. The Perfect in the Subjunctive, Optative, Imperatiwe. Here 
the perfect is practically* confined to the indicative. No example 
of the perfect optative occurs even in the periphrastic form. The 
subjunctive perfect, except the form εἰδῶ (εἰδῆτε, 1 Jo. 5: 13), ap- 
pears only in the periphrastic conjugation, of which a few examples 
remain. So the active, as ἢ πεποιηκὠς (Jas. 5:15), πεποιθότες ὦμεν 
(2 Cor. 1:9), and the passive, as ὦσιν τετελειωμένϑι (Jo. 17 : 23), 7 
κεκλημένος (Lu. 14 : 8), ἢ πεπληρωμένη (Jo. 16:24). So also Jo. 17: 
19, 1 Cor. 1: 10, ete. The imperative makes a little better show- 
ing. We still have ἴστε (Jas. 1:19; Eph. 5:5; Heb. 12:17 all pos- 
sible indicatives), πεφίμωσο (Mk. 4:39) and ἔρρωσθε (Ac. 15 : 29). 
The periphrastic imperative perfect is also found as ἔστωσαν 
περιεζωσμέναι (Lu. 12:35). In simple truth, as previously re- 
marked (see proof in Prof. Harry’s articles), the perfect sub- 
junctive, optative and imperative never had any considerable 
vogue in Greek, not as much as in Sanskrit. In Homer the per- 
fect subjunctive active is more common than in later Greek, but 
it is rare in Homer.’ 

8. The Perfect Indicatwe. It is to the indicative that we turn 


1 Thumb., Handb., p. 165. Certainly the aorists in —xa are very common in 
the mod. Gk. (Thumb, Handb., pp. 140, 146 ff.). 

2 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 148 f. 

3 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 200 f. Cf. discussion between Prof. Harry and 
Prof. Sonnenschein in Cl. Rev., 1906, and La Roche, Beitr. z. griech. Gr., 1893. 

4 Sterrett, Hom. Il., N. 43. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 361 


for the real development of the perfect. Here the perfect was for 
long very frequent indeed, and the time element comes in also. 
The ancients did not agree in the names for the three tenses of per- 
fect action in the indicative. The Stoics! called the present perfect 
συντελικὸς (or τέλειος) χρόνος ἐνεστώς, the past perfect συντελικὸς (τέ- 
λειος) χρόνος παρῳχημένος, the future perfect συντελικὸς (τέλειος) χρόνος 
μέλλων. Sometimes the present perfect was called merely ὁ παρα- 
κείμενος χρόνος, the past perfect ὁ ὑπερσυντελικὸς χρόνος, and the future 
perfect ὁ wer’ ὀλίγον μέλλων χρόνος (futurum exactum). The name 
plu-perfect is not a good one. The tense occurs in the N. T. 
with 22 verbs and 15 have the augment (H. Scott). Thus τεθεμε- 
Niwro (Mt. 7 : 25) and ἐληλύθει (Jo. 6 : 17), but ἐβέβλητο (Lu. 16: 20) 
and περιεδέδετο (Jo. 11:44). Cf. εἶχον ἀποκειμένην (Lu. 19: 20) in the 
light of modern Greek. In the N. T. the past perfect is not very 
frequent, nor was it ever as abundant as in the Latin.? It goes 
down as a distinct form with the present perfect in modern Greek. 
Hirt? calls attention to the fact that Homer knows the past. per- 
fect only in the dual and the plural, not the singular, and that the 
singular ending —7 is a new formation, a contraction of —ea into 
πη. In the N. T., however, only —ev is used. It is not certain 
whether the past perfect is an original Indo-Germanic form. The 
future perfect was always a very rare tense with only two ac- 
tive forms of any frequency, ἑστήξω and τεθνήξω. The middle and 
passive could make a better showing. In Heb. 8:11 εἰδήσουσιν is 
probably future active (from LXX),* and in Lu. 19:40 some 
MSS., but not NBL (rejected by W.H.), give κεκράξονται (cf. LXX). 
In Heb. 2:13 (another quotation from the LXX) we have the 
periphrastic form ἔσομαι πεποιθώς. The future perfect passive occurs 
in the N. T. only in the periphrastic form in such examples as 
ἔσται δεδεμένον (Mt. 16:19), ἔσται λελυμένα (Mt. 18:18), ἔσονται 
διαμεμερισμένοι (Lu. 12:52). Cf. ἔσῃ κατ[α]τεθειμ[ἐ]νο() B.G.U. 596 
(A.D. 84). In the nature of the case the future perfect would not 
often be needed. This periphrastic future perfect is found as 
early as Homer. The papyri likewise show some examples.® 


ΠΥ} ΠΣ IT; p..24. 

2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 201. Brug. calls the past perf. a “neue Bildung.” 

8. Handb. etc., p. 415f. © 

4 So Hirt follows Wackern. in seeing a new stem here εἰδη--- Cf. ib., p. 416. 
B in Deut. 8:3 has εἴδησαν like the aorist εἴδησα from Arist. onwards. Cf. 
Mayser, Gr., p. 370; Thack., Gr., p. 278. 

5 Sterrett, Hom. 1]., N. 27. 

6 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 577. In the Beeotian inscr. the past perf. 
and the fut. perf. are both absent. 


362 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


The present perfect and the past perfect also have the periphrastic 
conjugation. So we find with comparative indifference! ἔστιν 
γεγραμμένα (Jo. 20 : 30) and in the next verse γέγραπται. So also 
ἦν γεγραμμένον (Jo. 19:19) and ἐπεγέγραπτο (Ac. 17: 23). Cf. also 
Lu. 2:26. The active has some examples also, though not so 
many, as ἑστώς εἰμι (Ac. 25:10), and ἦσαν προεωρακότες (Ac. 21: 29). 

. in Perfect Middle and Passwe and Aorist Passive. It may 
be due to a variety of causes. Some of these verbs had an original 
o in the present stem, like τελέ(σ)ω, axov(o)w. Hence τετέλεσμαι, 
ἤκουσμαι (ἠκούσθην), etc.2 Others are dental stems like πείθ-ω, πέ- 
πεισμαι. Others again are ν stems which in Attic (apparently 
analogical) changed to o, as daivw, πέφασμαι, but in the N. T. this 
ν assimilates to the w as in ἐξηραμμένος (Mk. 11:20) from éEnpaiva, 
μεμιαμμένος (Tit. 1:15) from μιαίνω. Then again some verbs take 
the o by analogy merely, as in the case of ἔγνωσμαι, ἔγνώσθην 
(1 Cor. 18 : 12), κέκλεισμαι (Lu. 11:7), λέλουσμαι (Heb. 10 : 28). 

(h) REDUPLICATION (διπλασιασμός or ἀναδίπλωσι»ς). 

1. Primitive. Now this primitive repetition of the root belongs 
to many languages and has a much wider range than merely the 
perfect tense. Hence it calls for separate treatment. It is older, 
this repetition or intensifying of a word, than either the inflection 
of nouns or the conjugation of verbs. Root reduplication ex- 
isted in the parent language.‘ 

2. Both Nouns and Verbs. Among nouns note ἀγ-ωγός, Bap- 
Bapos, βέ-βηλος, etc. But it was among verbs that reduplication 
found its chief development.° | 

3. In Three Tenses in Verbs. It is in the aorist, the present 
and the perfect. This is precisely the case with the Sanskrit, 
where very many aorists, some presents and nearly all perfects 
have reduplication.6 In Homer’ the reduplication of the second 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 202f. Brug. (Griech. Gr., p. 330 f.) points 
out how in prehistoric times the periphrastic form alone existed in the subj. 
and opt. middle and passive, as indeed was practically true always for all 
the voices. 

2 Ib., p..3826. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 100 f.; Thack., pp. 219 ff., for 
LXX illustr. of both o and p (u). 

3 Brug., Comp. Gr. (transl.), vol. IV, p. 10. See note there for books on 
Reduplication. Add Lautensach, Gr. Stud. (1899). 

4 Ibs 115 (CieK EBS pss: 

6 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 176. Fritzsche (Ques. de redupl. graeca; Curtius, 
Stud. zu griech. and lat. Gr., pp. 279 ff.) considers the doubling of the syl- 
lable (iteration) the origin of all reduplication like ἀρ-αρ-ίσκω, βι-βά-ζω. 

6 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 222. 7 Sterrett, Hom. 1]., N. 32. 





CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 363 


aorist is much more frequent than in later Greek, but forms like 
ἤγαγον, ἤνεγκον, εἶπον, persist in N. T. Greek and the κοινή gener- 
ally. Cf. ἐκέκραξα in Ac. 24:21. The Greek present shows 
reduplication in three classes of presents, viz. the root class 
(like δίτδωμι, ἵ-ητ-μι, ἵπστημι, etc.), the thematic presents (like 
γί-γνο-μαι, πί-πτω, etc.), inceptive verbs (like γι-γνώτσκω, etc.). 
The most common reduplication in Greek is, of course, that in 
the perfect tense, where it is not like augment, mode-sign or per- 
sonal endings. It is an integral part of the tense in all modes, 
voices and persons. And yet it is just in the perfect that re- 
duplication disappears in the later Greek. In the vernacular 
the extinction is nearly complete.!. Even presents? like γνώσκω 
occur in modern Greek. Dieterich*® gives numerous examples of 
dropped reduplication in inscriptions and papyri. It is absent in 
the modern Greek vernacular, even in the participle.4 

4. Three Methods in Reduplication. Perhaps the oldest is the 
doubling of the whole syllable, chiefly in presents and aorists, like 
γογ-γύζω, ἀρ-αρίσκω, ny-ay-ov, etc. This is the oldest form of re- 
duplication® and is more common in Greek than in Latin.6 The 
later grammarians called it Attic reduplication because it was less 
common in their day,’ though, as a matter of fact, Homer used it 
much more than did the Attic writers... But perfects have this 
form also, aS ἀκήκοα, ἐλήλυθα, etc. But the reduplication by ¢ is 
confined to presents like δί-δωμι, yi-yvouat, γι-γνώσκω, ete. And 
most perfects form the reduplication with ε and the repetition of 
the first letter of the verb as \é-AvKa. But Homer had πέπιθον and 
other such aorists. Εἶπον is really an example of such an aorist. 

5. Reduplication in the Perfect. The history is probably as 
follows in the main. Originally there were some perfects without 
reduplication,® a remnant of which we see in οἶδα. The doubling 
of the whole syllable was the next step like ἀκ-ήκοα, ἐ-γρή-γορ-α, 
ἐλ-ήλυθα, ἀπόλωλα, ete., like the present and aorist usage.!? Then 
comes the e with repetition of the initial letter of a consonant- 


1 See Jann., Hist. Gr., p. 190 f., for exx. like éraxro even in Polyb., and later 


γραμμένος, etc. 
2 Ib. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 148 f. 


3 Unters. etc., p. 215. δ Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 409. 
4 Thumb, Handb., p. 148 f. 7 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 190. 
5 Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 369. 8 Sterrett, Hom. ΠΝ 32. 


9 Cf. Brug., Comp. Gr. (transl.), IV, p. 384. Cf. also Hirt, Handb. ete. 
p. 407; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 259. 

10 Ib., Helbing, Gr. ἃ. Sept., pp. 70-82, treats together augment and redu- 
plication, not a very satisfactory method. 


364 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


stem like \é-Aoura. But here some further modifications crept in. 
The aspirates did not repeat, but we have τέτθεικα. Those with o 
did not repeat it, but instead used the rough breathing as ἕστηκα 
or the smooth like ἔσσχηκα. This was all for euphony. But forms 
like @oynka, ἔ-σπασμαι fall under another line also, for, if the verb 
begins with a double consonant, the consonant need not be used. 
So &yvwxa, but βέ-βληκα, ye-ypada. The Cretan dialect has in- 
deed ἔγρατταιΞε γέ-γραπται. So far the N. T. phenomena are in 
harmony with the general Greek history, as indeed is the case with 
the papyri? and the inscriptions.* In Lu.-1:27 and 2 : 5,we have 
ἐ-μνηστευμένη, ποῦ peur. (cf. μέμνημαι). Just as o verbs did not repeat, 
so with 6 verbs sometimes. So ἐριμμένοι (Mt. 9: 36), ἔρρωσθε (Ac. 
15:29), ete. But in Rev. 19:13 W. H. read ῥεραντισμένον, though 
Hort* advocates ῥεραμμένον. D has ῥεριμμένοι in Mt. 9 : 36 above. 
This reduplication of initial ῥ is contrary to Attic rule. For the 
LXX see Thackeray, Gr., p. 204 f. This use of ε begins to spread 
in the κοινή and is seen in LXX MSS., as in A ἐπέγραπτο (Deut. 
9:10). For similar forms in Ionic and late writers see Winer- 
Schmiedel.2 Once more several verbs that begin with a liquid 
have e as the reduplication in the Attic and Ionic, though not in 
all dialects. Perhaps euphony and analogy entered to some ex- 
tent in the case of εἴξληφα (λαμβάνω), εἴρηκα (cf. ἐρρήθην). Note 
also εἴληχα and εἴλοχα. With verbs beginning with a vowel there 
was sometimes the doubling of the syllable as ἀκήκοα, or the mere 
lengthening of the vowel as ἤκουσμαι, or the addition of εἴ alone 
with contraction as εἰθισμένος, or uncontracted as ἔοικα (from εἴκω). 
Cf. εἴωθα. In Jo. 3:21 (so 1 Pet. 4:3) we have eipyacua as in 
Attic and εἱλκωμένος in Lu. 16:20. In ὁράω we have ἑόρακα in 
Paul’s Epistles (1 Cor. 9:1) and sometimes a sort of double 
reduplication (like εἴωθα) as ἑώρακα (Jo. 1:18). So Attic. See 
Additional Note. In Col. 2:1 the form ἑόρακαν calls for notice 
both for its reduplication and its ending (cf. ἑώρακαν Lu. 9: 36). 
So also ἀνέῳγεν (1 Cor. 16:9; δὲ ἠνεῳγώς, Jo. 1:52) and ἀνεῳγμένης 
(2 Cor. 2:12). Indeed in this last verb the preposition may re- 
ceive additional reduplication (treble therefore), as in ἠνεῳγμένη 
(Rev. five times). See also ἠμφιεσμένον (Mt. 11:8; Lu. 7: 25) from 
ἀμφιέννυμι. But as a rule with compound verbs in the N. T. re- 


1 Hirt, Handb. ete., p. 408. 

2 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 338 ff. 

3 Nachm., p. 150 f.; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 171. 

4 Notes on Orth., p. 170. 

5 Pp. 103. Cf. also K.-BL, II, p. 23, and Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 38. 





CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 365 


duplication comes only between the prepositions and the verb. 
Sometimes the reduplication is not used, as in εὐαρεστηκέναι (Heb., 
11:5), but NDEP have εὐηρ-- We have φκοδόμητο (Lu. 4 : 29), 
but οἰκοδομῆσθαι (Lu. 6:48).! Cf. οἰκοδομήθη (Jo. 2:20) for ab- 
sence of augment. NReduplication in the perfect has disappeared 
from the modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 119) and is showing 
signs of decay in the κοινή. For suppression of reduplication in 
papyri see Mayser, p. 341. ) | 

(i) AUGMENT (αὔξησις). 

1. The Origin of Augment. It has never been explained. It is 
generally conceded to be an independent word, an adverb, added 
to the verb, which is an enclitic after the augment like ἔςλιπε.Σ We 
have mere conjectures for the origin of the adverb, possibly a 
locative of the pronoun-stem. In Sanskrit it is a. 

2. Where Found. It is found in Sanskrit, Iranian, Armenian 
and Greek, and only in the past tenses of the indicative. But in 
Mt. 12:20 we actually have κατεάξει (fut. ind. of κατάγνυμι), and 
in Jo. 19:31 κατεαγῶσιν (aor. pass. subj.), probably to distinguish 
these forms from κατάγω. So Winer-Schmiedel, p. 98. This 
“false augment” is very common in later Greek (Hatzidakis, Hinl., 
p. 64). Augment persists in modern Greek (Thumb, p. 117). 

3. The Purpose of Augment. It denotes past time. The sec- 
ondary endings do that also and with sufficient clearness at first. 
More than half of the past tenses of the Sanskrit do not have the 
augment.’ In Homer some verbs like ὁράω never had augment, 
and often for metrical reasons the augment is not found in Ho- 
mer. He used much freedom in the matter.4 Jannaris® is prob- 
ably right in the opinion that this freedom is due to the original 
fulness of the verb-endings. Augment won a firm foothold in 
prose before it did in poetry,® but never was everywhere essential. 
It varied greatly in its history as will be shown. 

4. The Syllabic Augment (αὔξησις συλλαβική). Its use with the 
past tenses of the indicative was not exactly uniform, being less 
constant with the past perfect than with the aorist and imperfect. 
The syllabic augment occurs also with some initial vowel verbs 
due to original digamma fF, o in the anlaut. So εἴασεν (Ac. 28 : 4), 


1 Moulton (Cl. Rev., Feb., 1901, p. 36) cites ἀπαιτῆσθαι, ἑτοιμάκαμεν from the 
pap. 

2 Brug., Comp. Gr. (transl.), IV, p. 25. Jann. (Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 185) thinks 
it is an archaic form of the imperf. of εἰμί (e, ev). 

8 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 221. 5 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 185. 

4 Sterrett, Hom. 1]., N. 30f. § Brug., Comp. Gr. (transl.), IV, p. 32. 


366 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


εἴδομεν. (Mt. 2:2), εἶπεν (Mt. 2:8), etdaro (2 Th. 2:18), ete. 
Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 200f. In the N. T. it is absent from the 
past perfect more frequently than it is present, as is true of the 
papyri! and late Greek generally. So, for instance, τεθεμελίωτο 
(Mt. 7:25), πεποιήκεισαν (Mk. 15:7), παραδεδώκεισαν (Mk. 15 : 10), 
ἐληλύθει (Jo. 6:17), etc. On the other hand the augment does 
appear in such examples as ἐπεποίθει (Lu. 11:22), ἐβέβλητο (Lu. 
16 : 20), ἐγεγόνει (Jo. 6:17), συνετέθειντο (Jo. 9 : 22), περιεδέδετο (Jo. 
11:44), etc. It was only in the past perfect that both augment 
and reduplication appeared. The κοινή strove to destroy the dis- 
tinction between reduplication and augment so that ultimately 
reduplication vanished (Thumb, Hellenismus, p. 170). But first 
the augment vanished in the past perfect. The Attic sometimes 
had ἑστήκειν (Winer-Schmiedel, p. 100). Hort (Notes on Orthog- 
raphy, p. 162) contends for ἱστήκειν uniformly in the N. T. as 
more than mere itacism for εἱστήκειν, for even B has c five times 
in spite of its fondness for εἰ. So W. H. uniformly, as Rev. 7:11 
and even in Jo. 1:35 and Lu. 23:49. Cf. similar itacism between 
εἶδον and ἴδον in the MSS. (Hort, Notes on Orthography, p. 162). 
On augment in the LXX see Conybeare and Stock, Sel. from 
LXX, pp. 36ff.; Swete, Inir. to O. T., p. 305; Thackeray, Gr., 
pp. 195 ff. Syllabic augment was much more tenacious with 
the aorist and imperfect than the temporal. 

5. The Temporal Augment (αὔξησις χρονική). The simplicity of 
the syllabic and the resulting confusion of the temporal had un- 
doubtedly something to do with the non-use of the temporal aug- 
ment in many cases.2 The κοινή shows this tendency. Even the 
Attic was not uniform in the use of the temporal augment. At 
bottom there is no real distinction between the temporal and syl- 
labic augment. Both express time and both make use of the syl- 
labic e. The difference is more one of the eye and ear than of 
fact. What we call the temporal augment is the result of the con- 
traction of this ε with the initial vowel of the verb.> As remarked 
above, this very confusion of result, difficult to keep clear as the 
vowel-sounds tended to blend more and more, led to the disuse 
of this ε and contraction with initial vowel verbs, especially with 
diphthongs.® Hence in the N. T. we meet such examples as the 


1 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 333. 2 W.-Sch., p. 99. 

3 See good discussion in Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 186. 

4 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 336. 5 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 185. 

§ Ib., p. 186. Hence in mod. Gk. temporal augment is nearly gone. ΑἹ- 
ready in the LXX the movement toward the loss of the temporal augment is 





CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) _ 367 


following: of at, ἐπαισχύνθη (2 Tim. 1:16); of ev, εὐλόγησεν (Mt. 
14:19), εὐδόκησα (Mt. 17:5), εὐνούχισαν (Mt. 19:12), εὐκαίρουν 
(Mk. 6:31), evppaivovro (Ac. 7:41), εὐπορεῖτο (Ac. 11: 29), εὐθυ- 
δρομήσαμεν (Ac. 16:11), εὐχαρίστησεν (Ac. 27:35)... But on the 
other hand we have ηὕρισκον (Mk. 14 : 55), προσηύξαντο (Ac. 8 : 15), 
ηὐχόμην (Ro. 9:8), ηὐδόκησαν (Ro. 15:26); of οἱ, οἰκοδομήθη (Jo. 
2 : 20), etc., but φκοδόμησεν (Lu. 7: 5), etc.; of εἰ, εἴξαμεν (Gal. 2: 
5) just like Attic; of €, διερμήνυσεν (Lu. 24 : 27), dteyelpero (Jo. 6: 
18), ἀνέθη (Ac. 16 : 26), ἀφέθησαν (Ro. 4:7, Ps. 32:1); of 0, προ- 
opwunv (Ac. 2:25; Ps. 16:8), and some MSS. in Lu. 18 : 18 (ἀνορ-- 
θώθη) and Ro. 9:29 (ὁμοιώθημεν) ; of t, ἴσχυσεν (Lu. 8 : 48), ἱκάνωσεν 
(2 Cor. 3:6) and ἰᾶτο (Lu. 9:11); of @, ὠνέομαι has no augment, 
ὠνήσατο (Ac. 7:16), and the same thing is true of ὠθέω, as ἀπώ- 
σατο (Ac. 7 : 27), ἐξῶσεν (Ac. 7:45). ’Epyatoua has ἡ, not εἰ, as 
its augment according to W. H. So ἠργάζοντο (Ac. 18:3), but 
always εἶχον. 

6. Compound Verbs (παρασύνθετα). The language varied in the 
way it regarded compound verbs, though usually a verb derived 
from a compound is treated as a unit. So ἐθηριομάχησα, ἐλιθο- 
βόλησαν, ἐμοσχοποίησαν (Ac. 7:41), évavaynoa, ἐπροφήτευσεν (Mk. 7: 
6), ἐπαρρησιάσατο (Ac. 9 : 27), ἐσυκοφάντησα, but εὐηγγελίσατο (Ac. 
8 : 35) in late Greek and προευηγγελίσατο (Gal. 3:8). If the com- 
pound embraces a preposition, the augment as in Attic usually 
follows the preposition like ἀπήντησαν (Lu. 17:12). Some verbs 
derived from nouns already compounded are augmented like verbs 
compounded with a preposition, as διηκόνει (Mt. 8: 15) unlike At- 
tic. As further examples note ἀπεδήμησεν (Mt. 21: 33), ἐπεθύμησαν 
(Mt. 18:17), κατηγόρουν (Mk. 15: 3), ἐπεχείρησαν (Lu. 1:1), ἀπε- 
λογεῖτο (Ac. 26:1), συνήργει (Jas. 2:22). Cf. Winer-Schmiedel, 
p. 102. But in Mt. 7:22 and 11:13 the Syrian class of MSS. 
have προεφητεύσαμεν and —cav. Sometimes the preposition itself is 
treated as a part of the verb when put directly to the verb, as 
ἤφιεν (Mk. 1:34), ἤνοιξεν (Rev. 6 : 1), διήνοιγεν (Lu. 24 : 32), ἐκά- 
θευδον (Mt. 25 : 5), ἐκάθητο (Mt. 18 : 1), ἐκάθισεν (Jo. 19:18), ἐκα- 
θέζετο (Jo. 4:6). In Mt. 13:15 ἐκάμμυσαν (from Is. 6:10) is 
assimilation of καταμύω. Verbs beginning with e’— vary in aug- 
mented tenses between εὐ-- and ηὐ-- , but when followed by a vowel, 
the verb is treated as a compound like εὐηγγελίσατο above. 

7. Double Augment. It is fairly common in the N. T. In the 


seen (Thack., Gr., pp. 196, 199 f.). The pap. often have --ειρέθην for --ηρέθην 
(Mayser, pp. 127, 335). 
1 See W.-Sch., p. 100f. Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 162 f. 


368 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


case of ἤγαγον and εἶπον the augment is added to the aoristic re- 
duplication. But in ἑώρων (Jo. 6:2 in Tischendorf’s text, W. H. 
ἐθεώρουν) there is a clear case of double augment like the double 
reduplication in ἑώρακα. So also the N. T. regularly ἠδυνήθην (Mt. 
17 : 16) and even ἠδυνάσθη (Mk. 7: 24). Both ἐδύνατο (Mk. 6 : δ) 
and ἠδύνατο (Mk. 14:5) appear and the MSS. vary much. This 
n (analogy to ἤθελον) first arises in the Attic in 300 B.c.1. With 
μέλλω, ἤμελλον 15 the usual form (Jo. 4:47), though ἔμελλον occurs 
also (Jo. 7:39). Βούλομαι in the N. T. never has yn, though the 
Text. Rec. has it in 2 Jo. 12. On the other hand θέλω always has ἢ 
(Gal. 4: 20, ἤθελον) even after the initial e was dropped. ’Azoxa- 
θίστημι has always a double augment, one with each preposition. 
So ἀπεκατέστη (Mk. 8 : 25) and ἀπεκατεστάθη (Mk. 3: 5).2 So LXX 
and later Greek. But in Heb. 12:4 ἀντικατέστητε is the true 
text. *Avoiyw has a peculiar history. It now has single augment 
on the preposition, as ἤνοιξεν (Rev. 6:3), now double augment of 
the verb, as ἀνέῳξεν (Jo. 9:14), now a triple augment on verb and 
preposition, as ἠνεῴχθησαν (Mt. 9:30). ᾿Ανέχομαι, on the other 
hand, has only one augment, as ἀνεσχόμην (Ac. 18:14) and ἀνείχεσθε 
(2 Cor. 11:1). For double augment in the LXX see Thackeray, 
Gr., pp. 202 ff. 

VIII. The Infinitive (ἡ ἀπαρέμφατος ἔγκλισις). The most 
striking development of the infinitive in the κοινή belongs to 
syntax, and not accidence.®> Hence a brief discussion will here 
suffice. Blass, for instance, in his Grammar of N. T. Greek, has 
no discussion of the infinitive under ‘“Accidence,”’ nor has 
Moulton in his Prolegomena. But the infinitive has a very in- 
teresting history on its morphological side. 

1. No Terminology at First. Originally it was a mere noun of 
action (nomen actions). Not all nouns of action developed into 
infinitives. Brugmann® quotes from Plato τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ δόσιν ὑμῖν 
where a noun of action (δόσις) is used with the dative. This is, of 
course, not an infinitive. The older Sanskrit shows quite a variety 
of nouns of action used in a “quasi-infinitive sense,’’? governing 
cases like the verb, but having no tense nor voice. 

2. Fixed Case-Forms. The first stage in the development was 
reached when these nouns of action were regarded as fixed case- 


1 Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 169. 4 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 163. 
? So inser. Letronne, Rec. II, p. 463. ὅδ. Dieterich, Unters., p. 209. 
8 W.-Sch., p. 103. 6 Comp. Gr. (transl.), II, p. 471. 


” Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 203. On these infs. in posse see Brug., Comp. Gr., 
IV, p. 599. 





CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 369 


forms. That stage was obtained in the Sanskrit. At first the da- 
tive was the most common case so used along with the accusative, 
genitive, ablative and sometimes the locative. In the later San- 
skrit the accusative supplanted the rest (twm or itum). Cf. the 
Latin supine. But the Sanskrit infinitive, while governing cases, 
never developed tense nor voice, and so remained essentially a 
substantive. 

3. With Voice and Tense. But the second stage appears in the 
Greek and Latin where it had its most characteristic develop- 
ment.? The infinitive becomes a real verbal substantive. Here 
voice and tense are firmly established. But while, by analogy, the 
Greek infinitive comes to be formed on the various tense and 
voice stems, that is an after-thought and not an inherent part of 
the infinitive. There was originally no voice, so that it is even 
a debatable question if τιμῆτσαι, for instance, and haber? are not 
formed exactly alike.? The active and the passive ideas are both 
capable of development from δυνατὸς θαυμάσαι, ‘capable for won- 
dering.’* The passive infinitive had only sporadic development 
in single languages.2 The middle is explained in the same way as 
active and passive. The tense-development is more complete in 
Greek than in Latin, the future infinitive being peculiar to Greek. 
The Latin missed also the distinctive aorist infinitive. But here 
also analogy has played a large part and we are not to think of 
λῦσαι, for instance, as having at bottom more kinship with ἔλυσα 
than with λύσις. Indeed the perfect and future infinitives are 
both very rare in the N. T. as in the κοινή generally.” This weak- 
ening of the future infinitive is general® in the κοινή, even with 
μέλλω aS well as in indirect discourse. In Jo. 21: 25 late MSS. 
have χωρῆσαι instead of χωρήσειν. Indeed the papyri in the later 
κοινή show a hybrid infinitive form, a sort of mixture of aorist and 

1 Whitney, ib., p. 347. Cf. ger. of Lat. For special treatises on the inf. see 
Brug., Comp. Gr. (transl.), ΓΝ, pp. 595 ff.; Griech. Gr., p. 359. Cf. also Griine- 
wald, Der freie formelhafte Inf. der Limitation im Griech. (1888); Birklein, 
Entwickelungsgesch. des substant. Inf. (1888); Votaw, The Use of the Inf. in 
Bibl. Gk. (1896); Allen, The Inf. in Polyb. compared with Bibl. Gk. (1907). 
Jann. (Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 480 ff., 568 ff.) has a very good sketch of the history 
of the inf. in Gk. On p. 572 f. he discusses John’s use of the inf. with verbs 
(129 exx.). Cf. Jolly, Gesch. des Inf. im Indog. (1873); Gildersleeve, Contrib. 
to the Hist. of the Articular Inf. (Transl. Am. Phil. Ass., 1878, A. J. P., vol. I, 
pp. 193 ff.; vol. VIII, pp. 329 ff.; vol. XX VII, p. 105 f.). 

2 Brug., Comp. Gr. (transl.), II, p. 471. 

8 Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 433. ὁ Moulton, Prol., p. 204. 

4 Moulton, Prol., p. 203. 7 Votaw, Use of the Inf.in Bibl. Gk., p. 59. 

5 Hirt, Handb., p. 431. 8 Moulton, Prol., p. 204. 


370 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


future like ἐπελεύσασθαι (even in early papyri).!. In the LXX we 
find τεύξασθαι (2 Mace. 15:7) and ἐκφεύξασθαι in 2 Mace. 9: 22. 
In other cases the two are used side by side. It is only in the 
state of the action that the infinitive has any true tense-action 
developed save in indirect discourse where the infinitive tense 
represents the time of the direct discourse. The infinitive thus 
is like a verb in that it expresses action, governs cases, has voice 
and tense.? 

4. No Personal Endings. The infinitive never developed per- 
sonal endings and remained undefined, unlimited. The infinitive 
and the participle are thus both infinitives in this sense, that they 
are the unlimited verb so far as personal endings are concerned. 
They are both participles in that they participate in both noun 
and verb. The terms have no inherent distinction, but serve 
merely as a convenience.’ In the nature of the case neither can 
have a subject in any literal sense. But it is to be admitted even 
here that the line between the finite and the infinite verb is not 
absolute.* Cf. the forms φέρε and φέρειν, for instance. But the 
cases used with the infinitive will be discussed in Syntax. 

5. Dative and Locative in Form. The infinitive continued a 
substantive after the voice and tense-development. At first the 
case-idea of the form was observed, but gradually that disap- 
peared, though the form remained. The Greek infinitives are 
always either datives or locatives, “dead datives or locatives”’ 
usually.> All infinitives in —a: are datives. Thus all those in —vat, 
-σαι, - ἕναι, --μεναι (Homer), --σθαι (Oar). Those in --σθαι alone give 
any trouble. It is probably a compound (σ, θαι), but its precise 
origin is not clear.6 The locative is seen in —ev, and Homeric --μεν, 
but the origin of --εἰν is again doubtful.’? But no distinction re- 
mains between the two cases in actual usage.’ In Homer? the 
dative sense as well as form remain extremely common, as in- 
deed is true of all Greek where the infinitive remains. The very 
common infinitive of purpose, like ἦλθον ἀγοράσαι, is a true dative. 
(Cf. Mt. 2:2.) But the very essence of the infinitive as a com- 
plete development is that this dative or locative form could be 


1 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 385. Cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., Feb., 1901, 
p. 36f. Cf. Hatz., Einl., p. 190. 

2 Brug., Comp. Gr. (transl.), IV, p. 7. 4 Brug., Comp. Gr. (transl.), p. 7. 

8 K.-BL., II, p. 4. 5 Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 90. 

6 Cf. Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 469 f.; Brug., Grundr., II, § 1093. 8. 

7 Hirt, Handb., p. 432; Giles, Man., p. 470. 

8 Moulton, Prol., p. 202. 9. Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 154. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) Bul 


used in any case like any other substantive without inflection, an 
indeclinable substantive in a fixed case-form. 

6. The Presence of the Article. After Homer’s day it was com- 
mon and chiefly in the Attic,! but this is a matter to be treated fur- 
ther in Syntax. The point to observe here is that the article did 
not make a substantive of the infinitive. It was that before voice 
and tense were used with it. But it is true that even in Homer 
the verbal aspect is more prominent than the substantival. In 
the vernacular the article was never much used with the infini- 
tive; perhaps for convenience it was not so employed. 

7. The Disappearance of the Infinitive. The old forms in --ἰν 
and -—vac remain longest (Thackeray, Gr., pp. 210, 257). The 
causes for the disappearance of the infinitive in later Greek till in 
the modern Greek vernacular it is (outside of the Pontic dialect) 
dead and gone, lie largely in the region of syntax. The infinitive 
as a whole disappears before ὅτι and ἵνα (modern Greek νά). Far- 
rar? calls attention to the absence of the infinitive in Arabic. It 
was always a matter of discretion with a Greek writer whether in 
certain clauses he would use the infinitive or an object-clause 
(ὅτι, ὅπως, ἵνα). Cf. Latin. The English infinitive has an inter- 
esting history also as the mutilated form of the dative of a ge- 
rund.* 

8. Some N. T. Forms. Not many N. T. forms call for special 
remark and those have been explained already, such as --οἶν (Mt. 
13 :32; Heb. 7:5), πεῖν and even πῖν for πιεῖν (Jo. 4:9). In Lu. 
1: 79 ἐπιφᾶναι instead of the Attic ἐπιφῆναι is noticeable. In Ph. 
4:12 we have πεινᾶν, not —jv. The Coptic has the infinitive μα- 
στιγγοῖν (cf. W. H. κατασκηνοῖν, Mt. 13 : 32; Mk. 4 : 32, and ἀποδε- 
κατοῖν in Heb. 7:5). In 1 Cor. 11:6 we find both κείρασθαι and 
ξυρᾶσθαι. In Mk. 14:71 ὀμνύναι is the regular —~ form. In Heb. 
11:5 εὐαρεστηκέναι is without reduplication in AKI. In Lu. 9: 
18 (11:1) a periphrastic infinitive appears, ἐν τῷ εἶναι αὐτὸν mpo- 
σευχόμενον. The augment occurs with ἀνεῳχθῆναι in Lu. 3:21. Cf. 
ἔσομαι διδόναι in Tob. 5:15 B. 

IX. The Participle (ἡ μετοχή). 

1. The Name. This does not really distinguish this verbal ad- 
jective from the verbal substantive, the infinitive. Both are par- 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 213 f. 

2 Gk. Synt., p. 164. 

3 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 221. Thumb (Handb. of Mod. Gk.) has no 
discussion of the infinitive. 

4 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 169. Cf. Donaldson, New Crat., p. 603, 


ΟΥ̓ A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ticiples and both are infinitives. Voss! calls the participles 
“mules” because they partake of both noun and verb, but the 
infinitives are hybrid in exactly the same sense. Like the infini- 
tive, the Greek participle has voice, tense, and governs cases, and 
may use the article. Unlike the infinitive the participle has reg- 
ular inflection like other adjectives. Clyde? would include parti- 
ciples in the infinitive. So Kiuhner-Blass.* Dionysius Thrax* 
puts the participle right: Meroxn ἐστι λέξις μετέχουσα τῆς τῶν ῥη- 
μάτων καὶ τῆς τῶν ὀνομάτων ἰδιότητος. 

2. Verbal Adjectives. As a matter of fact no absolutely clear 
line can be drawn between verbal adjectives and other adjec- 
tives.2 An adjective may not only be used with a case like κενός 
with the ablative, but may even take on a verbal nature in cer- 
tain connections. Some, like κλυτός, were always purely adjec- 
tival.? Most of the forms in —7os in Greek are adjectival, but 
many of them have a verbal idea developed also, either that of 
completion, as ἀγαπητός (‘beloved,’ Mt. 3:17), or of possibility or 
capability, as παθητός (‘liable to suffering,’ Ac. 26 : 23). In Greek 
these verbals in —ros never became a part of the verb as in Latin 
perfect passive participle.’ Moulton® shows how amatus est and 
‘“‘he is loved” represent different tenses, but scriptum est and 
“it is written” agree. But there was no reason why the —7os 
should not have had a further verbal development in Greek. For 
the structure of this verbal adjective see the chapter on Forma- 
tion of Words, where a list of the chief examples is given. Moul- 
ton!® points out the wavering between the active and passive idea 
when the true verbal exists in the N. T., by the example of ἀδύ- 
varov in Ro. 8:3. Is it ‘incapable’ as in Ro. 15:7 or ‘impos- 
sible’ as is usual? Blass" indeed denies the verbal character of the 
—ros form in the N. T. to any examples except παθητός (Ac. 26: 23). 
But this is too extreme, as Moulton” clearly proves. ᾿Ασύνετος is 
active in Ro. 1:31 while ἀσύνθετος is middle (συντίθεμα). With 
the forms in —ros therefore two points have to be watched: first, if 
they are verbal at all, and then, if they are active, middle or pas- 
sive. There is no doubt as to the verbal character of the form in 
—réos, Which expresses the idea of necessity. This is in fact a ge- 


1 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 169. 7 Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 474. 
2 Gk. Synt., p. 94. 8 Ib. 

SLL, Dees ΠΌΤΩΙ 221, 

4 810. 100. 

5 Brug., Comp. Gr., IV, p. 605. aE reat) Gla Pid bos 6 ς τον Yt 


8 Ib., II, p. 456. | 4 Prol., peaee 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 373 


rundive and is closely allied to the —ros form.! It has both a per- 
sonal construction and the impersonal, and governs cases like the 
verb. It is not in Homer? (though —ros is common), and the first 
example in Greek is in Hesiod.* The N. T. shows only one ex- 
ample, βλητέον (Lu. 5 : 38), impersonal and governing the accusa- 
tive. It appears in a few MSS. in the parallel passage in Mk. 2: 
22. One further remark is to be made about the verbals, which 
is that some participles lose their verbal force and drop back to 
the purely adjectival function. So ἑκών, μέλλων in the sense of 
‘future.’ Cf. eloguens and sapiens in Latin.* In general, just 
as the infinitive and the gerund were surrounded by many other 
verbal substantives, so the participle and the gerundive come out 
of many other verbal adjectives. In the Sanskrit, as one would 
expect, the division-line between the participle and ordinary ad- 
jectives is less sharply drawn.° 

3. True Participles. ‘These have tense and also voice. Brug- 
mann® indeed shows that the Greek participle endings go back 
to the proethnic participle. Already in the Sanskrit the present, 
perfect and future tenses (and in the Veda the aorist) have parti- 
ciples in two voices (active and middle),’ thus showing an earlier 
development than the infinitive. The endings of the Greek parti- 
ciples are practically the same as those of the Sanskrit. The 
Latin, unlike the Sanskrit and the Greek, had no aorist and no 
perfect active participle, and the future participle like acturus 
may have come from the infinitive.’ The Greek has, however, two 
endings for the active, —»7 for all tenses save the perfect, just like 
the Sanskrit. The perfect ending (—wes, —wos, —us, Greek —ws, —o7, 
—v.) is difficult of explanation, but is likewise parallel with the San- 
skrit.2 The perfect participle is more common in Homer than any 
other form of the perfect (Sterrett, Homer’s Iliad, N. 44). The 
middle ending —yevo is uniform and is like the Sanskrit. The Greek 
aorist passive participle ending (-θεντ) is peculiar to the Greek and 
is made by analogy from the old active form like ¢av-ér-s (¢ap-eis), 


1 Brug., Comp. Gr., IV, p. 605. 2 Sterrett, Hom. 1]., N. 28. 

8 Hirt, Handb., p. 438. Moulton (Cl. Rev., Mar., 1904, p. 112) finds one 
ex. of —réos in the pap. and “the —ros participle is common in neg. forms.” 
Note that he calls it a participle. 

4 Brug., Comp. Gr., 11, p. 457. 

5 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 347. 

6 Indog. Forsch., V, pp. 89 ff. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 221. 

7 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 202. 

8 Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 474. 

9 Hirt, Handb., p. 436 f. 


ol4 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


like Latin, manens.! The participles survive in modern Greek, 
though the active, like the third declension, takes on the form 
γράφοντας (γράφων) .2 

The modern Greek uses chiefly the present active, the past 
passive participle (Dieterich, Unters., p. 206), and some middle 
or passive participles in --οὐμενος or -ἀμενος (Thumb, Handb., p. 
167). The use of the aorist and perfect active participles gave 
Greek a great superiority over the Latin, which had such a usage 
only in deponent verbs like sequor, secutus. But Greek used the 
other participles far more than the Latin. English alone is a rival 
for the Greek in the use of the participle. One of the grammarians 
calls the Greeks φιλομέτοχοι because they were a participle-loving 
people.* The use of the tenses of the participle belongs to syntax. 
One may merely remark here that the future participle is very 
rare in the N.T. as in the papyri and κοινή generally (cf. Infinitive). 
The LXX has it seldom (Thackeray, Gr., p. 194). It is found 
chiefly in Luke in the N. T., as Lu. 22:49; Ac. 8:27; 20: 22; 
22:5; 24:11,17.4. The N. T. itself presents no special peculiari- 
ties as to the forms of the participle. In Rev. 19:13 ῥεραμμένον 
has been cited under the question of reduplication. ‘Eorws is 
more frequent than ἑστηκώς. Other perfects like ἀπολωλώς call 
for no comment. 

4. In Pertphrastic Use. 'The participle is common in the N. T. 
in the periphrastic tenses. These have been given in detail under 
the various tenses, but a summary at this point is desirable. 
This use of the participle with various forms of the verb ‘“‘to be” 
is so common in all languages, ancient and modern, as hardly to 
require justification. Modern English uses it largely in its verb- 
inflection, as does modern Greek. The use of the participle as the 
predicate is found all through the Indo-Germanic languages.®> It 
is very frequent in the Sanskrit, especially in the later language.® 
Its oldest usage seems to be in the perfect tense, which exists as 
far back as we can go.’ In the N. T. the perfect optative does 


1 Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 473. Cf. the Sans. passive part. in --ἰά or —nd, 
Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 340. 

2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 206: Cf. Hatz., Einl., p. 143. 

3 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 169. 

4 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 37. He cites elsewhere Mt. 27:49, 
σώσων, Jo. 6:64, 1 Cor. 15:37; Heb. 3:5; 18:17; 1 Pet. 3:13. Then there 
are the doubtful forms καυσούμενα (2 Pet. 3:10, 12) and κομιούμενοι (2 Pet. 
2:13). | 

5 Brug., Comp. Gr., IV, p. 444. 

6 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 394. 7 Brug., Comp. Gr., IV, p. 446. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 375 


not appear, though once a good chance for the periphrastic perfect 
optative arises as in Ac. 21:33, ἐπυνθάνετο τίς εἴη καὶ τί ἐστιν πεποιη- 
κώς. The perfect subjunctive is seen in the Ν. T. only in the 
periphrastic form both in the active, as ἢ πεποιηκώς (Jas. 5: 15), and 
the passive, as 7 πεπληρωμένη (Jo. 16: 24). So 2 Cor. 9:3. The 
periphrastic perfect imperative is illustrated by ἔστωσαν περιε- 
ζωσμέναι (Lu. 12:35). No example of the periphrastic perfect in- 
finitive appears in the N. T., so far as I have noticed, except 
κατεσταλμένους ὑπάρχειν (Ac. 19:36). A periphrastic perfect par- 
ticiple also is observed in ὄντας ἀπηλλοτριωμένους (Col. 1: 21). 
Colloquial Attic has it (Arist. Ran. 721) and the inscriptions 
(Syll. 928 ii/B.c.) ἀποκεκριμένης οὔσης (Moulton, Prol., p. 227). In 
the indicative the periphrastic form is the common one for the 
future perfect, both active, as ἔσομαι πεποιθώς (Heb. 2:13), and 
passive, as ἔσται λελυμένα (Mt. 18:18). Cf. Lu. 12:52. Moulton 
(Prol., p. 227) finds three papyri with aorist participles in future 
perfect sense. With γίνομαι note γεγόνατε ἔχοντες (Heb. 5: 12). 
Cf. Rev. 16 : 10, ἔγένετο ἐσκοτισμένη. Cf. 2 Cor. 6: 14; Col. 1: 18; 
Rev. 3:2. The past perfect is very common in the passive, as 
ἦν γεγραμμένον (Jo. 19: 19), but less frequent in the active, as ἦσαν 
mpoewpaxores (Ac. 21:29). In Ac. 8:16 we not only have ἦν ἐπι- 
πεπτωκώς, but even βεβαπτισμένοι ὑπῆρχον (cf. also 19 : 36). Cf. also 
ἦν κείμενος as equal to ἦν τεθειμένος (Lu. 23 : 53); ἦν ἑστώς (Lu. 5: 1); 
εἶχον ἀποκειμένην (Lu. 19 : 20), like ἔχε παρῃτημένον (Lu. 14 : 18), since 
κεῖμαι is perfect in sense. The present perfect 1s common also 
in the periphrastic form in the active, as ἑστώς εἰμί (Ac. 25: 10), 
and especially in the passive, as γεγραμμένον ἐστίν (Jo. 6:31). 

The periphrastic aorist. appears only in ἦν βληθείς (Lu. 23:19) 
and only in the indicative.2 But note ἐγένετο στίλβοντα (Mk. 9:3). 

The periphrastic future indicative is found several times in the 
active, as ἔσονται πίπτοντες (Mk. 13: 25), and the passive, as ἔσεσθε 
μισούμενοι (Lu. 21:17). 

The present tense is written periphrastically in the imperative, 
as ἴσθι εὐνοῶν (Mt. 5:25; ef. Lu. 19:17), and even with γίνομαι, 
as μὴ γίνεσθε ἑτεροζυγοῦντες (2 Cor. 6:14). Cf. Rev. 3:2. In 
Col. 1:18 we find an aorist subjunctive with a present parti- 
ciple, ἵνα γένηται πρωτεύων. The present infinitive occurs in ἐν τῷ 
εἶναι αὐτὸν προσευχόμενον (Lu. 9:18; 11:1). As an example of the 
present indicative active take ἅ ἐστιν ἔχοντα (Col. 2 : 23), and of 


1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 331. Κεκτῶμαι and κεκτήμην had no following in Gk. 
2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 204. I am chiefly indebted to Blass for the 


facts in this summary. 


376 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the passive take 6 ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον (Jo. 1 : 42), though this 
last is not strictly an instance in point. Cf. also ἐστὶν mpocava- 
πληροῦσα (2 Cor. 9: 12). 

The periphrastic imperfect is the most common of all. It is 
not unknown to the old Greek, and is abundant in the papyri and 
the κοινή generally, but it is even more frequent in the LXX 
(Thackeray, Gr., p. 195) and in the Aramaic. As Blass! shows, 
not all the examples in the N. T. are strictly periphrastic, like 
ἦσαν. .. ἀγραυλοῦντες (Lu. 2:8). But they are abundant enough, 
as one can see on almost any page of the Gospels. Take ἦσαν ava- 
βαίνοντες καὶ nv προάγων (Mk. 10:32). So Ac. 2:2, ἦσαν καθήμενοι, 
and Gal. 1 : 22, ἤμην ἀγνοούμενος. 

For list of important verbs in the’ N. T. see Additional Notes 
and my Short Grammar of the Greek N. T. (third ed.), pp. 48-56, 
241-244. For such verbs in the LXX see Thackeray, Gr., pp. 
258-920 (Table of Verbs); Helbing, Gr. d. LXX, pp. 128-135. 
For list in the papyri see Mayser, Gr., pp. 387-418. 


1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 203. 







Che wie , 
ae ty 
PART III _ 


SYNTAX 


in 





CHAPTER IX 
THE MEANING OF SYNTAX (ZTNTAZIZ) 


I. Backwardness in the Study of Syntax. What the Germans 
call Laut- und Formenlehre has received far more scientific treat- 
ment than has syntax. In 1874 Jolly! lamented that so little 
work on syntax of a really valuable nature had been done. 
To a certain extent it was necessary that the study of the forms 
should precede that of syntax.” The full survey of the words and 
their inflections was essential to adequate syntactical investiga- 
tion. And yet one can but feel that syntax has lagged too far 
behind. It has been the favourite field for grammatical charlatans 
to operate in, men who from a few examples drew large induc- 
tions and filled their grammars with “exceptions” to their own 
hastily made rules. Appeal was made to logic rather than to the 
actual facts in the history of language. Thus we had grammar 
made to order for the consumption of the poor students. 

Others perhaps became disgusted with the situation and hastily 
concluded that scientific syntax was impracticable, at least for 
the present, and so confined their researches either to etymology 
or to the forms. In 1891 Miiller*® sees no hope of doing anything 
soon for modern Greek syntax except in the literary high style 
on which he adds a few remarks about prepositions. Thumb?4 
likewise has added a chapter on syntax to his Handbuch. If you 
turn to Whitney’s Sanskrit Grammar, you will find no separate 
syntax, but merely some additional remarks on the “uses” of the 
aorist, the present, the subjunctive, etc. Monro in his Homeric 
Grammar follows somewhat the same plan, but with much more 
attention to the “uses” of cases and modes. Brugmann® in his 
Griechische Grammatik devotes far more space to Formenlehre, 


1 Schulgr. und Sprachw., p. 71. 
2 Riem. and Goelzer, Gr. Comparée du Grec et du Lat., Synt., p. 7. 
3 Hist. Gr. der hell. Spr., Ὁ. 172. 
4 Handb. der neugr. Volksspr., 1895; Handb. of Mod. Gk. Vernac., pp. 
179-206. sete Vil, 
379 


380 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


even in the third edition, which chiefly differs from the second in 
the increased attention to syntax. Giles in his Manual of Com- 
parative Philology, even in the second! edition (1900), kept his 
discussion of the uses of the noun and verb apart and did not 
group them as syntax. When he wrote his first? edition (1895) 
nothing worthy of the name had been done on the comparative 
syntax of the moods and tenses, though Delbriick had written 
his great treatise on the syntax of the noun. When Brugmann 
planned his first volume of Kurze vergleichende Grammatik (1880), 
he had no hope of going on with the syntax either with the 
“Grundrigf” or the “ Kurze,”’ for at that time comparative gram- 
mar of the Indo-Germanic tongues was confined to Laut- und 
Formenlehre.2 But in the revision of Kiihner the Syntax by B. 
Gerth has two volumes, as exhaustive a treatment as Blass’ two 
volumes on the Accidence. In the Riemann and Goelzer volumes 
the one on Syntax is the larger. Gildersleeve (Am. Jour. of Philol., 
1908, p. 115) speaks of his convictions on “Greek syntax and all 
that Greek syntax implies.” No man’s views in this sphere are 
entitled to weightier consideration. May he soon complete his 
Syntax of Classical Greek. 

As to the dialectical inscriptions the situation is still worse. 
Dr. Claflint as late as 1905 complains that the German mono- 
graphs on the inscriptions confine themselves to Lawt- und For- 
menlehre almost entirely. Meisterhans in Schwyzer’s revision 
(1900) is nearly the sole exception.’ Thieme® has a few syntactical 
remarks, but Nachmanson,’ Schweizer® and Valaori? have noth- 
ing about syntax, nor has Dieterich.!° The same thing is true of 
Thumb’s Hellenismus, though this, of course, is not a formal 
grammar. A few additional essays have touched on the syntax 
of the Attic inscriptions" and Schanz in his Beitrdge has several 
writers? who have noticed the subject. The inscriptions do in- 
deed have limitations as to syntax, since much of the language is 
official and formal, but there is much to learn from them. Thack- 
eray has not yet published his Syntax of the LXX. nor has Hel- 
bing. 

1 P, xi. ΒΡ valet 3 Kurze vergl. Gr., 3. Lief., 1904, p. iii f. 

4 Synt. of the Boeot. Dial. Inser., p. 9. 

5 Gr. der att. Inschr. But even he has very much more about the forms. 

6 Die Inschr. von Magn. etc., 1906. 

7 Laute und Formen der magn. Inschr., 1903. 

8 Gr. d. perg. Inschr., Beitr. zur Laut- und Formenl. etc., 1898. 


9. Der delph. Dial.,1901. 1 Claflin, Synt. of the Boeot. Dial. Inser., p. 10. 
10 Unters. etc., 1898. 22 Dyroff, Weber, Keck. 


THE MEANING OF SYNTAX (STNTAZIS) 381 


We are somewhat better off as to the papyri as a result chiefly 
of the work of Dr. James Hope Moulton, who has published his re- 
searches in that field as applied to the New Testament.! Crénert 
in his Mem. Graeca Hercul. has a good many syntactical remarks 
especially on the cases,? but no formal treatment of the subject. 
Volker’ has not finished his good beginning. No syntax has come 
from Mayser yet, who stopped with Laut- und Formenlehre, 
though he is at work on one. Moulton does not profess‘ to 
cover all the syntactical points in the papyri, but only those 
that throw light on some special points in the N. T. usage. 

II. New Testament Limitations. It is evident therefore that 
the N. T. grammarian is in a poorer plight when he approaches 
syntax. And yet, strange to say, the N. T. grammars have largely 
confined themselves to syntax. Winer-Moulton, out of 799 pages, 
has only 128 not syntax. Buttmann, out of 403 pages (Thayer’s 
translation), has only 74 not syntax. In Winer-Schmiedel syntax 
is reached on p. 145. Blass begins syntax on p. 72, out of 305 
pages. Moulton in his Prolegomena starts syntax on p. 57 (232 
in all). The present book has given the discussion of the forms 
more space at any rate. It is at least interesting to note that 
N. T. grammarians have reversed the example of the comparative 
philologists. Is it a case of rushing in where angels fear to tread? 

One may plead in defence that the demands of exegesis are 
great and urgent, not to say more congenial. The distinctive 
character of the N. T. teaching is more closely allied to lexicog- 
raphy and syntax than to mere forms. That is very true, but 
many a theologian’s syntax has run away with him and far from 
the sense of the writer, because he was weak on the mere forms. 
Knowledge of the forms is the first great step toward syntax. 
Deissmann even complains of Blass for assuming too much in his 
Syntax and not making enough comments “to rouse up energet- 
ically this easy-going deference of the youthful reader” (Hxposi- 
tor, Jan., 1908, p. 65). 

Blass® urges, besides, that it is just in the sphere of syntax that 


1 See Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901, pp. 496 ff.; Apr., 1904, p. 150; Exp., 1904, series 
on Charact. of N. T. Gk.; Prol., 1906. 

2°Pp. 159 ff. 8 Synt. der griech. Pap., I, Der Art., 1903. 

4 Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901, p. 486. Debrunner (p. xi of his 4. Aufl. of Blass’ 
Gramth. 4. N. Griech., 1913, which he has kindly sent me as I reach this 
point in the galley proof) laments: ‘Fir die Studien der hellenistischen (und 
der mittel- und neugriechischen) Syntax gilt leider noch das Wort πολὺς μὲν ὁ 
θερισμός, οἱ δὲ ἐργάται ὀλίγοι.᾽᾽ 


5 Gr. of N. T. Gk,, p. 72. 


382 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the N. T. variations from the ancient Greek can be best observed, 
in this and the change in the meaning of words. This is true, but 
just as much so of the κοινή in general. This is just the opposite 
of Winer’s view,! who held that the N. T. peculiarities of syntax 
were very few. The explanation of the difference lies partly in 
the undeveloped state of syntax when Winer wrote, though he 
wrote voluminously enough himself, and partly in the wider con- 
ception of syntax that Blass? holds as being ‘‘the method of em- 
ploying and combining the several word-forms and ‘form-words’ 
current in the language.” 

On the other hand attention must be called to the fact that the 
study of the forms is just the element, along with vocabulary, 
mainly relied on by Deissmann in his Bible Studies to show the 
practical identity of the vernacular κοινή in the papyri and in the 
N. T. Greek. Burton? puts it rightly when he says of the N. T. 
writers: “‘The divergence of their language from that of classical 
writers in respect to syntax is greater than in reference to forms 
of words, and less than in respect to the meaning of words, both 
the Jewish and the Christian influence affecting more deeply the 
meanings of words than either their form or their syntactical 
employment.’ Deissmann‘ readily admits that Christianity has 
a set of ideas peculiar to itself, as has every system of teaching 
which leads to a characteristic terminology. 

But one is not to think of the N. T. as jargon or a dialect of the 
κοινή in syntax.® It is not less systematic and orderly than the 
rest of the vernacular κοινή, and the κοινή is as much a real language 
with its own laws as the Greek of Athens.6 As remarked above, 
the κοινή showed more development in syntax than in forms, but 
it was not a lawless development. It was the growth of life and 
use, not the artificial imitation of the old language of Athens by 
the Atticists. Blass’? properly insists on the antithesis here be- 
tween the artificial Atticist and ‘‘the plain narrator of facts or 
the letter-writer’”’ such as we meet in the N. T. Deissmann (Π1- 
positor, Jan., 1908, p. 75) holds that Christianity in its classical 
epoch ‘“‘has very little connection with official culture.” ‘It re- 
jects — this is the second result of our inquiry — it rejects, in this 


1 W.-M., p. 27. 
2 Gr, of Net ΟΝ pe 72 eels nis also: 
8 Notes on N. T. Gr., 1904, p. 22. SBS 198 (ΠῈΣ 


5 Thumb, Die sprachgeschichtl. Stell. des bibl. Griech., Theol. Ru., 1902, 
p. 97. 


6 Blass, GrootsN.Latakiapece ΤΙ Des fas 


THE MEANING OF SYNTAX (ΣΥΝΤΑΞΙΣ) 383 


epoch, all the outward devices of rhetoric. In grammar, vocabu- 
lary, syntax and style it occupies a place in the midst of the peo- 
ple and draws from the inexhaustible soil of the popular element 
to which it was native a good share of its youthful strength.” 
This is largely true. Men of passion charged with a great message 
do strike forth the best kind of rhetoric and style with simplicity, 
power, beauty. It is blind not to see charm in Luke, in John, in 
Paul, James and the writer of Hebrews, a charm that is the de- 
spair of mere ‘“‘devices of rhetoric”’ or artificial rules of style and 
syntax. 

It is not surprising to find variations in culture in the N. T. 
writers, men who had different antecedents (Jew or Greek), dif- 
ferent environment (Palestine, Asia Minor and possibly Egypt), 
different natural gifts and educational advantages, as seen in 
Peter and Paul. ‘These individual peculiarities show themselves 
easily and naturally in syntax and style. See chapter IV, The 
Place of the N. T. in the Kowy, for a larger discussion of this 
matter of the peculiarities of the N. T. writers. But even in 2 
Peter and the Apocalypse one has no difficulty in understand- 
ing this simple vernacular κοινή, however far short these books 
come of the standard of Isocrates or Demosthenes. The study of 
N. T. syntax is a worthy subject and one entirely within the range 
of scientific historical treatment so far as that subject has ad- 
vanced. 

III. Recent Advance by Delbriick. Just as Brugmann is the 
great name in the accidence of comparative grammar, so Del- 
briick is the great name in syntax. Brugmann gladly recognises 
his own indebtedness to Delbriick. He has sought to follow Del- 
briick in the syntax of his Griechische Grammatik! and in the 
Kurze vergleichende Grammatik.” It is not necessary here to re- 
count the story of how Delbriick was finally associated with 
Brugmann in the GrundriZ, and the Syntax by Delbriick brought 
to completion in 1900. Brugmann tells the story well in Kurze 
vergl. Gr. (pp. v ff.) and Delbriick in the Grundrvf itself. It is a 
great achievement and much led up to it. Delbriick has recounted 
the progress of comparative grammar in his Jntroduction to the 
Study of Language (1882). In 1872 he had published Die Re- 
sultate der vergleichenden Syntax. In 1879 he brought out Die 
Grundlagen der griechischen Syntax (“‘Syntaktische Forschungen,”’ 

aor. Vil. 

2 P. ix. He feels “als Schiller unseres Begriinders und Meisters der ver- 
gleichenden Syntax.” 


384 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Bd. IV). That marked him as the man to do for syntax what 
Brugmann would do for forms. Delbriick does not claim all the 
credit. Bernhardy in 1829 had published Wissenschaftliche Syn- 
tax der griechischen Sprache, but Bopp, Schleicher and the rest 
had done much besides. The very progress in the knowledge of 
forms called for advance in syntax. In 1883 Hiibner wrote Grund- 
rif zu Vorlesungen tiber die griechische Syntax. It is not a treat- 
ment of syntax, but a systematized bibliography of the great 
works up to date on Greek syntax. It is still valuable for that 
purpose. One can follow Brugmann! and Delbriick, Vergl. Syn- 
tax, Dritter Teil, pp. xvi-xx, for later bibliography. As the foun- 
ders of syntax Hiibner? points back to Dionysius Thrax and 
Apollonius Dyscolus in the Alexandrian epoch. The older Greeks 
themselves felt little concern about syntax. ‘They spoke cor- 
rectly, but were not grammatical anatomists. They used the 
language instead of inspecting and dissecting it. 

Delbriick (Vergleichende Syntax, Erster Teil, pp. 2-72) gives a ᾿ 
lucid review of the history of syntactical study all the way from 
Dionysius Thrax to Paul’s Principles of the History of Language. 
He makes many luminous remarks by the way also on the general 
subject of syntax. I cannot accent too strongly my own debt to 
Delbriick. 

Syntax, especially that of the verb, has peculiar difficulties.’ 
Not all the problems have been solved yet.* Indeed Schanz so 
fully appreciates the situation that he is publishing a series of ex- 
cellent Bettrdge zur historischen Syntax der griechischen Sprache. 
He is gathering fresh material. Many of the American and Euro- 
pean universities issue monographs by the new doctors of philos- 
ophy on various points of syntax, especially points in individual 
writers. Thus we learn more about the facts. But meanwhile 
we are grateful to Delbriick for his monumental work and for all 
the rest. 

IV. The Province of Syntax. 

(a) THe Worp Syntax (σύνταξις). It is from συντάσσω and 
means ‘arrangement’ (constructio).> Itis the picture of the orderly 
marshalling of words to express ideas, not a mere medley of words. 
The word syntax is indeed too vague and general to express 
clearly all the uses in modern grammatical discussion, but it is 


1 Griech. Gr., p. 363. 8 Giles, Comp. Philol., pp. 404 f., 475. 

2 Grundr. zu Vorles., p. 3. 4 Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 7. 

δ Farrar (Gk. Synt., p. 54) quotes Suetonius as saying that the first Gk. gr. 
brought to Rome was by Crates Mallotes after the Second Punic War. 


THE MEANING OF SYNTAX (ΣΥΝΤΑΞΙΣ) 385 


too late to make a change now.! Gildersleeve (Am. Jour. of 
Phitol., 1908, p. 269) says that some syntacticians treat “syntax 
as a rag-bag for holding odds and ends of linguistic observations.” 

(Ὁ) Scope oF Syntax. But the difficulty is not all with the 
term, for the thing itself is not an absolutely distinct province. 
What the Germans call Lautlehre (‘teaching about sounds’) is 
indeed quite to itself. But when we come to define the exact line 
of demarcation between syntax or the relation of words on the 
one hand and single words on the other the task is not always so 
easy. Ries? indeed in his very able monograph makes the contrast 
between syntax (or construction) and single words. His scheme 
is this: Under Wortlehre (‘science of words’) he puts Formenlehre 
(‘theory of forms’) and Bedeutungslehre (‘meaning of words’).’ 
He also subdivides syntax in the same way. Syntax thus treats 
of the binding of words together in all relations. Brugmann? fol- 
lows Delbriick® in rejecting the special use of syntax by Ries. 
Brugmann® considers the breaking-up of the sentence by Ries 
into single words to be wilful and only conventional. It is in-. 
deed true that single words have a teaching both as to the word 
itself (form-word, as prepositions) and the form (inflection).’ 
That is to say, two things call for consideration in the case of 
single words: the facts as to the words and the inflection on the 
one hand and the meaning of these facts on the other. Now 
Ries refuses to give the term syntax to the meaning of these 
facts (words, inflections, etc.), but confines syntax to the other 
field of word-relations. One is bound to go against Ries here and 
side with Delbriick and Brugmann. 

(c) CONSTRUCTION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. We use syntax, 
therefore, both for construction of the single word and for clauses. 
But one must admit the difficulty of the whole question and not 
conceive that the ancients ran a sharp line between the form and 
the meaning of the form. But, all in all, it is more scientific to 
gather the facts of usage first and then interpret these facts. This 
interpretation is scientific syntax, while the facts of usage are 
themselves syntax. Thus considered one may properly think 
of syntax in relation to the words themselves, the forms of the 


1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 364. 2 Was ist Syntax? 1894, p. 142. 

3 Ib., p. 142f. Ries calls it a “naive misuse of the word syntax’ not to 
take it in this sense. But he is not himself wholly consistent. 

4 Griech. Gr., p. 363 f.; Kurze vergl. Gr., III, p. vii. 

ἐπ Grundr., V, pp. 1 ff. 

6 Kurze vergl. Gr., III, p. vii. 7 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 363. 


386 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


words, the clauses and sentences, the general style. Clyde makes 
two divisions in his Greek Syntax, viz. Words (p. 126) and Sen- 
tences (p. 193). But this formal division is artificial. Here, as 
usual, Delbriick has perceived that syntax deals not only with 
words (both Wortarten and Wortformen), but also with the 
sentence as a whole and all its parts (Vergl. Syntax, Erster Teil, 
p. 83). How hard it is to keep syntactical remarks out of acci- 
dence may be seen in Thackeray’s vol. I and in ‘‘ Morphology” 
in Thumb’s Handbook as well as in Accidence of this book. 

(d) Historica Syntax. But this is not to fall into the old 
pitfall of the Stoic grammarians and apply logic to the phenomena 
of grammar, using the phenomena of various grammatical cate- 
gories previously laid down. Plato indeed first applied logic to 
grammar.! The method of historical grammar and comparative 
grammar has had a long and a hard fight against the logical and 
philosophical method of syntax. But it has at last triumphed. 
“They sought among the facts of language for the illustration 
of theories,” as Dr. Wheeler? so well puts it. We still need logic 
and philosophy in syntax, but we call these two agents into ser- 
vice after we have gathered the facts, not before, and after the 
historical and comparative methods have both been applied to 
these facts. Thus alone is it possible to have a really scientific 
syntax, one “definitely oriented” ‘‘as a social science’ dealing 
with the total life of man.? 

(ὁ) IRREGULARITIES. We shall not therefore be surprised to 
find many so-called “irregularities” in the use of syntactical prin- 
ciples in various Greek writers. This is a point of the utmost im- 
portance in any rational study of syntax. The personal equation 
of the writer must always be taken into consideration. A certain 
amount of elasticity and play must be given to each writer if one 
is to understand human speech, for speech is merely a reflection 
of the mind’s activities. If a tense brings one to a turn, perhaps 
it was meant to do so. This is not to say that there are no bar- 
barisms nor solecisms. Far from it. But it is unnatural to expect 
all speakers or writers in Greek to conform slavishly to our mod- 
ern grammatical rules, of most of which, besides, they were in 
blissful ignorance. The fact is that language is life and responds 
to the peculiarities of the individual temper, and it is to be re- 
membered that the mind itself is not a perfect instrument. The 

1 Sandys, Hist. of Cl. Scholarship, vol. I, p. 90. 


2 The Whence and Whither of the Mod. Sci. of Lang., p. 97. 
861 τ 07 


THE MEANING OF SYNTAX (ΣΥΝΤΑΞΙΣ) 387 


mind is not always clear nor logical. The ellipses, anacolutha, 
etc., of language represent! partially the imperfections of the 
mind. “It often depends on the writer which of the two tenses 
he will use,’ Winer? remarks about the aorist and the past per- 
fect. It always depends on the writer which tense and which 
everything else he will use. Pray, on whom else can it depend? 
The writer happens to be doing the writing. He decides whether 
he will conform to the usual construction or will give added pi- 
quancy by a variation. This assumes, of course, that he is an 
educated writer. If he is not, he will often have the piquancy 
just the same without knowing it. ‘“Syntactical irregularities are 
numerous in Greek,’”’ Clyde* observes, and, he might have added, 
in all other living languages. Greek is not, like ‘“ Esperanto,” 
made to order by any one man. In point of fact what we call 
idioms are the very peculiarities (ἰδιώματα) which mark it off from 
other languages or at least characterize it. Some of these idioms 
spring out of the common intelligence of men and belong to many 
tongues, others mark the variations of certain minds which gain 
a following. Compare the rapid spread of “slang” to-day, if it 
happens to be a ‘‘taking phrase.’”’ Hence rules of syntax ought 
not to be arbitrary, though many of them are. Those that really 
express the life of language are in harmony with the facts. In 
general I would say that the fewer rules one gives the better for 
the student and for the facts. 

V. The Method of this Grammar. 

(a) PRINCIPLES, NoT Runes. As far as possible principles and 
not rules will be sought. The Greek grammarian is an interpreter 
of the facts, not a regulator of the facts. This point calls for 
special emphasis in syntax where the subjective element comes in 
so largely. 

(b) THE ORIGINAL SIGNIFICANCE. The starting-point there- 
fore in the explanation of any given idiom is to find the original 
significance. This is not always possible, but it generally is. His- 
torical and comparative grammar lend strong help in this en- 
deavour. Always the best place to begin is the beginning if you 
can find it. 

(c) Form AND Function. I would not insist that form and 
function always correspond. One does not know that the two 
did so correspond in the beginning in all instances. It is hard to 
prove a universal proposition. But certainly one is justified in 
beginning with one function for one form wherever he finds it to 

1 Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 41. 2 W.-Th., p. 276. ee Synte ps ΘῈ 


388 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


be true. Burton! says: “It is by no means the case that each 
form has but one function, and that each function can be dis- 
charged by but one form.” Certainly the same function can come 
to be discharged by various forms, as is the case with the loca- 
tive and dative infinitive forms (λαβεῖν, ἀκοῦσαι). But that is not 
to say that originally the locative and dative verbal substantive 
were identical in idea. The Sanskrit completely disproves it. It 
may very well be true that each form had one function originally, 
whereas later the same function came to be expressed by various 
forms. As a starting-point, therefore, one may assume, till he 
learns otherwise, that form and function correspond. The neces- 
sity of getting at the ground-idea of an idiom is rightly emphasized 
by. Delbriick (Grundlagen, p. 1). It may indeed come to pass as 
in: the English “but,” that the one form may be used for most 
of the parts of speech (Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 237 f.).. On 
the whole subject of the agreement of form and idea see Kuhner- 
Gerth, I, pp. 64-77. 

(α) DrvELOPMENT. But the beginning is not the end. The ac- 
tual development of a given idiom in the Greek language up to the 
N. T. time must be observed. Each idiom has a history. Now it 
cannot be expected that the space can be given to the actual work- 
ing-out of each idiom in history as Jannaris has done in his His- 
torical Grammar, or minute comparison at every point by means 
of comparative grammar. What is essential is that the gram- 
marian shall have both these points in mind as he seeks to explain 
the development from the etymological basis. This is the only 
secure path to tread, if it can be found. Burton? indeed distin- 
guishes sharply between historical and exegetical grammar and 
conceives his task to be that of the exegetical grammarian. For 
myself I regard exegetical grammar as the last stage in the pro- 
cess and not to be dissociated from the historical. Indeed how 
a Greek idiom is to be represented in English is a matter of little 
concern to the Greek grammarian till the work of translation is 
reached. The Greek point of view is to be observed all through 
the process till translation comes. It is Greek syntax, not English. 

(e) Context. There is one more stage in the interpretation 
of the Greek idiom. That is the actual context in any given in- 
stance. The variation in the total result is often due to the dif- 
ference in the local colour of the context. The same idiom with 
a given etymology may not have varied greatly in the long course 
of history save as it responds to the context. In a word, etymol- 

1 N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 1. 3.010: iio. 


THE MEANING OF SYNTAX (STNTAZIZ) 389 


ogy, history, context are the factors that mark the processes in 
the evolution of a Greek idiom in a given case. ‘These are the 
things to keep constantly in mind as we approach the idioms of 
Greek syntax. We may not always succeed in finding the solu- 
tion of every idiom, but most of them will yield to this process. 
The result is to put syntax on a firmer scientific basis and take it 
out of the realm of the speculative subjective sciences. 

(f) Transuation. This is the translation of the total result, 
not of the exact Greek idiom. Translation crisply reproduces the 
result of all the processes in harmony with the language into 
which the translation is made, often into an utterly different 
idiom. It is folly to reason backwards from the translation to the 
Greek idiom, for the English or German idiom is often foreign to 
the Greek and usually varies greatly from the original Greek. 
English is English and Greek is Greek. Syntax is not transla- 
tion, though it is the only safe way to reach a correct transla- 
tion. Exegesis is not syntax, but syntax comes before real 
exegesis. The importance of syntax is rightly appreciated by 
Gildersleeve.! 

(g) Limits of Syntax. After all is done, instances remain where 
syntax cannot say the last word, where theological bias will in- 
evitably determine how one interprets the Greek idiom. Take ὕδατι 
in Ac. 1:5, for instance. In itself the word can be either locative or 
instrumental with βαπτίζω. So in Ac. 2:38 eis does not of itself 
express design (see Mt. 10:41), but it may be so used. When the 
grammarian has finished, the theologian steps in, and sometimes 
before the grammarian is through. 


1 Synt. of Class. Gk., p.iv. C.andS., Sel. fr. the LXX, p. 22, observe that the 
life of a language lies in the syntax and that it is impossible to translate syntax 
completely. The more literal a translation is, like the LX X, the more it fails 
in syntax. 


CHAPTER X 
THE SENTENCE 


I. The Sentence and Syntax. In point of fact syntax deals 
with the sentence in its parts and as a whole. And yet it is not 
tautology to have a chapter on the sentence, a thing few gram- 
mars do. It is important to get a clear conception of the sentence 
as well as of syntax before one proceeds to the work of detailed 
criticism. The sentence is the thing in all its parts that syntax 
treats, but the two things are not synonymous. At bottom gram- 
mar is teaching about the sentence.! 

II. The Sentence Defined. 

(a) COMPLEX’ CONCEPTION. A sentence is the expression of 
the idea or ideas in the speaker’s mind. It is an opinion (senten- 
tia) expressed (αὐτοτελὴς λόγος). This idea is in itself complex. 
It is this combination of ‘‘the small coin of language” into an 
intelligible whole that we call a sentence.? Just a mere word 
accidentally expressed is not a sentence. ‘“‘The sentence is the 
symbol whereby the speaker denotes that two or more ideas have 
combined in his mind.’’® 

(0) Two EssenTIAL Parts. Only two parts are essential to 
this complex intelligible whole to form a sentence. These two 
parts are subject and predicate. A statement is made about 
something and thus an idea is expressed. These two parts are 
called substantive and verb, though the line of distinction be- 
tween substantive and verb was originally very dim, as is now 
often seen in the English (“laugh,’ “touch,” “work,” ete.). 
Many modern linguists hold that the verb is nominal in origin, 


1 K.-G., I, p.1. Cf. Brug., Kurze vergl. Gr., III, p. 623; Delbriick, Vergl. 
ΤΠ ΡΠ) 7: 80: 

2 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 235. Opposed to this idea of a sentence 
as due to synthesis is the modern psychological definition of Wundt who 
defines a sentence as ‘‘die Gliederung einer Gesamtvorstellung.” 

3 Strong, Logeman and Wheeler, Intr. to the Study of the Hist. of Lang., 
1891, p. 93. Cf. Paul, Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., p. iii; Sayce, Prin. of Comp. 
Philol., p. 1386. 

390 


THE SENTENCE 391 


since some primitive languages know only nominal sentences. 
We do not know which is the oldest, subject or predicate. In 
the Greek verb indeed subject and predicate are united in the 
one form, the original sentence.” 

(c) ONE-MEMBERED SENTENCE. The sentence in form may be 
very brief, even one word in truth. Indeed the long sentence may 
not express as much as the short one. In moments of passion an 
exclamation may be charged with more meaning than a long ram- 
bling sentence.? We have plenty of examples of one-word sentences 
in the N. T., like ἀπέχει (Mk. 14:41), προφήτευσον (Mk. 14 : 65), 
προεχόμεθα (Ro. 3:9), θέλω (Mt. 8: 3), οὐχί (Lu. 1:60). Com- 
pare also πορεύθητι, ἔρχου, ποίησον (Mt. 8: 9). 

(αὐ ELLIpTicAL SENTENCE. Indeed, as seen in the case of οὐχί 
(Lu. 1 : 60) the sentence does not absolutely require the expression 
of either subject or predicate, though both are implied by the 
word used. This shortening or condensation of speech is com- 
mon to all the Indo-Germanic languages.4 Other examples of 
such condensation are the vocative, as κύριε (Mt. 8: 2), with which 
compare ὕπαγε, Σατανᾶ (Mt. 4: 10), the interjections like aye (Jas. 
5:1), ἔα (Lu. 4 : 34), idov (Rev. 14 : 14), ἴδε (Jo. 1 : 29), οὐαί (Rev. 
8:13). These interjections may be used alone, as ἔα (Lu. 4 : 34), 
or with other words, as οὐαί and ἴδε above. Cf. Martha’s Nat, 
Κύριε (Jo. 11 : 27), two sentences. Jo. 11:35 (ἐδάκρυσεν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς) 
is the shortest verse, but not the shortest sentence in the N. T. 

(e) ONLY PrepicatTes. The subject may be absent and the 
predicate will still constitute a sentence, i.e. express the complex 
idea intended. This follows naturally from the preceding para- 
graph. The predicate may imply the subject. The subject in 
Greek is involved in the verbal personal ending and often the 
context makes it clear what the subject really is. Indeed the 
Greek only expressed the personal subject as a rule where clear- 
ness, emphasis or contrast demanded it. The N. T., like the 
κοινή in general, uses the pronominal subject more frequently than 
the older Greek (cf. English). Often a glance at the context is 


1 Thompson, Gk. Synt., 1883, p. xv. Delbriick (Vergl. Synt., 1. Tl., p. 77) 
quotes Schleicher as saying that nouns either have or had case-forms, verbs 
either have or had pers. endings, and that all words were originally either nouns 
or verbs. But it is not quite so easy as that unless pronouns be included in 
nouns. 0 1 YF 

3 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 296. On sentence-building see Brug., 
Kurze vergl. Gr., III, pp. 623-774. 

4 Ib., p. 624f. The mod. Gk. shows it (Thumb, Handb., p. 179). Sir W. 
R. Nicoll in Br. W. instances the Scotch ‘aweel.” 


392 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


all that is needed, as with καὶ παρεγίνοντο καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο (Jo. 3: 
23), ἔρχονται (Mk. 2:3), etc. Sometimes indeed close attention is 
required to notice a change of subject which is not indicated. 
So καὶ ἔφαγον πάντες καὶ ἐχορτάσθησαν, καὶ ἦραν τὸ περισσεῦον τῶν 
κλασμάτων (Mt. 14:20). For this change of subject with no indi- 
cation see Lu. 8:29; Jo. 19:31; 2 Cor. 3:16; 1 Jo.5:16.1 Some- 
times the subject is drawn out of the verb itself, as in σαλπίσει (1 
Cor. 15:52), ‘the trumpet shall trumpet.’ So in οὔτε γαμοῦσιν 
οὔτε yaulCovra (Mt. 22:30) men have to be supplied with the first 
and women with the second verb. God is considered by some 
the unexpressed, but well-known subject, as with Bpexe (Mt. 5: 
45), εἴρηκεν (Ac. 13 : 34), λέγει (Eph. 4:8), φησίν (Heb. 8: 5). 
Often what is said is a matter of common remark or usage and 
the subject is designedly concealed, indefinite subject. So when 
Paul uses φησίν (2 Cor. 10:10) of his opponent unless we follow 
B and read φασί. The plural is very common in this sense as ὅταν 
ὀνειδίσωσιν ὑμᾶς (Mt. 5:11), μήτι συλλέγουσιν; (Mt. 7: 16), ὡς λέ- 
γουσιν (Rev. 2:24) like German man sagt, French on dit. Cf. 
also, not to pile up examples, Mt. 8:16; Mk. 10:13; Lu. 17: 
25; Jo: 1δ::6;» 205.2: Ac. 3 τῶν Revitl26. This impersonaiiar 
rhetorical plural appears in προσφέρουσιν and δύνανται (Heb. 10 : 1) 
if the text is genuine. Moulton (Prol., p. 58) cites κλέπτοντες 
(Πρ. I. T., 1359). Sometimes the plural purposely conceals 
the identity of the person referred to, as when τεθνήκασιν (Mt. 
2 : 20) is used of Herod the Great. The same principle applies to 
αἰτοῦσιν (Lu. 12:20). Then again the verb may be merely im- 
personal, as with ἔβρεξεν (Jas. δ : 17), ἀπέχει (Mk. 14 : 41), ἄγει (Lu. 
24 : 21), ob μέλει σοι (Mt. 22 : 16), εἰ τύχοι (1 Cor. 14:10). Cf. ὀψὲ 
ἐγένετο (Mk. 11:19). So the modern Greek still (Thumb, Handb., 
p. 179). Usually the impersonal verb in the N. T. is in the pas- 
sive voice, so that the subject is involved in the action of the verb. 
Thus μετρηθήσεται (Mk. 4:24), δοθήσεται (Mk. 4:25), πιστεύεται 
and ὁμολογεῖται (Ro. 10: 10), σπείρεται and ἐγείρεται (1 Cor. 15: 42), 
etc. Sometimes indeed a verb appears to be impersonal at first 
blush, when really it is not. So ἔστω δέ (2 Cor. 12:16) has the 
previous sentence as the subject. In 1 Pet. 2:6 the subject of 
περιέχει iS the following quotation. In Ac. 21:35 συνέβη has as 
its subject the infinitive βαστάζεσθαι. So in general whenever the 
infinitive is used with a verb as subject, the verb is not imper- 
sonal, as ἀνέβη ἐπισκέψασθαι (Ac. 7 : 23). The examples are numer- 
ous, as ἔξεστιν ποιεῖν (Mt. 12:2), ἔδοξε γράψαι (Lu. 1:3), ἔδει 
1 See Viteau, Et. sur le Gree du N. T., Sujet, Compl. et Attr., p. 55 f. 


THE SENTENCE 393 


διέρχεσθαι (Jo. 4 : 4), πρέπον ἐστὶν πληρῶσαι (Mt. 8 : 15), καθῆκεν ζῆν 
(Ac. 22 : 22), ἐνδέχεται ἀπολέσθαι (Lu. 18 : 33), and even ἀνένδεκτόν 
ἐστιν τοῦ μὴ ἐλθεῖν (Lu. 17 : 1) and ἐγένετο τοῦ εἰσελθεῖν (Ac. 10 : 25) 
where the genitive infinitive form has become fixed. ’Eyevero does 
indeed present a problem by itself. It may have the simple in- 
finitive as subject, as διαπορεύεσθαι (Lu. 6: 1) and εἰσελθεῖν (Lu. 6: 
6). Cf. Mk. 2:15. But often xal ἐγένετο or ἐγένετο δέ is used with 
a finite verb as a practical, though not the technical, subject. 
So καὶ ἐγένετο, ἐλάλουν (Lu. 2:15), ἔγένετο δέ, συνήντησεν (Lu. 9: 
37). So also καὶ ἔσται, ἐκχεῶ (Ac. 2:17). One is strongly re- 
minded of the similar usage in the LX X, not to say the Hebrew 
371. Moulton! prefers to think that that was a development from 
the κοινή (papyri) usage of the infinitive with γίνομαι as above, but 
I see no adequate reason for denying a Semitic influence on this 
point, especially as the LXX also parallels the other idiom, καὶ 
ἐγένετο καὶ ἦν διδάσκων (Lu. 5:17, ef. 5:1, 12, ete.), a construction 
so un-Greek and so like the Hebrew vav. Here καί almost equals 
ὅτι and makes the second καὶ clause practically the subject of 
éyevero. The use of a ὅτι or ἵνα clause as subject is common 
either alone or in apposition with a pronoun. Cf. Mt. 10:25 
(iva); 1 Jo. 5:9 (ὅτι) ἢ Jo. 15:12 (iva). In a case like ἀρκεῖ (Jo. 
14 : 8), ἀνῆκεν (Col. 3:18), ἐλογίσθη (Ro. 4:3) the subject comes 
easily out of the context. So also the subject is really implied 
when the partitive genitive is used without the expression of τινές 
Or πολλοί as συνῆλθον δὲ καὶ τῶν μαθητῶν (Ac. 21:16) and εἶπαν οὖν 
ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν (Jo. 16:17), a clear case of the ablative with ἐκ. 
The conclusion of the whole matter is that the subject is either 
expressed or implied by various linguistic devices. The strictly 
impersonal verbs in the old Greek arose from the conception of 
θεός as doing the thing.’ 

(f) Onty Supsect. Likewise the predicate may be absent 
and only implied in the subject. Yet naturally the examples of 
this nature are far fewer than those when the predicate implies 
the subject. Sometimes indeed the predicate merely has to be 
mentally supplied from the preceding clause, as with θλιβόμεθα 
(2 Cor. 1:6), ἀγαπήσει (Lu. 7:43), ἔχει (Lu. 20:24), λαμβάνει 
(Heb. 5:4). Cf. Eph. 5:22. It may be that the verb would be 


Proll. 

2 On the whole matter of subjectless sentences see Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., 
3. Tl., pp. 23-37. Cf. Gildersleeve, Gk. Synt., pp. 35-41, for classical illustra- 
tions of the absence of the subject. Cf. also Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 486, 
for exx. in the pap. of the absence of the subject in standing formulas, 


394. <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


slightly changed in form, if expressed, as σκανδαλισθήσομαι (Mk. 
14 : 29), ὑποτασσέσθωσαν (Eph. 5: 24), τίθεμεν (2 Cor. 3:18), ete. 
Sometimes again the affirmative is to be inferred from a negative 
as in 1 Cor. 7:19; 10:24. In Mk. 12:5 the principal verb has 
to be drawn from the idea of the two participles δέροντες and ἀποκ- 
τεννύντες. In particular with εἰ δὲ μή (or μή γε) the verb is very often 
absent (as Mt. 6:1), so that the idiom becomes a set phrase (Lu. 
10:6; 18:9). In Ro. 5:3 with οὐ μόνον δέ, καυχώμεθα is to be 
supplied, and in 5:11 σωθησόμεθα. In Ro. 9:10 the verb has to 
come from verse 9 or 12. In Ro. 4:9 probably λέγεται (cf. verse 
6) is to be supplied. Often εἶπεν is not expressed, as in Ac. 25 : 22. 
In Ro. 5:18 Winer! supplies ἀπέβη in the first clause and ἀποβή- 
σεται in the second. In 2 Cor. 9:7 he likewise is right in suggest- 
ing δότω from the context, as in Gal. 2:9 after ἵνα we must 
mentally insert εὐαγγελιζώμεθα, εὐαγγελίζωνται. In epistolary salu- 
tations it is not difficult to supply λέγει or λέγει χαίρειν as in 
Jas. 1:1; Ph. 1:1; Rev. 1:4. .These are all examples of very 
simple ellipsis, as in 2 Pet. 2:22 in the proverb. Cf. also 1 Cor. 
Ave 12 Cormorls Gales sp. 

(g) VERB NOT THE ONLY PREDICATE. But the predicate is not 
quite so simple a matter as the subject. The verb indeed is the 
usual way of expressing it, but not the only way. The verb εἰμί, 
especially ἐστί and εἰσίν, may be merely a ‘‘form-word”’ like a 
preposition and not be the predicate. Sometimes it does express 
existence as a predicate like any other verb, as in ἐγὼ εἰμί (Jo. 
8 : 58) and ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτὶ (Rev. 21:1). Cf. Mt. 23 : 30. 
But more commonly the real predicate is another word and εἰμί 
merely serves as a connective or copula. Thus the predicate may 
be complex. With this use of εἰμί as copula (“‘form-word’’) the 
predicate may be another substantive, as ὁ ἀγρός ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος 
(Mt. 13:38); an adjective, as τὸ φρέαρ ἐστὶ βαθύ (Jo. 4:11); a 
prepositional phrase, as ἔγγύς σου τὸ ῥῆμά ἐστιν (Ro. 10:8); and 
especially the participle, as ἦν διδάσκων (Mt. 7:29). Other verbs, 
besides εἰμί, may be used as a mere copula, as γίνομαι (Jo. 1: 14), 
καθίσταμαι (Ro. 5:19), ἕστηκα (Jas. 5:9), καλοῦμαι (Mt. 5:9), φαί- 
vouat (2 Cor. 13:7), ὑπάρχω (Ac. 16 : 8).2 Predicative amplifica- 


1 W.-Th., p. 587. Cf. also Gildersleeve, Gk. Synt., pp. 41-44, for class. exx. 
of the omission of the pred. The ellipsis of the pred. is common in the Attic 
inser. Cf. Meisterh., p. 196. 

2 Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., 3. TL, p. 12, for the origin of the copula, and 
pp. 15-22 for the adj., adv., subst. (oblique cases as well as nom. as pred.). 
Cf. also Gildersleeve, Gk. Synt., pp. 30-35. 


THE SENTENCE 395. 


tions belong to apposition and will be so treated as an expansion 
of the predicate. The subject also has amplifications. 

(h) Coputa NoT Necessary. Naturally this copula is not al- 
ways considered necessary. It can be readily dispensed with when 
both subject and the real predicate are present. This indeed is the 
most frequent ellipsis of all in all stages of the language, especially 
the form ἐστί. But strictly speaking, the absence of the copula is 
not ellipsis, but a remnant of a primitive idiom, since some primi- 
tive tongues could do without the copula. Still, as Blass! observes, 
the ellipsis never became a fixed usage save in a few phrases like 
δῆλον ὅτι (1 Cor. 15:27) or ὅτι. .. δῆλον (Gal. 3:11). In ἵνα τί 
(Mt. 9:4), γένηται has dropped out. There are many idiomatic uses 
of τί without the copula. So τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί (Mk. 1 : 24), ri πρὸς σέ 
(Jo. 21 : 22), οὗτος δὲ τί (Jo. 21:21), ri ὄφελος (Jas. 2:14), τί οὖν 
and τίς ἡ ὠφέλεια (Ro. 8 : 1), τί yap (Ro. 3 : 3), etc. Exclamations, 
as well as questions, show the absence of the copula. Thus ὡς 
ὡραῖοι (Ro. 10:15), ws ἀνεξεραύνητα (Ro. 11 : 33), μεγάλη ἡ ἤΔΛρτεμις 
᾿Εφεσίων (Ac. 19:28). As a matter of fact the copula may be 
absent from any kind of sentence which is free from ambiguity, 
as μακάριοι of καθαροί (Mt. 5:8), ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός... 6 αὐτός (Heb. 
18 : 8), ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης (Mt. 10:10), ἔτι μικρόν (Jo. 14 : 19), ἔτι yap 
μικρὸν ὅσον ὅσον (Heb. 10 : 37), πᾶς... ἄπειρος λόγου δικαιοσύνης (Heb. 
5:13), ὡς οἱ ὑποκριταί (ΝΜ: 6:16). Cf. Ro. 11 : 15 f. for several 
further examples, which could be easily multiplied not only for 
ἐστί and εἰσί, but for other forms as well, though the examples for 
the absence of εἰμί and εἶ are not very numerous. Forms of the 
imp., fut., imper., subj., opt., inf. and part. (often) are absent 
also. For ἐἐμί see 2 Cor. 11:6. For ef see Jo. 17:21; Gal. 4:7 
bis. Observe λογίζομαι in verse 5 and ἰδιώτης in verse 6, but the 
participle ἀλλ᾽ ἐν παντὶ φανερώσαντες ἐν πᾶσιν εἰς ὑμᾶς Zoes Over tO 
the literary plural, about which see further in this chapter. Com- 
pare also 2 Cor. 8:23. In Mk. 12: 26 εἰμί is absent, though éyw 
is used. For further examples of the absence of ἐσμέν see Ro. 
8:17; Ph. 3:15. For εἶ see Rev. 15:4 (ὅτι μόνος ὅσιος). In Jo. 
14:11 both εἰμί and ἐστίν are absent, ὅτι ἔγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ 
πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί. The imperfect ἢν may also be absent as with 
ὄνομα (Lu. 2 : 25), ὄνομα αὐτῷ (Jo. 3:1), καὶ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῆς (Lu. 1: 
5). In 1 Pet. 4:17 we find wanting ἐστίν and ἔσται. Cf. also 
1 Cor. 15:21 for ἦν and ἔσται. The other moods, besides indica- 
tive, show occasional lapses of this copula. Thus the subjunctive 

ἢ after ὅπως (2 Cor. 8:11) and after ἵνα (2 Cor. 8:13). The op- 
| 1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 73. Cf. Gildersleeve, Gk. Synt., pp. 41-48. 


ς 
Oo 
ᾧ 


396 .A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


tative εἴη more frequently drops out in wishes, as χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ 
εἰρήνη (Ro. 1:7), ὁ δὲ θεὸς εἰρήνης μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν (Ro. 15 : 33), 
ἵλεώς σοι (Mt. 16 : 22). As Blass! observes, in the doxologies like 
εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεός (2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3) one may supply either 
ἐστίν or εἴη or even ἔστω, though Winer? strongly insists that εἴη 
is necessary because of the LX X examples. But Blass very prop- 
erly points to Ro. 1:25, ὅς ἐστιν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. Cf. also 


1 Pet. 4:11, where A drops ἐστίν. The imperative shows a few - 


examples of the dropping of ἔστε as with the participles in Ro. 
12:9, though, of course, only the context can decide between the 
indicative and imperative. Winer? is right against Meyer in re- 
fusing to supply ἐστέ after the second ἐν ᾧ (simply resumptive) in 
Eph. 1:13. But some clear instances of the absence of ἔστω 
appear, as in Col. 4:6 ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν πάντοτε ἐν χάριτι, Mt. 27:19 
μηδὲν σοί, 2 Cor. 8:16 χάρις τῷ θεῷ, Heb. 13:4 τίμιος ὁ γάμος. 
The infinitive εἶναι is present in Ph. 3:8, but absent in Ph. 
3:7. The participle shows a similar ellipsis as in Jo. 1 : 50 εἶδόν 
σε ὑποκάτω τῆς συκῆς, Lu. 4:1 ᾿Ιησοῦς δὲ πλήρης. The other verbs 
used as copula may also be absent if not needed, as with γίνομαι 
(Mis.6 eclOssAc. 10s). 

The absence of the copula with ἰδού is indeed like the construc- 
tion after the Heb. 435 as Blass* points out, but it is also in 
harmony with the κοινή as Moulton® shows. But it is especially 
frequent in the parts of the N. T. most allied to the O. T. Like 
other interjections ἰδού does not need a verbal predicate, though 
it may have one. As examples see Mt. 17:5; Lu. 5:18; Rev. 
4:1. In the last example both εἶδον and ἰδού occur and the con- 
struction follows, now one now the other, as is seen in verse 4. 

(ἢ THe Two Rapiatina Foct oF THE SENTENCE. Thus, as 
we have seen, the subject and predicate are the two foci of the 
sentence regarded as an ellipse. Around these two foci all the 
other parts of the sentence radiate, if there are any other parts. 
The sentence may go all the way from one abrupt word to a period 
a couple of pages long, as in Demosthenes or Isocrates. School- 
boys will recall a sentence in Thucydides so long that he forgot to 
finish it. Giles® speaks of the sentence as a kingdom with many 
provinces or a house with many stories. That is true potentially. 
But the sentence is elastic and may have only the two foci (sub- 
ject and predicate) and indeed one of them may exist only by im- 

1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 74. * Gre ot NeUeGkean 74: 


2 W.-Th., p. 586. Se Ὁ] 0.11: 
3 Ib. 6 Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 236. 


d oT ee 


THE SENTENCE | 397 


plication. The context can generally be relied on to supply the 
other focus in the mind of the speaker or writer. Thus by the 
context, by look and by gesture, words can be filled to the full 
and even run over with meanings that of themselves they would 
not carry. Emotion can make itself understood with few words. 
The matters here outlined about the Greek sentence apply to 
Greek as a whole and so to the N. T. Greek. 

' (7) VARIETIES OF THE SIMPLE SENTENCE. It is immaterial 
whether the simple sentence, which is the oldest sentence, be de- 
clarative, interrogative or imperative. That affects in no way the 
essential idea. All three varieties occur in great abundance in 
the N. T. and need not be illustrated. So likewise the simple sen- 
tence may be affirmative or negative. That is beside the mark 
in getting -at the foundation of the sentence. All these matters 
(and also abstract and conerete) are mere accidents that give 
colour and form, but do not alter the organic structure. For an 
extensive discussion of the various kinds of independent sen- 
tences in the N. T. (declarative, interrogative, hortatory, wish, 
command) see Viteau, Syntaxe des Propositions, pp. 17-40. The 
matter will be discussed at length in the chapter on Modes. 

III. The Expansion of the Subject. 

(a) IpEA-WorRpDs AND Form-Worps. There are indeed, as al- 
ready seen, two sorts of words in general in the sentence, idea- 
words and form-words, as the comparative grammars teach us.! 
The idea-words (called by Aristotle φωναὶ σημαντικαί) have an inner 
content in themselves (word-stuff), while the form-words (φωναὶ 
ἄσημα!) express rather: relations? between words. Substantive, 
verb, adjective, adverb are idea-words, and pronouns, prepositions, 
some adverbs (place, time, etc.), the copula are form-words. In 
reality the form-words may have been originally idea-words (cf. 
εἰμί, for instance, and the prepositions). The distinction is a real 
one, but more logical than practical. The form-words, when 
prepositions, really help out the meanings of the cases. 

(0) CoNcoRD AND GOVERNMENT. Clyde? offers another distinc- 
tion, that between concord and government, which has something 
in it if it is not pushed too far. “In concord, the substantive 
is, as it were, a syntactical chief, and all his followers wear 
the same badge as himself; in government, the substantive ap- 
pears, as it were, in various conditions of service, and is dressed 
each time according to the particular function he discharges.” 


1 Cf. Brug., Kurze vergl. Gr., ΠῚ, p. 631. 
Ξε {1 pi il. . 3 Gk. Synt., p. 126. 


398 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


He uses concord where the substantive is king and government 
where the verb rules. There is something in this distinction be- 
tween the two parts of the sentence, only at bottom the verb has 
concord too as well as the substantive, as can be shown, and as 
Clyde really admits by the term congruity for the case-relations 
with the verb. This distinction is not one between subject and 
predicate, but between substantive and verb. 

(c) THE GROUP AROUND THE SuBsEcT. This may be formed 
in various ways, as, for instance, by another substantive, by an 
adjective, by the article, by a pronoun, by an adverb, by a prep- 
ositional phrase (adjunct), by subordinate clause.! Each of these 
calls for illustration and discussion. They may be explained in 
inverse order for practical reasons. 

1. For Subordinate Clause take Lu. 1:43. ; 

2. With the Article. In Ro. 7:10 we have ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ εἰς ζωήν. 
Here the article shows that this prepositional phrase or adjunct 
is under the wing of the substantive ἐντολή. In the chapter on 
the Article this matter will call for more elaborate discussion. For 
the article and pronoun take οὗτος ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς (Ac. 1:11). 

3. The Adverb. As examples of adverbs with substantives take 
τῇ νῦν ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ (Gal. 4 : 25) and ἡ δὲ ἄνω Ἱερουσαλήμ (verse 26). 

4. The Adjectwe. The origin of the adjective and its close 
relation to the substantive was discussed under Declensions 
(chapter VII) and will be further shown in the chapter on Adjec- 
tives in Syntax. Take as an example ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός (Jo. 10: 11). 

5. The Substantwe. The earliest and always a common way 
of expanding the subject was by the addition of another substan- 
tive. It was done in either of two ways. 

(a) By an oblique case, usually the genitive. Even the dative 
may occur. The ablative is seen in ξένοι τῶν διαθηκῶν (Eph. 2 : 12). 
But the genitive, the case of genus or kind, is the case usually 
employed to express this subordinate relation of one word to 
another. This whole matter will be discussed under the genitive 
case and here only one example will be mentioned, ὁ πατὴρ τῆς 
δόξης (Eph. 1:17), as illustrating the point. 

(8) Apposition. This was the earliest method. Apposition is 
common to both subject and predicate. Sometimes indeed the 


1 As a matter of fact any substantive, whatever its place in the sentence, 
may be the nucleus of a similar grouping. But this is a further subdivision to 
be noticed later. On the grouping of words around the subst. see Delbriick, 
Vergl. Synt., 3. Tl, pp. 200-221. For various ways of grouping words around 
the subj. in a Gk. sentence see K.-G., I, p. 52. 


THE SENTENCE 399 


genitive is used where really the substantive is in apposition, as 
περὶ τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ (Jo. 2:21), a predicate example 
where ‘‘temple”’ and “‘body”’ are meant to be identical. So with 
ἡ οἰκία Tod σκήνους (2 Cor. 5:1) and many other examples. But in 
general the two substantives are in the same case, and with the 
subject, of course, in the nominative. As a matter of fact apposi- 
tion can be employed with any case. The use of ἀνήρ, ἄνθρωπος, 
γυνή with words in apposition seems superfluous, though it is 
perfectly intelligible. The word in apposition conveys the main 
idea, as ἀνὴρ προφήτης (Lu. 24:19), ἄνθρωπος οἰκοδεσπότης (Mt. 
21:33). Cf. ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί (Ac. 1 : 16) and ἄνδρα φονέα (Ac. 3 : 14). 
So also ἄνδρες ᾿Ισραηλεῖται (Ac. 2 : 22), ἄνδρες ᾿Αθηναῖοι (Ac. 17: 22), 
an idiom common in the Attic orators. Such apposition, of 
course, is not confined to the subject, but is used in any case in 
every sort of phrase. So πρὸς γυναῖκα χήραν (Lu. 4 : 26), ἀνθρώπῳ 
οἰκοδεσπότῃ (Mt. 18:52, but note also 21:33), Σίμωνος Βυρσέξως 
(Ac. 10:32). Sometimes the word in apposition precedes the 
other, though not usually. Thus ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας, ἡ γλῶσσα 
(Jas. 3:6); καὶ γὰρ τὸ πάσχα ἡμῶν ἐτύθη, Χριστός (1 Cor. 5:7). 
But this is largely a matter of definition. The pronoun, of 
course, may be the subject, as ἐγὼ ᾿ἸΙησοῦς (Rev. 22: 16). So 
éyw Παῦλος (Gal. 5:2). Cf. viv ὑμεῖς of Φαρισαῖοι (Lu. 11:39). 
The word in apposition may vary greatly in the precise result 
of the apposition, a matter determined wholly by the word 
itself and the context. Thus in ’ABpadu ὁ πατριάρχης (Heb. 7:4) 
a descriptive title is given. Cf. also εἰ ἐγὼ a ὑμῶν τοὺς πόδας, 
ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ διδάσκαλος (Jo. 13:14). Partitive or distributive ap- 
position is common, when the words in apposition do not cor- 
respond to the whole, as of δὲ ἀμελήσαντες ἀπῆλθον, ὃς μὲν εἰς τὸν 
ἴδιον ἀγρόν, ὃς δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν ἐμπορίαν αὐτοῦ (Mt. 22:5). Often the 
word in apposition is merely epexegetic, as ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων 
ἡ oknvornyia (Jo. 7:2). Αὐτός is sometimes used in emphatic 
apposition, as ὁ Χριστὸς κεφαλὴ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, αὐτὸς σωτὴρ τοῦ σώμα- 
tos (Eph. 5:23). The phrase τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν is used in epexegetical 
apposition with the subject, as ὀλίγοι, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν ὀκτὼ ψυχαί (1 Pet. 
3:20). But the phrase is a mere expletive and has no effect on 
number (as seen above) or case. It can be used indifferently with 
any case as the locative (Ro. 7 : 18), the instrumental (Mk. 7 : 2), 
the accusative (Ac. 19:4; Heb. 18:15; Phil. 13), the genitive 
(Heb. 9:12; 11:16). Any number of words or phrases may be 
in apposition, as in ἐβλήθη ὁ δράκων ὁ μέγας, ὁ ὄφις, ὁ ἀρχαῖος, ὁ καλού- 
μενος Διάβολος καὶ ὁ Σατανᾶς, ὁ πλανῶν τὴν οἰκουμένην ὅλην (Rev. 12:9). 


400 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


An infinitive may be in apposition with the subject, as ob yap διὰ 
νόμου ἡ ἐπαγγελία, τῷ ᾿Αβραὰμ ἢ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ, TO κληρονόμον αὐτὸν 
εἶναι κόσμου (Ro. 4:13). Cf. 1 ΤῊ. 4: 8; 1 Pet. 2:15. Once more, 
a clause with ὅτι or ἵνα may be in apposition with the subject (or 
predicate either), as αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία, ὅτι ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔδωκεν ὁ 
θεὸς ἡμῖν (1 Jo. 5:11) and αὕτη γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα τὰς 
ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶμεν (1 Jo. 5:3). Cf. Jo. 6:29, 890, 40. For many 
more or less interesting details of apposition in the N. T. and the 
LXX see Viteau, Sujet, Complément et Attribut (1896), pp. 220- 
236. On apposition in John see Abbott, Johannine Grammar, pp. 
36 ff. On the general subject of apposition see Delbriick, Vergl. 
Syntax, Dritter Teil, pp. 195-199; Kiihner-Gerth, I, pp. 281-290. 

IV. The Expansion of the Predicate. 

(a) PREDICATE IN WIDER SENSE. Here predicate must be 
taken in its full sense and not merely the verb, but also the other 
ways of making a predicate with the copula. One cannot do better 
here than follow Brugmann,' though he makes the verb, not the 
predicate, the centre of this group. It is simpler just to take the 
predicate as the other focus answering to the subject. The predi- 
cate can be expanded by other verbs, by substantives, by pro- 
nouns, by adjectives, by adverbs, by prepositions, by particles, by 
subordinate clauses. 

(b) THE INFINITIVE AND THE PaRTICIPLE. These are the 
common ways of supplementing a verb by another verb directly. 
They will both call for special treatment later and can only be 
mentioned here. Cf. ἤθελεν παρελθεῖν (Mk. 6 : 48) and ἔλαθόν τινες 
ξενίσαντες (Heb. 13:2). But sometimes two verbs are used to- 
gether directly without any connective, as ποῦ θέλεις ἑτοιμάσωμεν 
(Mt. 26:17). See discussion of asyndeton in this chapter (x11, 
Connection in Sentences). 

(c) THE RELATION BETWEEN THE PREDICATE AND SUBSTAN- 
TivES. This matter receives full treatment under the head of 
Cases, and a word of illustration suffices here. It is not the accusa- 
tive case alone that occurs, but any oblique case of the substan- 
tive or pronoun may be used to express this relation, as προσέχετε 
ἑαυτοῖς (Lu. 21:34). In the case of a copula this case will be the 
nominative and forms the predicate, as αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐπαγγελία (1 
ἘΠ S20). 

(ὦ) THe Pronoun. It is sometimes the expanded object, as 
τοιούτους ζητεῖ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας αὐτόν (Jo. 4: 23). 


1 Kurze vergl. Gr., III, p. 6841. Cf. K.-G., I, pp. 77-82; ane Vergl. 
Synt., pp. 154-181. 


poe +e 


THE SENTENCE 401 


(e) Apsectives. They are common with predicates and as 
predicates. So ἀπεκατεστάθη ὑγιής (Mt. 12:13). Cf. ἦλθεν πρῶτος 
(Jo. 20 : 4), ἀπαράβατον ἔχει τὴν ἱερωσύνην (Heb. 7: 24). The article 
and the participle often form the predicate, as Mt. 10 : 20. 

(f) THe ApverB. The use of the adverb with the predicate 
is so normal as to call for no remark. So ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν 
τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον (1 Tim. 3:16). Cf. οὕτως yap πλουσίως 
ἐπιχορηγηθήσεται (2 Pet. 1: 11). 

(g) Prepositions. Let one example serve for prepositions: 
iva πληρωθῆτε eis wav TO πλήρωμα TOD θεοῦ (Kph. 3:19). 

(Ὁ) Necative ParticLEs οὐ AND μή. These are not con- 
fined to the predicate, but there find their commonest  illus- 
trations. Cf. οὐ γὰρ τολμῶμεν (2 Cor. 10:12) and μὴ γένοιτο (Gal. 
6:14). 

(i) SuBsorpinate Cuiauses. Most commonly, though by no 
means always, they are expansions of the predicate. The adverbial 
clauses are mainly so, as ἔγραψα ὑμῖν iva εἰδῆτε (1 Jo. 5:13), and 
most object (substantival) clauses, as the ὅτι ζωὴν ἔχετε αἰώνιον in 
the same sentence. But adjective clauses likewise often link 
themselves on to a word in the predicate, as ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ ὃν 
προέθετο (Ro. 8 : 24). 

(7) APPOSITION WITH THE PREDICATE AND LoosER AMPLIFICA- 
TIONS. It is common also, but calls for little additional remark. 
Predicative amplifications, as Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 527) calls 
them, are common. So εἰς ὃ ἐγὼ ἐτέθην κἠρυξ (1 Tim. 2:7), ὃν 
προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον (Ro. 3:25). The participle with ὡς is 
frequent, as ἡμᾶς ws κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦντας (2 Cor. 10:2). Cf. 
1 Pet. 2:5. Note also eis as εἰς υἱόν (Ac. 7:21), a Greek idiom 
parallel to the Hebrew and very abundant in the LXX. A com- 
mon construction is to have a clause in apposition with τοῦτο in 
an oblique case. So we see the accusative as in τοῦτο γινώσκετε 
ὅτι ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (Lu. 10:11), ablative as in μείζονα 
ταύτης ἀγάπην οὐδεὶς ἔχει ἵνα τις τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ θῇ ὑπὲρ τῶν φίλων αὐτοῦ 
(Jo. 15:13), locative ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ μένομεν (1 Jo. 
4 : 18). Cf. λέγω τοῦτο ὅτι ἕκαστος ὑμῶν λέγει (1 Cor. 1: 12). Like- 
wise the infinitive may be in apposition with τοῦτο, as ἔκρινα ἐμαυτῷ 
τοῦτο, TO μὴ πάλιν ἐν λύπῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλθεῖν (2 Cor. 2:1). CF. also 
Lu. 22 : 87 where τό" καὶ μετὰ ἀνόμων ἐλογίσθη is in apposition with 
τὸ γεγραμμένον Set τελεσθῆναι ἐν ἐμοί. For an extended predicate 
with numerous classes see Rev. 15 : 16, ποιεῖ πάντας, τοὺς μικροὺς 
καὶ τοὺς μεγάλους, καὶ τοὺς πλουσίους καὶ τοὺς πτωχούς, καὶ τοὺς ἐλευθεέ- 
ρους καὶ τοὺς δούλους. 


402 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


V. Subordinate Centres in the Sentence. Each of the words 
or phrases that the subject or predicate groups around itself 
may form a fresh nucleus for new combinations. Thus the long 
sentences with many subordinate clauses resemble the cell mul- 
tiplication in life. The N. T. indeed does not show so many 
complications in the sentence as the more rhetorical writers of 
Athens. In Mt. 7:19 the subject δένδρον has the participle ποιοῦν, 
which in turn has its own clause with μή as negative and καρπὸν 
καλόν as object. In Jo. 5:36 the predicate ἔχω has μαρτυρίαν as 
object, which has the predicate adjective μείζω, which in turn is 
followed by the ablative τοῦ "Iwavov. This is all too simple to need 
further illustration. Even adverbs may have expansive apposi- 
tives as in ὧδε ἐν τῇ πατρίδι σου (Lu. 4 : 23). Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. 
Syntax, pp. 222-227, for discussion of the adjective and its con- 
nection, and p. 228 for the adverb. 

VI. Concord in Person. The concord between subject and 
predicate as to person is so uniform as to call for little remark. 
In Greek the person was originally expressed in the ending. In 
the later Greek the pronoun was increasingly used in addition 
(see chapter on Pronouns). But only ignorance would allow one 
to mix his persons in the use of the verb. The only problem oc- 
curs when the subject comprises two or even all three persons. 
Then, of course, the first prevails over both the second and the 
third. So ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν (Jo. 10:30). Cf. Mt. 9:14; 
Lu. 2:48; 1 Cor. 9:6. But in Gal. 1:8 (ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ 
οὐρανοῦ εὐαγγελίσηται) the reverse is true either because Paul fol- 
lows the nearest in both person and number or (Winer-Thayer, 
p. 518) because he acknowledges thus the superior exaltation of 
the angel. Then again in cases like Ac. 11: 14 (σωθήσῃ σὺ καὶ πᾶς 
ὁ οἶκος gov) the speaker merely uses the person and number of 
the first and most important member of the group. Cf. Ac. 16: 
31. The subject of person thus easily runs into that of number, 
for the same ending expresses both. Sometimes indeed the first 
and second persons are used without any direct reference to the 
speaker or the person addressed. Paul in particular is fond of 
arguing with an imaginary antagonist. In Ro. 2:1 he calls him 
ὦ ἄνθρωπε πᾶς ὁ κρίνων. So also 2:3. In Ro.9:20 Paul is very 
earnest, wevodvye σὺ τίς εἶ; cf. also 11:17; 14:4. In 1 Cor. 10: 
30 the first person may be used in this representative way. The 
same may be true of Gal. 2:18, but not of 2:19. Ro. 7: 7-25 
is not so clear. The vehemence of passion argues for Paul’s 
own experience, but note ge in 8:2. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., 


THE SENTENCE 403 


p. 317. On the whole subject of agreement in person see Del- 
briick, Vergl. Synt., Ὁ. 229 f.; Kihner-Gerth, I, p. 82. For change 
in person see 2 Jo. 8; 1 Cor. 10 : 7-10. 

VII. Concord in Number. Here we have a double concord, 
that between subject and predicate (both verb and adjective if 
copula is used) and that between substantive and adjective in 
general. It is simpler, however, to follow another division. 

(a) SUBJECT AND PREDICATE. 

1. Two Conflicting Principles. One foliows the grammatical 
number, the other the sense (κατὰ σύνεσιν). The formal gram- 
matical rule is, of course, usually observed, a singular subject hav- 
ing a singular verb, a plural subject having a plural verb. This 
is the obvious principle in all languages of the Indo-Germanic 
group. It was once true of the dual also, though never to the 
same extent. Moulton! aptly says: ‘Many Greek dialects, Ionic 
conspicuously, had discarded this hoary luxury long before the * 
common Greek was born.” The Attic gave it a temporary lease 
of life, ‘‘but it never invaded Hellenistic, not even when a Hebrew 
dual might have been exactly rendered by its aid.”’ I doubt, how- 
ever, as previously shown (ch. VII, 1, 3), Moulton’s explanation 
that the dual probably arose in prehistoric days when men could 
count only two. That was indeed a prehistoric time! Probably 
the dual was rather the effort to accent the fact that only two 
were meant, not more, as in pairs, etc. Hence the dual verb even 
in Attic was not always used, and it was an extra burden to carry 
a special inflection for just this idea. No wonder that it vanished 
utterly in the κοινή. 

2. Neuter Plural and Singular Verb. But the κοινή fails to re- 
spond to the Attic rule that a neuter plural inanimate subject takes 
a singular verb. Homer indeed was not so insistent and the “‘mod- 
ern Greek has gone back completely and exclusively to the use of 
the plural verb in this instance as in others.”’? The N. T., like the 
κοινή in general, has broken away from the Attic rule and responds 
more to the sense, and also more often regards a neuter plural as 
really plural. It never was a binding rule, though more so in Attic 
than in Homer. In the vernacular κοινή the people treated the 
neuter plural like other plurals. (Radermacher, N. 7’. Gr., p. 96.) 
Usually a neuter plural in the N. T. that has a personal or collective 
meaning has a plural verb. So ἐπαναστήσονται τέκνα (Mt. 10 : 21), 


ΠΟΙ. δ ὉΠ ΕΞ Gor, Of N. L..Gk., p.-78. 
3 Ib. On the whole subject of concord in number see K.-G., I, pp. 82-88; 
Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., 3. ΤΊ., pp. 230-239; Gildersleeve, Gk. Synt., pp. 52-55. 


404 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


τὰ δαιμόνια πιστεύουσιν (Jas. 2:19), ἔθνη ἐπιζητοῦσιν (Mt. 6 : 32), τὰ 
πνεύματα προσέπιπτον (Mk. 3:11). But the only rule on the matter 
that is true for N. T. Greek is the rule of liberty. The papyri 
show the same variety of usage.!. So does the LXX. In the ex- 
amples given above the MSS. often vary sharply and examples 
of the singular verb occur with all of them, δαιμόνια more frequently 
with the singular verb, as εἰσῆλθεν δαιμόνια πολλά (Lu. 8: 30), but 
παρεκάλουν in next verse. So in Lu. 4:41 we have δαιμόνια ἐξήρ- 
xero and a little further on ὅτι ἤδεισαν. In Jo. 10:4 we see a 
similar change in the same sentence, τὰ πρόβατα αὐτῷ ἀκολουθεῖ ὅτι 
οἴδασιν. The same indifference to the Attic rule appears about 
things as about persons. Thus iva φανερωθῇ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ θεοῦ (Jo. 
9:3) and ἐφάνησαν τὰ ῥήματα (Lu. 24:11). In Rev. 1: 19 we find 
ἃ εἰσὶν καὶ ἃ μέλλει γενέσθαι. The predicate adjective will, of 
course, be plural, even if the verb is singular, as φανερά ἐστιν τὰ 
τέκνα (1 Jo. 3:10). Cf. Gal. 5:19. Winer? and (to some extent) 
Blass? feel called on to explain in detail these variations, but one 
has to confess that the success is not brilliant. It is better to re- 
gard this indifference to congruity as chiefly an historical move- 
ment characteristic of the κοινή as shown above. Even the Attic 
did not insist on a singular verb with a neuter plural of animate 
objects when the number of individuals was in mind. The 
neuter plural was in origin a collective singular. In 1 Cor. 10: 
11 the MSS. differ much between συνέβαινεν and -ον. 

3. Collective Substantives. 'These show a similar double usage. 
Thus we have ἐκάθητο περὶ αὐτὸν ὄχλος (Mk. 3:32) and so more 
commonly with these collective substantives like ὄχλος, πλῆθος, 
οἰκία, λαός. But plenty of examples of construction according 
to sense occur. So ὁ δὲ πλεῖστος ὄχλος ἔστρωσαν (Mt. 21:8). 
Sometimes we have both together, as ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ ὄχλος πολύς, 
ὅτι ἐθεώρουν (Jo. 6:2). Where there was such liberty each writer 
or speaker followed his bent or the humour of the- moment. 
The same variation is to be noticed with the participle. Thus 6 
ὄχλος ὁ μὴ γινώσκων τὸν νόμον ἐπάρατοί εἰσιν (JO. 7:49). Here the 
predicate is plural with the verb. Cf. also Lu. 23:1. But in Ac. 
5:16 the participle φέροντες is plural, though the verb συνήρχετο is 
singular like πλῆθος. Cf. also Ac. 21:36; 25:24; Lu. 2:13. It is 
not, of course, necessary that a predicate substantive should agree 
in number With the subject. So ἐστὲ ἐπιστολὴ Χριστοῦ (2 Cor. 3:3). 

4. The Pindaric Construction. Another complication is possible 


1 Moulton, Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901, p. 436. 
2 W.-Th., p. 514 f. 4 Gr. ΟἿΟΝ ΠΟ pews: 





THE SENTENCE 405 


when several subjects are united. If the predicate follows this 
compound subject, it is put in the plural nearly always. But the 
“Pindaric construction” (σχῆμα Πινδαρικόν) puts the verb in the 
singular. Blass says German cannot do this, and he ignores 
the N. T. examples.! In Jas. 5:2f. we have a striking ex- 
ample: Ὃ πλοῦτος ὑμῶν σέσηπεν, καὶ τὰ ἱμάτια ὑμῶν σητόβρωτα γέγο- 
vev, ὁ χρυσὸς ὑμῶν καὶ ὁ ἄργυρος κατίωται. Here κατίωται is natural 
like the English translation, ‘is cankered’ (A.V.). Note also 
Mt. 6:19, ὅπου σὴς καὶ βρῶσις ἀφανίζει (‘where moth and rust doth 
corrupt,’ A.V.). Other examples are Mk. 4:41, καὶ ὁ ἄνεμος καὶ ἡ 
θάλασσα ὑπακούει αὐτῷ; 1 Cor. 15: 50, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα βασιλείαν θεοῦ 
κληρονομῆσαι οὐ δύναται. Here the principle of anacoluthon sug- 
gested by Moulton? will hardly apply. It is rather the totality 
that is emphasized by the singular verb as in the English exam- 
ples. But when the predicate comes first and is followed by sev- 
eral subjects, anacoluthon may very well be the explanation, as in 
the Shakespearean examples given by Moulton. The simplest ex- 
planation (see under 5) is that the first subject is alone in mind. 
Thus in 1 Cor. 18 : 18 νυνὶ δὲ μένει πίστις, Edis, ἀγάπη, τὰ τρία 
ταῦτα (cf. English ‘and now abideth faith, hope, love, these three,’ 
like the Greek). Cf. also 1 Tim. 6:4. However, in Mt. 5: 18, ἕως 
ἂν παρέλθῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ, 1t seems rather the totality that is em- 
phasized as above. See Jo. 12:22. In Rev. 9:12, ἰδοὺ ἔρχεται ἔτι 
δύο οὐαὶ μετὰ ταῦτα, probably the neuter conception of the interjec- 
tion prevails, though just before we have ἡ οὐαὶ ἡ μία. In Lu. 2: 
33, ἦν ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ Kal ἡ μήτηρ θαυμάζοντες, the copula follows one 
plan and the participle another. So also ἦν καθήμεναι (Mt. 27: 61). 
Just so ὥφθη Μωυσῆς καὶ ᾿Ηλείας συνλαλοῦντες (Mt. 17:3). Cf. Eph. 
4:17f. In Rev. 21: 16, τὸ μῆκος καὶ τὸ πλάτος Kal τὸ ὕψος αὐτῆς ἴσα 
ἐστίν, the neuter plural adjective and singular copula are regular. 

5. Singular Verb with First Subject. It is very common indeed 
for the verb to have the singular with the first of the subjects. 
ΠΡ 22 12;'8:5;18: 15; Ac. 11: 24.. But on the other hand 
we have προσπορεύονται αὐτῷ ᾿Ιάκωβος καὶ ᾿Ιωάνης of viol Ζεβεδαίου 
ποτ 535) Οἵα also [1.25.1 2 0} 21:2: Ac..5.: 24... Τὰ. Ac. 
25 : 23 one participle is singular and the other plural. So in Ac. 
~ 6:29 we meet ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Πέτρος καὶ of ἀπόστολοι εἶπαν. With 7 


aise. 10: 

2 Prol., p. 58. Sometimes Shakespeare used a singular verb for the sake of 
metre (Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 65), at other times more like our mod. Eng.: “It 
is now a hundred years since,” ete. Cf. Gk. ἔστιν οἵ, etc. Cf. also Riem. and 
Goelzer, Synt., p. 18; Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., pp. 263-268. 


406 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the verb is usually in the singular in the N. T. So Mt. 12:25 
πᾶσα πόλις ἢ οἰκία μερισθεῖσα καθ᾽ ἑαυτῆς οὐ σταθήσεται. Cf. also 
Mt. 5:18; 18:8; Eph..575." In Gal. 1>8Biass* thinkseit 
would be impossible to have εὐαγγελιζώμεθα with ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος. 
But the impossible happens in Jas. 2:15, ἐὰν ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἀδελφὴ 
γυμνοὶ ὑπάρχωσιν. We have a similar difficulty in English in 
the use of the disjunctive and other pronouns. One will 
loosely say: “ΠῚ any one has left their books, they can come and 
get them.” 

6. The Literary Plural. We have already mentioned the use 
of the plural in a kind of impersonal way to conceal one’s identity, 
as τεθνήκασιν (Mt. 2:20), αἰτοῦσιν (Lu. 12:20) and the general 
indefinite plural like ὡς λέγουσιν (Rev. 2: 24). The critics disagree 
sharply about it (the literary plural). Blass? flatly denies that we 
have any right to claim this literary plural in Paul’s Epistles be- 
cause he associates others with himself in his letters. Winer? in- 
sists that Paul often speaks in his apostolic character when he 
uses the plural and hence does not always include others. Moul- 
ton‘ considers the matter settled in favour of the epistolary plural 
in the κοινή. He cites from the papyri several examples. So Tb.P. 
26 (ii/B.C.) ὄντι μοι ἐν ΠΠτολεμαίδει --- προσέπεσεν ἡμῖν, B.U. 449 (Gi- 
ili/A.D.) ἀκούσας ὅτι νωθρεύῃ ἀγωνιοῦμεν, ..Πῃ.5. xix 92 (ii/A.D.) χαῖρέ 
μοι, μῆτερ γλυκυτάτη, καὶ φροντίζετε ἡμῶν. Dick® has made an ex- 
haustive study of the whole subject and produces parallels from 
late Greek that show how easily éyw and ἡμεῖς were exchanged. 
The matter can be clarified, I think. To begin with, there is no 
reason in the nature of things why Paul should not use the literary 
plural if he wished to do so. He was a man of culture and used to 
books even if he used the vernacular κοινή in the main. The late 
Greek writers did; the papyri show examples of it. G. Milligan 
(Thess., p. 132) cites ΤΌ. P. 58 (ii/B.c.) εὑρήκαμεν --- εὗρον --- BeBov- 
λεύμεθα; P. Hib. 44 (11.8.6.) ἔγράψαμεν --- ὁρῶντες --- wiunv; P. Heid. 
6 (iv/A.D.) πιστεύομεν --- γράφω καὶ φλυαρήσω; and an inscription, 
possibly a rescript of Hadrian, Ὁ. ἃ. 1. 5. 484, Notwev — [μετεπεμ-] 
Yaunv — βονληθείς --- ἔδοξεν ἡμεῖν --- ἐδοκιμάσαμεν --- ἐπίστευον --- ἡγησάμην 
-ο-ονομίζω. Besides, Blass* admits that we have it in 1 Jo. 1:4, where 
γράφομεν does not differ in reality from γράφω of 2:1. But in Jo. 
21: 24 οἴδαμεν probably is in contrast to John, who uses οἶμαι just 


AGT ror Ne Get pnoo: ΠΡ 17: 
2 ΤΌ., p. 166. 4 Prol., p. 86. 

5 Der schriftstell. Plu. bei Paulus (1900), p. 18. 

δι Gr. of NS aGkhiaLoo. 


= 


et gt a en 41 - 


ad 


THE SENTENCE 407 


below. In Jo. 1:14, as certainly in 1:16, others are associated 
with the writer. The author of Hebrews also uses the singular or 
plural according to the humour of the moment. Thus πειθόμεθα --- 
ἔχομεν (13 : 18) and the next verse παρακαλῶ — ἀποκατασταθῶ. Cf. 
also. 6:1, 3; 9, 11,-with 13 :22f. Now as to Paul. In Ro. 1:5 
he has δι᾽ ob ἐλάβομεν χάριν Kal ἀποστολήν. Surely he is talking of no 
one else when he mentions ἀποστολήν. Blass! overlooks this word 
and calls attention to χάριν as applicable to all. Then again in 
Col. 4:3 ἡμῖν is followed in the same verse by δέδεμαι. It is 
clear also in 1 Th. 2 : 18, ἠθελήσαμεν --- ἔγὼ μὲν Παῦλος. But what 
really settles the whole matter? is 2 Cor. 10:1-11:6. Paul is 
here defending his own apostolic, authority where the whole point 
turns on his own personality. But he uses first the singular, then 
the plural. Thus παρακαλῶ (10:1), θαρρῶ, λογίζομαι (10 : 2), orpa- 
τευόμεθα (10:3), ἡμεῖς (10:7), καυχήσωμαι, αἰσχυνθήσομαι (10 : 8), 
δόξω (10:9), ἐσμέν. (10 : 11), καυχησόμεθα (10:13), ete. It is not 
credible that here Paul has in mind any one else than himself. 
Cf. also 2 Cor. 2 : 14-7: 16 for a similar change from singular to 
plural. The use of the literary plural by Paul sometimes does 
not, of course, mean that he always uses it when he has a plural. 
Each case rests on its own merits. Jesus seems to use it also in 
Jo. 3:11, ὃ οἴδαμεν λαλοῦμεν καὶ ὃ ἑωράκαμεν μαρτυροῦμεν. In Mk. 
4 : 80 (πῶς ὁμοιώσωμεν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ;) Christ associates others 
with him in a very natural manner. 

(b) SUBSTANTIVE AND ApgsEcTIVE. The concord between ad- 
jective and substantive is just as close as that between subject 
and verb. This applies to both predicate and attributive adjec- 
tives. Here again number is confined to the singular and the 
plural, for the dual is gone. Cf. in lieu of the dual the curious 
καιρὸν Kal καιροὺς καὶ ἥμισυ καιροῦ (Rev. 12:14). When adjectives 
and participles deviate from this accord in number or gender 
(Eph. 4:17f.; 1 Cor. 12:2; Rev. 19:14), it is due to the 
sense instead of mere grammar, κατὰ σύνεσιν. Thus in Mk. 
9:15 we have ὁ ὄχλος ἰδόντες, Ac. 3:11 συνέδραμεν πᾶς ὁ dads 
ἔκθαμβοι, Lu. 2:13 στρατιᾶς αἰνούντων, Mk. 8:1 ὄχλου ὄντος Kal μὴ 
ἐχόντων (note both), Ac. 21 : 86 πλῆθος κράζοντες, etc. Cf. ὁ ὄχλος 
ἐπάρατοι (Jo. 7:49). In Ph. 2:6 τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ the plural adjec- 
tive differs little from ἴσον in adverbial sense. Cf. ταῦτα τί ἐστιν 
εἰς τοσούτους (JO. 6 : 9), τί ἂν εἴη ταῦτα (Lu. 15 : 26). 

BY οὗ Ν. Τ. aks. 1 166. 


2 Dick, Der schriftstell. Plu. bei Paulus, 1900, p. 53. Milligan, St. Paul’s 
Epist. to the Thess., 1908, p. 131 f. agrees with Dick. 


408 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(c) REPRESENTATIVE SINGULAR. But other points come up 
also about the number of the substantives. One is the use of 
the singular with the article to signify the whole class. The ex- 
amples are frequent, such as ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος (Mt. 12 : 35), σημεῖα 
τοῦ ἀποστόλου (2 Cor. 12:12), ὁ ἐργάτης (Lu. 10:7), τοῦ ᾿Ιουδαίου 
(Ro. 3:1), τὸν πτωχόν (Jas. 2:6). This discussion about the 
number of nouns could more properly be treated under syntax of 
nouns, but I have no such chapter. Cf. Cases. 

(ὦ) IplomatTic PLuRAL IN Nouns. Abstract substantives oc- 
cur in the plural in the N. T. as in the older Greek, an idiom for- 
eign to English. Thus πλεονεξίαι (Mk. 7: 22), προσωπολημψίαις (Jas. 
2:1). Cf. also φόνοι Mt. 15:19; ras ropveias 1 Cor. 7:2. In2 
Cor. 12:20 and 1 Pet. 2:1 both the singular and the plural 
occur. Cf. Mt. 15:19. This use of the plural of abstract 
substantives does indeed lay stress on the separate acts. Some 
words were used almost exclusively in the plural, or at any rate 
the plural was felt to be more appropriate. So αἰῶνες in the sense 
of ‘world’ (Heb. 1 : 2) or ‘eternity,’ as εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων 
(Gal. 1:5), or with singular and plural, as τοῦ αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων 
(Eph. 3:21). Cf. also τὰ ἅγια for ‘the sanctuary’ (Heb. 8: 2) and 
ἅγια ἁγίων for ‘the most Holy Place’ (Heb. 9:3). The word οὐρα- 
vos is used in the singular often enough, and always so in the Gos- 
pel of John, as 1:32, but the plural is common also. Cf. Paul’s 
allusion to “third heaven” (2 Cor. 12 : 2), an apparent reflection 
of the Jewish idea of seven heavens. In English we use “the 
heavens” usually for the canopy of sky above us, but ἡ βασι- 
λεία τῶν οὐρανῶν uniformly in the N. T., as Mt. 3:2. The Hebrew 
nv2w is partly responsible for οὐρανοί. The so-called ‘plural of 
majesty”? has an element of truth in it. For further details see 
Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 88. A number of other words have 
this idiomatic plural, such as ἐκ δεξιῶν, ἐξ ἀριστερῶν, ἐξ εὐωνύμων 
(Mt. 25 : 33), εἰς τὰ δεξιὰ μέρη (Jo. 21: 6), ἐν τοῖς δεξιοῖς (Mk. 16 : 5), 
ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν (Mt. 2 : 1), ἀπὸ δυσμῶν (Mt. 8 : 11), θύραι (Ac. ὅ : 19), 
πύλαι (Mt. 106 : 18), κόλποι (Lu. 16 : 23). But the singular of some 
of them is also found, as ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ (Mt. 2 : 9), ἐν δεξιᾷ (Eph. 1: 
20), πρὸ τῆς θύρας (Ac. 12:6). The plural of ἱμάτιον seems to mean 
only ἱμάτιον (not χιτών also) in Jo. 19:23 (cf. 19:2). For the 
plural αἵματα note Jo. 1:13. The names of feasts are often plural, 
such as τὰ ἐγκαίνια (Jo. 10 : 22), τὰ γενέσια (Mk. 6: 21), τὰ ἄζυμα 
(Mk. 14:1), γάμοι (Mt. 22: 2), σάββατα (Ac. 17: 2). So also 
some cities have plural names, as Ἰεροσόλυμα (Mt. 2:1), ᾿Αθῆναι 
(Ac. 17 : 16), Κολοσσαί (Col. 1:2). Different are ἐπιστολαί (1 Cor. 


THE SENTENCE 409 


16 : 3), τὰ ἀργύρια (Mt. 27:5), τὰ ὀψώνια (Lu. 3:14), διαθῆκαι (Ro. 
9 : 4). 

(6) Iptomatic SINGULAR IN Nouns. On the other hand the 
singular appears where one would naturally look for a plural. A 
neuter singular as an abstract expression may sun: up the whole 
mass. Thus πᾶν 6 in Jo. 6: 87 refers to believers. Cf. also 
Jo. 17:2. The same collective use of the neuter singular is found 
in τὸ ἔλαττον (Heb. 7:7). Cf. τὸ γεννώμενον (Lu. 1:35) and πᾶν 
τὸ γεγεννημένον (1 Jo. 5:4). The same concealment of the person 
is seen in τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε (2 Th. 2: 6). The neuter plural in- 
deed is very common in this sense, as τὰ μωρά, τὰ ἀσθενῆ, etc.(1 Cor. 
1:27f.). Then again the singular is used where the substantive 
belongs to more than one subject. So πεπωρωμένην ἔχετε τὴν Kap- 
δίαν (Mk. 8:17), ἔθεντο ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτῶν (Lu. 1: 66), ἔπεσαν ἐπὶ 
πρόσωπον αὐτῶν (Mt. 17:6), περιζωσάμενοι τὴν ὀσφὺν ὑμῶν (Eph. 6: 
14), ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς στολὴ λευκή (Rev. 6:11), ἀπὸ προσώπου τῶν πατέ- 
ρων (Ac. 7:45), διὰ στόματος πάντων (Ac. 8 : 18), ἐκ τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῶν 
(Jo. 10:39). In 1 Cor. 6:5, ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ, the difficulty lies 
not in μέσον, but in the singular ἀδελφοῦ. The fuller form would 
have been the plural or the repetition of the word, ἀδελφοῦ καὶ 
ἀδελφοῦ. In all these variations in number the N. T. writers 
merely follow in the beaten track of Greek usage with proper 
freedom and individuality. For copious illustrations from the 
ancient Greek see Gildersleeve, Greek Syntax, pp. 17—-59.! 

(7) SpectraL INstancEes. Two or three other passages of a 
more special nature call for comment. In Mt. 21:7 (ἐπεκάθισεν 
ἐπάνω αὐτῶν) it is probable that αὐτῶν refers to τὰ ἱμάτια, not to τὴν 
ὄνον Kal τὸν πῶλον. In Mt. 24 : 26 ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ and ἐν τοῖς ταμείοις 
are in contrast. In Mt. 27: 44 οἱ λῃσταί is not to be taken as plural 
for the singular. Probably both reproached Jesus at first and 
afterwards one grew sorry and turned on the other, as Lu. 23: 39 
has it. In Mt. 22:1 and Mk. 12:1 εἶπεν ἐν παραβολαῖς is followed 
by only one parable, but there were doubtless others not recorded. 
In Mt. 9:8, ἐδόξασαν τὸν θεὸν τὸν δόντα ἐξουσίαν τοιαύτην Tots ἀνθρώποις, 
we have a double sense in δόντα, for Jesus had the ἐξουσίαν in a sense 
not true of ἀνθρώποις who got the benefit of it. So in Ac. 13 : 40 
τὸ εἰρημένον ἐν τοῖς προφήταις 15 merely equivalent to ἐν βίβλῳ τῶν 
προφητῶν (Ac. 7:42). On these special matters see Winer- 
Schmiedel, p. 251. Cf. χερουβείν (Aramaic dual) and κατασκιά- 
tovra (Heb. 9 : δ). 


1 Cf. also Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., 1. ΤΊ., pp. 1383-172, 8. Tl., pp. 240-248; 
K.-G., Bd. I, pp. 271 ff.; Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 869-3873. 


410 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


VIII. Concord in Gender. Here we deal only with nouns, for 
verbs have no gender. But gender plays an important part in the 
agreement of substantive and adjective. 

(a) FLUCTUATIONS IN GENDER. The whole matter is difficult, 
for substantives have two sorts of gender, natural and gram- 
matical. The two do not always agree. The apparent violations 
of the rules of gender can generally be explained by the conflict 
in these two points of view with the additional observation that 
the grammatical gender of some words changed or was never 
firmly settled. All the constructions according to sense are due 
to analogy (Middleton in Syntaz, p. 39). For further general re- 
marks on gender see chapter on Declensions. In Ac. 11:28 Luke 
has λιμὸν μεγάλην, not μέγαν. In Rev. 14:19 two genders are 
found with the same word, ἔβαλεν εἰς τὴν ληνὸν τοῦ θυμοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν 
μέγαν. Cf. Lu. 4:25 and 15:14. The papyri vary also in the 
gender of this word (Moulton, Prol., p. 60). The common gender 
of θεός (Ac. 19 : 37, cf. θεά 19 : 27) and similar words is discussed in 
the chapter on Declensions. In Rev. 11:4 ai ἑστῶτες skips over 
λυχνίαι curiously! and goes back (the participle, not the article) to 
οὗτοι (οὗτοί εἰσιν αἱ δύο ἔλαϊαι Kal αἱ δύο λυχνίαι αἱ ἐνώπιον τοῦ κυρίου ᾿ 
τῆς γῆς ἑστῶτες). But more about the Apocalypse later. In Mk. 
12 : 28, ποία ἐστὶν ἐντολὴ πρώτη πάντων, Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 
178) thinks that πασῶν would be beside the point as it is rather the 
general idea of omnium. Is it not just construction κατὰ σύνεσιν 
In Ph. 2:1 εἴ τις σπλάχνα is difficult after εἴ τι παραμύθιον and εἴ 
τις κοινωνία. Blass? cuts the knot boldly by suggesting εἴ τι in all 
the examples here which Moulton® accepts with the sense of si 
quid valet, but he cites papyri examples like ἐπί τι μίαν tov... 
οἰκιῶν, Par. P.15(ii/B.c.) ; εἰ δὲ τι περισσὰ γράμματα, B.U.326 (ii/A.D.). 
See also ἐὰν δέ τι ἄλλα ἀπαιτηθῶμεν, Amh. Pap. II, 85, 11, and ἐὰν δέ 
τι aBpoxos γένηται, 1b., 15. Cf. Radermacher, N. 7. Gr., p. 184. 
Perhaps after all this correction may be right or the text may be 
corrupt. The scribe could easily have written τις for twa because 
of the preceding examples. A nodding scribe may even have 
thought. σπλάχνα feminine singular. But what is one to say of ἡ 
οὐαί in Rev. 9:12; 11:14? Shall we think? of θλίψις or ταλαιπω- 
pia? In Mt. 21:42 (Mk. 12:11), παρὰ κυρίου ἔγένετο αὕτη καὶ ἔστιν 


τ But Moulton (Cl. Rev., Apr., 1904, p. 151) cites from the pap. numerous 
false gender concords like τὴν πεπτωκότα, etc. Cf. Reinhold, De Graec. ete., 
p. 57; Krumbacher, Prob. d. neugr. Schriftspr., p. 50. 

a GraotsNeeGk. ΘΙ: 

8 Prol pg. 4 W.-Sch., p. 255. 


THE SENTENCE 411 


θαυμαστῆ, we may have a translation of the Hebrew δὶ (Ps. 
(117) 118 : 23), for οὗτος is used just before in reference to λίθον. 
Τοῦτο would be the Greek idiom for αὕτη. It is even possible that 
αὕτη may refer to κεφαλὴν γωνίας. So also τῇ Baad in Ro. 11:4 
comes from the LXX (Jer. 2:8; '2:28; 7:9; Hos. 2:8). Cf. 
τῇ Baad τῇ δαμάλει in Tobit 1:5 B. See Declensions for further 
remarks. 

(b) THe NEvuTER SInNGuLAR. This is not always to be regarded 
as a breach of gender. Often the neuter conveys a different con- 
ception. So in the question of Pilate, τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια; (Jo. 18 : 38). 
Cf. also τί οὖν ὁ νόμος; (Gal. 8 : 19), τί ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος; (Heb. 2 : 6), τί 
ἂν εἴη ταῦτα; (Lu. 18 : 26), εἰ δοκεῖ τις εἶναί τι μηδὲν wv; (Gal. 6 : 8). 
But on the other hand note εἶναί τινα (Ac. ὅ : 36), αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ με- 
yarn ἐντολή (Mt. 22 : 38), τίς ἡ πρόσλημψις; (Ro. 11:15), τίς ἐστιν ἡ 
ἐλπίς; (Eph. 1:18). In particular observe τί ὁ Πέτρος ἔγένετο (Ac. 
12 : 18) and οὗτος δὲ τί (Jo. 21 : 21). Cf. also τοῦτο χάρις (twice) in 
1 Pet. 2:19 f., where τοῦτο is predicate and really refers to εἰ ὑπο- 
φέρει τις and εἰ bropevetre. Cf. also. ἡ ψυχὴ πλεῖόν ἐστιν τῆς τροφῆς 
(Lu. 12 : 23). Indeed ταῦτα may be the predicate with persons, as 
ταῦτά τινες ἦτε (1 Cor. 6:11). The neuter adjective in the predi- 
cate is perfectly normal in cases like ἱκανὸν τῷ τοιούτῳ ἡ ἐπιτιμία 
αὕτη (2 Cor. 2:6). So also ἀρκετὸν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἡ κακία αὐτῆς (Mt. 6: 34). 
Cf. also the reading of D ἀρεστόν in Ac. 12:3. Blass! treats ἀρκε- 
τόν above and ἱκανόν ἐστιν in Lu. 22:38 as like the Latin satvs. 
The neuter singular in the collective or general sense to represent 
persons is not peculiar to the Ν. T. So τὸ κατέχον (2 Th. 2 : 6), 
πᾶν 6 (Jo. 17: 2), τὸ ἀπολωλός (Lu. 19:10), etc. So the neuter 
plural also as τὰ μωρὰ τοῦ κόσμου, τὰ ἀσθενῆ (1 Cor. 1:27). The 
neuter article τὸ “Ayap (Gal. 4 : 25) deals with the word Hagar, 
not the gender of the person. In Jas. 4:4 μοιχαλίδες in W. H. 
stands without μοιχαλοὶ καί, but none the less may be regarded 
as comprehensive.2 Cf. γενεὰ μοιχαλίς (Mt. 12 : 39) and Hos. 2: 
4, 23. In 1 Cor. 15:10 note eiu 6 εἰμι, not ὅς, a different idea. 

(c) EXPLANATORY ὅ ἐστιν AND τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν. A special idiom is 
the relative 6 as an explanation (6 ἐστιν) and the demonstrative 
τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι, Which are both used without much regard to the gen- 
der (not to say number) of antecedent or predicate. Thus in Mk. 
3:17 ὄνομα Βοανηργές, 6 ἐστιν viol βροντῆς; 12 : 42 λεπτὰ δύο 6 ἐστιν 
κοδράντης; 15:16 τῆς αὐλῆς, 6 ἐστιν πραιτώριον; 15: 22 Τολγοθὰν 
τόπον, ὅ ἐστιν κρανίου τόπος (cf. Mt. 27:33); ῥαββεί, ὃ λέγεται (Jo. 1: 
38); 1:42 Μεσσίαν 6 ἐστιν; Col. 8 : 14 τὴν ἀγάπην, ὅ ἐστιν σύνδεσμος; 

1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 76. 2 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 254. 


412 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Eph. 6:17 μάχαιραν, ὅ ἐστιν ῥῆμα θεοῦ. Blass! observes that it is 
only in the Apocalypse that this explanatory relative is assimilated 
to the antecedent or predicate, as λαμπάδες, ἅ εἰσιν τὰ πνεύματα (Rev. 
4: 5), but ὀφθαλμοὺς ἑπτά, οἵ εἰσιν τὰ πνεύματα (5:6). But it is other- 
wise with the ordinary relative, as ὁ ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, οἵτινές ἐστε ὑμεῖς (1 
Cor. 8:17); Φιλίππους, ἥτις ἐστὶν πρώτη πόλις (Ac. 10 : 12); ὑπὸ τῶν 
ἀντικειμένων, ἥτις ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς ἔνδειξις ἀπωλείας (Ph. 1: 28); ἐν ταῖς θλί- 
ψεσίν μου ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, ἥτις ἐστὶν δόξα ὑμῶν (Eph. 3:13), The use of 
τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν is ἃ common idiom in the later Greek (less so in the 
older) and is exactly equivalent to the Latin 7d est and has no 
regard to case, number or gender. So Ἐλωί — τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν θεέ μου 
(Mt. 27:46); τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν τοὺς ἀδελφούς (Heb. 7:5). Cf. Heb. 2: 
14; 9:11, etc. See further p. 399, and ch. XV, vir, (d), 10. 

(ὦ) Tue Participte. It often has the construction κατὰ σύνε- 
ow, asin Mk. 9: 26, κράξας καὶ πολλὰ σπαράξας referring to τὸ πνεῦμα. 
Cf. Lu. 2:13 στρατιᾶς αἰνούντων; πλῆθος κράζοντες (Ac. 21:36); βοῶν- 
res (25 : 24). But on the other hand note ἀναστὰν πλῆθος (Lu. 23 : 
1). So also in 1 Cor. 12:2 ἔθνη ἀπαγόμενοι; Eph. 4 : 17 f. ἔθνη éoxo- 
τωμένοι; Rev. 4:8 ζῷα, ἕν καθ᾽ ἕν ἔχων λέγοντες; 11:15 φωναὶ peya- 
λαι λέγοντες (οἷ. φωνὴν λέγοντα, Rev. 9: 14); 19: 14 στρατεύματα 
ἐνδεδυμένοι. Cf. θηρίον γέμοντα (Rev. 17: 8). Winer (Winer-Thayer, 
p. 526) takes ἐσκοτωμένοι in Eph. 4: 18 with ὑμᾶς. Cf. also πλῆθος 
φέροντες (Ac. 5:16). Cf. Lu. 19:37. So (al ἐκκλησίαι) ἀκούοντες (Gal. 
1:22f.). But in Rev. 21:14 τὸ τεῖχος ἔχων seems a mere slip. 
But ζῷον — ἔχων. (Rev. 4:7) may be mere confusion in sound of 
ἔχον and ἔχων. See also φωνὴ — λέγων (4:1), φωναὶ --- λέγοντες 
(11 : 15), λυχνίαι --- ἑστῶτες (11:4). Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 
87) cites ζῷον --- ἀστράπτων from A pocalypsis Anastasiae (pp. 6, 13). 

(6) ApsectTivES. The question of an adjective’s using one 
form for more than one gender has been already discussed at 
length in the chapter on Declensions. Thus στρατιᾶς οὐρανίου (Lu. 
2 : 13) is not a breach of concord, for οὐρανίου is feminine. If mas- 
culine and feminine are used together and the plural adjective or 
participle occurs, the masculine, of course, prevails over the fem- 
inine when persons are considered. Thus ἦν ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ 
μήτηρ θαυμάζοντες (Lu. 2:33). So also ᾿Αγρίππας καὶ Βερνίκη ἀσπα- 
σάμενοι (Ac. 25 : 13) and even with the disjunctive ἤ, as ἀδελφὸς ἢ 
ἀδελφὴ γυμνοί (Jas. 2:15). In Rev. 8:7 the neuter plural is used 
of two nouns (one feminine and one neuter), χάλαζα καὶ πῦρ μεμιγ- 
μένα. Cf. also φθαρτοῖς, ἀργυρίῳ ἢ χρυσίῳ (1 Pet. 1:18), really ap- 
position. πΠοικίλαις νόσοις καὶ βασάνοις (Mt. 4 : 24), πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ 

ἄγ Groot NGl.Gky ΡΣ 


THE SENTENCE 413 


ἐξουσίας (Eph. 1 : 21), etc. But on the other hand note πόλις ἢ oi- 
kia μερισθεῖσα (Mt. 12 : 25), the same gender. But when different 
genders occur, the adjective is usually repeated, as in ποταποὶ λίθοι 
Kal ποταπαὶ οἰκοδομαί (Mk. 13:1), πᾶσα δόσις καὶ πᾶν δώρημα (Jas. 1: 
17), οὐρανὸν καινὸν καὶ γῆν καινὴν (Rev. 21:1), etc. There is em- 
phasis also in the repetition. But one adjective with the gender 
of one of the substantives is by no means uncommon. Thus in 
Heb. 9:9, δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίαι μὴ δυνάμεναι, the last substantive is 
followed, while in Heb. 3 : 6, ἐὰν τὴν παρρησίαν καὶ τὸ καύχημα μέχρι 
τέλους βεβαίαν κατάσχωμεν, the first rules in gender.! Per contra 
note υἱὸν ἄρσεν in Rev. 12:5. Radermacher (NV. T. Gr., p. 86) 
cites φίλε τέκνον from the Iliad, X XII, 84. 

IX. Concord in Case. This is not the place for the syntax of 
the cases. That matter belongs to a special chapter. 

(a) ApsEcTIVES. They concur in the case of the substantive 
with which they are used. The variations are either indeclinable 
forms like πλήρης in Jo. 1:14 (agreeing with αὐτοῦ or δόξαν) or are 
due to anacoluthon, as Jas. 3:8 τὴν δὲ γλῶσσαν οὐδεὶς δαμάσαι δύναται 
ἀνθρώπων" ἀκατάστατον κακόν, μεστὴ ἰοῦ (so W. H. punctuate). 

(Ὁ) ParticrpLes. They lend themselves readily to anacoluthon 
in case. Thus ἔδοξε τοῖς ἀποστόλοις καὶ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις, Ὑράψαντες 
(Ac. 15:22 f.). See Mk. 7:19 καθαρίζων. ΜΚ. :9 has ὑποδεδε- 
μένους, Whereas before we have αὐτοῖς and aipwow, but W. H. 
read ἐνδύσασθαι (Nestle, ἐνδύσησθε). In Mk. 12 : 40, οἱ κατέσθοντες 
καὶ προσευχόμενοι, We have a nominative in apposition with the 
ablative ἀπὸ τῶν γραμματέων τῶν θελόντων. In Ph. 3:18 f. τοὺς 
ἐχθρούς is in agreement with the case of οὕς, while of φρονοῦντες 
below skips back to πολλοί. Sometimes, as in ἐπιστεύθησαν τὰ λόγια 
(Ro. 3:2), the substantive will make sense as subject or object 
of the verb. In Heb. 9:10 δικαιώματα --- ἐπικείμενα in apposition 
with θυσίαι skips over the parenthetical clause between. Cf. also 
perhaps ἀρξάμενοι (Lu. 24: 47), ἀρξάμενος (Ac. 1:22. Cf. Lu. 23: δ), 
ἀρξάμενος (Ac. 10:37). Note this idiom in Luke’s writings. 

(c) THe Boox or Revetation. It is full of variations (sole- 
cisms) from case-concord, especially in appositional clauses. 
Thus in Rev. 7:9 after εἶδον, καὶ ἰδού we first have the nomina- 


1 On the subject of gender see Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., 1. ΤΊ., pp. 89-133; 
Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 365-369. 

2 The exx. of this indecl. use of πλήρης are abundant in MSS. of the N. T., 
occurring in most passages of the N. T. See Blass, Gr. of N. Τ᾿. Gk., p. 81. 
The pap. confirm the N. T. MSS. See Moulton, Prol., p. 50. See ch. VII, 2, 
(f), of this book, for details. 


414 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


tive with ἰδού and then the accusative with εἶδον. Thus ὁ μάρτυς 
(Rev. 1:5) retains the nominative rather than the ablative ἀπὸ 
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, whereas in 11:18 τοὺς μικρούς is in apposition with 
the dative rots δούλοις, κτλ. Cf. 20:2 where ὁ ὄφις (text, marg. 
acc.) is in apposition with the accusative τὸν δράκοντα. The 
papyri show the idiom. Cf. τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ --- ὁ διάτοχος (=6106.) in 
Letr. 149 (ji/a.p.), ᾿Δντιφίλου “Ἑλλην — ἱππάρχης in B.G.U. 1002 
(i/B.c.). Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 60. The Apocalypse is thus by 
no means alone. See also παρὰ το[ῦ Ποστ]ούμου τὸν ebpovTa-B.G.U. 
846 (ii/A.D.), ἤκουσα Τοθῆς λέγων P. Par. 51 (B.c. 160), ἐμὲ λέλυ 
πολιὰς ἔχων, ib. In particular the participle is common in the nom- 
inative in the Apocalypse._._In the case of ἀπὸ ὁ ὧν καὶ ὁ ἦν Kal ὁ 
ἐρχόμενος the nominative is evidently intentional to accent the 
unchangeableness of God (1:4). Cf. this formula in 1:8; 4:8; 
1:17; 16:5. ὋὉ νικῶν occurs as a set phrase, the case being ex- 
pressed by αὐτός which follows. So in 2: 26 αὐτῷ (τηρῶν also); 
3:12 αὐτόν, 21 αὐτῷ. But in τῷ νικῶντι δώσω αὐτῷ 2:7, 17, the case 
is regularly in the dative without anacoluthon. The wrong case 
appears with ἔχων in 1:16 (almost separate sentence) if it is 
meant to refer to αὐτοῦ or gender if φωνή; 9 : 14 (ὁ ἔχων in apposi- 
tion with ἀγγέλῳ); 10:2 ἔχων (sort of parenthesis, cf. 1 : 16); 
14 : 14 ἔχων (loosely appended); 19 : 12 (loose connection of ἔχων). 
In 5:6 and 17:3 ἔχων has wrong gender and case. This parti- 
ciple seems to be strung on loosely generally, but in 21:11 f. 
the proper case and gender occur. Cf. also ἡ λέγουσα (2: 20) 
and λέγων (14:7). In 14:12 of τηροῦντες is a loose addition like 
ἡ καταβαίνουσα (3:12). More difficult seems ἐν καμίνῳ πεπυρωμέ- 
νης (1:15), margin πεπυρωμένοι. In 19 : 20 τὴν λίμνην τοῦ" πυρὸς 
τῆς καιομένης the participle agrees in gender with λίμνην and in 
case with πυρός. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 86) cites ἀπέχω 
παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ τὸν ὁμολογοῦντα (Amh. Pap. Π, i to 113, where regu- 
larly the accusative of a participle is in apposition with a geni- 
tive or ablative). He gives also Oxy. P. I N 120, 25, ob δέδοκται 
yap ἡμῖν ἔχειν τι δυστυχοῦντες; Flinders-Pet. Pap. III 42 C (38) 3, 
ἀδικούμεθα ὑπὸ ᾿Απολλωνίου ἐμβάλλων. Dittenberger (Or. inser. 611) 
gives Σεβαστοῦ and vids in apposition. But the point of difficulty 
in the Revelation of John is not any one isolated discord in 
case or gender. It is rather the great number of such violations 
of concord that attracts attention. As shown above, other 
books of the N. T. show such phenomena. Observe especially 
Luke, who is a careful writer of education. Note also Paul in 
Ph. 1:30 where ἔχοντες (cf. this word in Rev.) is used with ὑμῖν, 







| 


THE SENTENCE 415 


and 2 Cor. 7: 5 ἡμῶν --- θλιβόμενοι. Similar discords occur in the 
LXX, as in Jer. 14:13; Dan. 10: 5-7; 1 Macc. 13:16; 1 Mace. 
15 : 28; and indeed occasionally in the very best of Greek writers. 
The example in 1 Macc. 13:16 (λαὸν λέγοντες) 15. worth singling 
out for its bearing on both case and number. Nestle (Hinf. in das 
griech. N.T., p. 90 f.) notes the indeclinable use of λέγων and λέ- 
yovres in the LXX, like πε, Cf. Nestle, Phil. Sacra., p. 7. See 
also Thackeray, Gr., p. 23. One must not be a slavish martinet in 
such matters at the expense of vigour and directness. The occa- 
sion of anacoluthon in a sentence is just the necessity of breaking 
off and making a new start. But the Apocalypse demands more 
than these general remarks. Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 534) calls 
attention to the fact that these irregularities occur chiefly in the 
description of the visions where there would naturally be some 
excitement. Moulton! argues from the fact that the papyri of 
uneducated writers show frequent discord in case that John was 
somewhat backward in his Greek. He speaks of ‘the curious 
Greek of Revelation,” ‘the imperfect Greek culture of this book.” 
He notes the fact that most of the examples in both the papyri 
and Revelation are in apposition and the writer’s “grammatical 
sense is satisfied when the governing word has affected the case 
of one object.”’? Moulton® cites in illustration Shakespeare’s use 
of “‘between you and I.” This point indeed justifies John. But 
one must observe the comparative absence of these syntactical 
discords in the Gospel of John and the Epistles of John. In Ac. 
4:13 both Peter and John are called ἀγράμματοι καὶ ἰδιῶται. This 
need not be pushed too far, and yet it is noteworthy that 2 Peter 
and Revelation are just the two books of the N. T. whose Greek 
jars most upon the cultured mind and which show most kinship to 
the κοινή in somewhat illiterate papyri. One of the theories about 
the relation between 1 Peter and 2 Peter is that Silvanus (1 Pet. 
5:12) was Peter’s scribe in writing the first Epistle, and that thus 
the Greek is smooth and flowing, while in 2 Peter we have Peter’s 
own somewhat uncouth, unrevised Greek. This theory rests on 
the assumption of the genuineness of 2 Peter, which is much dis- 
puted. So also in Acts Luke refines Peter’s Greek in the reports 


1 Exp., Jan., 1904, p. 71; Cl. Rev., Apr., 1904, p. 151; Prol., pp. 9, 60. 

2 Cl. Rev., Apr., 1904, p. 151; Prol., p. 9. 

3 Ib. Merch. of Venice, iii, 2. Cf. also Harrison, Prol. to the Study 
of Gk. Rel., p. 168. In the Attic inscr. the noun is found in apposition with 
the abl.:, the loc. and in absolute expressions. Cf. Meisterh., Att. Inschr., 
p. 203 f. 


416 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


of his addresses. Now in Jo. 21:24 we seem to have the com- 
ment of a brother (or several) on the Gospel of John which he has 
read and approved. Moulton! naturally suggests the hypothesis 
that the Gospel and Epistles of John had the smoothing hand of 
this brother of culture (perhaps in Ephesus), while in the Apoca- 
lypse we have John’s own rather uncultured Greek. One may 
add to this the idea of Winer about possible excitement and pas- 
sion due to the great ideas of the book. In the Isle of Patmos 
John, if still there, would have little opportunity for scholarly 
help and the book may have gone out unrevised. There are other 
theories, but this matter of authorship is not the grammarians’ 
task. 

(d) OTHER PecuLiARITIES IN ΑΡΡΟΒΙΤΙΟΝ. Further examples of 
apposition call for illustration. Thus in 1 Jo. 2:25, αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ 
ἐπαγγελία, ἣν αὐτὸς ἐπηγγείλατο ἡμῖν, THY ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον, We have τὴν 
ζωὴν in the case of the relative (because nearer) and not in that of 
the antecedent. Then again in Jo. 1:38 ῥαββεί is explained as 
διδάσκαλε, Vocative in the predicate (cf. also 20 : 16), while in 1: 41 
Μεσσίαν is naturally interpreted as Χριστός. In Jo. 18 : 18 ὁ διδά- 
σκαλος is in apposition with we where we would use quotation-marks. 
But this passage needs to be borne in mind in connection with 
Revelation. In 1 Cor. 16:21, τῇ ἐμῇ χειρὶ Παύλου, note the geni- 
tive in apposition with the possessive pronoun ἐμῇ according to 
the sense of the possessive, not its case. Once more the common 
use of the genitive of one substantive in practical apposition has 
already been noted in this chapter, III, (c), 5, Apposition. Thus ἡ 
ἑορτὴ τῶν ἀζύμων (Lu. 22:1). The use of τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν with any case 
has already been alluded to under Gender. Note Mk. 7:2; Ac. 
19:4; Ro: 7.:.18;,Phil 12:1) Peti3% 20 Πρ. 01 ΠῚ 1} 10 πε 
In αὐτὸς σωτὴρ τοῦ σώματος (Eph. 5: 29) αὐτός gives emphasis to the 
apposition. Inverse attraction of antecedent to case of the rela- 
tive (see Pronouns) is really apposition. 

(ὁ) Tur ABsoLuTE USE oF THE CAsEs (nominative, genitive, abla- 
tive and accusative). These will receive treatment in the chapter 
on Cases. Some of the peculiar nominatives noted in Revelation 
are the nominatiwus pendens, a common anacoluthon. Cf. ταῦτα 
ἃ θεωρεῖτε (Lu. 21: 6), ὁ νικῶν καὶ ὁ τηρῶν (Rev. 2:26). The paren- 
thetic nominative is seen in Jo. 1:6, ὄνομα αὐτῷ ᾿Ιωάνης, where ᾿Ιωά- 
νης might have been dative. But here merely the mention of the 
fact of the absolute use of the cases is all that is called for.? 

1 Prol., p. 9. See also Zahn’s Intr., § 74. 
2. Cf. Gildersleeve, Gk. Synt., p. 3; Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 373-376. 


THE SENTENCE 417 


X. Position of Words in the Sentence. 

(a) FrEEpoM From Russ. The freedom of the Greek from 
artificial rules and its response to the play of the mind is never seen 
better than in the order of words in the sentence. In English, 
since it has lost its inflections, the order of the words in the sen- 
tence largely determines the sense. Whether a substantive is 
subject or object can usually be seen in English only thus, or 
whether a given word is verb or substantive, substantive or ad- 
jective. Even the Latin, which is an inflectional tongue, has 
much less liberty than the Greek. We are thinking, of course, of 
Greek prose, not of poetry, where metre so largely regulates the 
position of words. The N. T. indeed enjoys the same freedom! 
that the older Greek did with perhaps some additional independ- 
ence from the vernacular κοινή as contrasted with the older lit- 
erary language. ‘The modern ‘Greek vernacular has maintained 
the Greek freedom in this respect (Thumb, Handb., p. 200). The 
Semitic. tongues also have much liberty in this matter. In Eng- 
lish it is common to see words in the wrong place that make ab- 
surd bungles, as this, for instance: ‘The man rode a horse with a 
black hat.’”’ In Greek one may say φιλεῖ ὁ πατὴρ τὸν υἱόν, ὁ πα- 
τὴρ φιλεῖ τὸν υἱόν Or φιλεῖ τὸν υἱὸν 6 πατὴρ, according to the stress in 
the mind of the βρϑαᾷκοι. 

(b) PREDICATE OFTEN Frrst. In Greek narrative, where the 
rhetorical element has less play, the predicate very commonly 
comes first, simply because, as a rule, the predicate is the most 
important thing in the sentence. Thus μακάριοι of πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύ- 
ματι (Mt. 5 : 3), εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν (Lu. 1:42), ἐγένετο δέ (Lu. 
2:1), καὶ ἐπορεύοντο (2 : 8), ἀνέβη δὲ (2:4), etc. But this is true so 
often, not because of any rule, but simply because the predicate 
is most frequently the main point in the clause. Blass? even 
undertakes to suggest a tentative scheme thus: predicate, sub- 
ject, object, complementary participle, etc. But Winer‘ rightly 
remarks that he would be an empirical expositor who would in- 
sist on any unalterable rule in the Greek sentence save that of 
spontaneity. 

(c) Empuasis. This is one of the ruling ideas in the order of 
words. This emphasis may be at the end as well as at the begin- 
ning of the sentence, or even in the middle in case of antithesis. 
The emphasis consists in removing a word from its usual position 
to an unusual one. So ἁλυκὸν γλυκὺ ποιῆσαι ὕδωρ (Jas. 3:12). Thus 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 287. ΟΝ ΠΟ ΚΡ. ot: 
2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 312. 4 W.-Th., p. 551. 


418 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


in Lu. 1:12 we have καὶ φόβος ἐπέπεσεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, but in Ac. 19:17 
καὶ ἐπέπεσεν φόβος ἐπὶ πάντας αὐτούς. Sometimes the words in con- 
trast are brought sharply together, as in Jo. 17: 4, éyw σε ἐδόξασα, 
and 17:5, viv δόξασόν με σύ. So ὑμῶν ἐμοῦ Lu. 10:16. Note also 
the intentional position of ὁ πατριάρχης in Heb. 7:4 ᾧ δεκάτην 
᾿Αβραὰμ ἔδωκεν ἐκ τῶν ἀκροθινίων, ὁ πατριάρχης. So also in 1 Pet. 2: 
7, ὑμῖν οὖν ἡ τιμὴ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν, note the beginning and the end 
of the sentence. This rhetorical emphasis is more common in the 
Epistles (Paul’s in particular) than in the Gospels and Acts for 
obvious reasons. Thus observe the position of ot in Ro. 11:17 
and of κἀκεῖνοι in verse 23. In Heb. 6:19 ἀσφαλῆ τε kal βεβαίαν do 
not come in immediate contact with ἄγκυραν as adjectives usually 
do. Observe also the emphatic climax in τετελειωμένον at the end 
of the sentence in Heb. 7:28. Cf. ἤδη — κεῖται in Mt. 3:10. Note 
the sharpness given to οὐ in 1 Cor. 1:17 by putting it first. So 
10:5. In 1 Cor. 2:7 θεοῦ σοφίαν throws proper emphasis upon 
θεοῦ. The position of the subordinate clause varies greatly. It 
often comes first, as in Lu. 1 : 1-4. 

(d) THe Mrnor WorpDs IN A SENTENCE. In general they 
come close to the word to which they belong in sense. Thus the 
adj. is near the subst. and after it. So ὕδωρ ζῶν (Jo. 4:10), δι- 
δάσκαλε ἀγαθέ (Mk. 10: 17), ζωὴν αἰώνιον (2b.). But observe ὅλον 
ἄνθρωπον ὑγιῆ (Jo. 7:23), both adjs. So also note δι᾽ ἀνύδρων τόπων 
(Mt. 12 : 43), καλὸν σπέρμα (Mt. 13: 27), ἐχθρὸς ἄνθρωπος (Mt. 13: 
28), where the adj. gives the main idea. With the repeated 
article the adj. has increased emphasis in ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός (Jo. 10: 
11). With πνεῦμα ἅγιον this is the usual order (as Mt. 3 : 11), but 
also τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα (Ac. 1:8) or τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον (Jo. 14: 26). In 
Ac. 1:5 the verb comes in between the substantive and adjective 
(ἐν πνεύματι βαπτισθήσεσθε ἁγίῳ) to give unity to the clause. So 
in Mt. 1: 20, ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου. Cf. ζωὴν ἔχετε αἰώνιον (1 Jo. 
5:13). In Ac. 26 : 24 note σε thus, τὰ πολλά σε γράμματα eis μανίαν 
περιτρέπει. So also in 1 Cor. 10:4 ἔπιον comes between τό and 
πόμα. The position of the genitive varies greatly, but the same 
general principle applies. The genitive follows as in τοῖς λόγοις 
τῆς xapitos (Lu. 4 : 22), unless emphatic as in τῶν ἀλλοτρίων τὴν 
φωνήν (Jo. 10:5). There is sharp emphasis in τῶν ἵππων in 
Jas. 3:3. A genitive may be on each side of the substantive as 
In ἡμῶν οἰκία τοῦ σκήνους (2 Cor. 5:1). Sharp contrast may be ex- 
pressed by proximity of two genitives, as in τὸν συνστρατιώτην pov, 
ὑμῶν δὲ ἀπόστολον (Ph. 2:25). There may be some contrast also 
in ob μου vires τοὺς πόδας (Jo. 13:6). But the personal enclitic 


THE SENTENCE 419 


pronouns have a tendency to come early in the sentence without 
emphasis, as πῶς ἠνεφχθησάν cov of ὀφθαλμοί (Jo. 9:10). Cf. iva 
σου προσκυνήσω τὴν χέραν B.G.U. 423 (ii/a.p.). Radermacher (N. 7’. 
Gr., p. 90) notes great freedom in the position of the genitive in 
the Attic authors and in the inscriptions. In the case of 6 ἄνθρω- 
πος οὗτος and οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος one must not look for any fine-spun 
distinction, though the same general principle of emphasis exists. 
In the matter of ταῦτα πάντα (Lu. 12 : 80) and πάντα ταῦτα (Mt. 
6 : 32) the first word carries the emphasis just as in πᾶς ὁ ὄχλος 
and ὁ ὄχλος πᾶς. Cf. πάντα τὰ μέλη τοῦ σώματος (1 Cor. 12 : 12) and 
of πατέρες ἡμῶν πάντες (1 Cor. 10:1) with ὁ πᾶς νόμος (Gal. 5: 14). 
Note the common Greek σὺ ris εἶ (Jo. 8:25). The vocative is 
often at the beginning of the sentence, as πατὴρ δίκαιε (Jo. 17: 25), 
but not always, as in παρακαλῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί (1 Cor. 1:10). In 
Jo. 14 : 9 οὐκ ἔγνωκάς με, Φίλιππε the vocative naturally comes after 
the pronoun. It comes within the sentence, as ὦ Θεόφιλε (Ac. 1: 
1), or at either end according as occasion requires. Some set 
phrases come in formal order, as ἄνδρες ἀδελφοὶ καὶ πατέρες (Ac. 7: 
2), like our “‘brethren and sisters,” ‘ladies and gentlemen,” ete. 
Other conventional phrases are ἄνδρας καὶ γυναῖκας (Ac. 8 : 3), χωρὶς 
γυναικῶν καὶ παιδίων (Mt. 14:21), νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν (Ac. 20:81), 
σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα (Mt. 16:17), βρῶσις καὶ πόσις (Ro. 14 : 17), ζώντων 
‘Kal νεκρῶν (Ac. 10:42); τὴν γῆν καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν (Ac. 4 : 24), ἡλίῳ καὶ 
σελήνῃ (Lu. 21 : 25), τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς (Mt. 11: 25), ἔργῳ καὶ 
λόγῳ (Lu. 24 : 19), ᾿Ιουδαίους τε καὶ “Ἕλληνας (Ro. ὅ : 9), δοῦλος οὐδὲ 
ἐλεύθερος (Gal. 3:28). The adverb generally has second place, as 
ὑψηλὸν λίαν (Mt. 4 : 8), but not always, as Nav yap ἀντέστη (2 Tim. 
4:15). Blass! notes that Matthew often puts the adverb after 
imperatives, as καταβάτω viv (Mt. 27:42), but before indicatives, 
as ἔτι ὑστερῶ (Mt. 19 : 20), a refinement somewhat unconscious, 
one may suppose. In general the words go together that make 
sense, and the interpretation is sometimes left to the reader’s in- 
sight. In Eph. 2:3, ἤμεθα τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς, note the position of 
φύσει between τέκνα and ὀργῆς. In Ro. ὃ : 3, κατέκρινε τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐν 
τῇ σαρκί, the adjunct ἐν τῇ σαρκί goes in sense with κατέκρινε, not 
ἁμαρτίαν. But this matter comes up again under the Article. In 
Mt. 2: 2, εἴδομεν yap αὐτοῦ τὸν ἀστέρα ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ, probably ἐν τῇ ava- 
τολῇ belongs in sense to the subject (‘we being in the east,’ etc.).? 
(e) EupHONY AND Ruytum. It will not do to say that em- 


1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 289. 
2 Porphyrios Logothetes as quoted by Agnes Lewis Smith in Exp. Times, 
Feb., 1908, p. 237. 


420 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


phasis alone explains every unusual order of words in a Greek sen- 
tence. Take Jo. 9:6, for instance, ἐπέθηκεν αὐτοῦ τὸν πηλὸν ἐπὶ τοὺς 
ὀφθαλμούς. Here αὐτοῦ is entirely removed from ὀφθαλμούς and is 
without particular emphasis. It was probably felt that the geni- 
tive of the pronouns made a weak close of a sentence. Observe 
also Jo. 9:10, cov of ὀφθαλμοί (cf. 9:11). Thus also 9: 17, 26, 30. 
Note érecev αὐτοῦ πρὸς τοὺς πόδας (Jo. 11:32) and οὐκ ἄν μου ἀπέθανεν 
ὁ ἀδελφός (ἰ0.). So σύ μου νίπτεις τοὺς πόδας (Jo. 18 : 6) where some 
emphasis by contrast may exist in spite of the enclitic form μου. 
Cf. ὑμῖν ἐμοί in Ph. 3:1. But on the other hand we have ὁ 
ἀδελφός μου in Jo. 11:21 (ef. 11: 23 cov) and τοῦ πατρός μου (Jo. 10: 
18). The tendency to draw the pronouns toward the first part of 
the sentence may account for some of this transposition, as in τὰ 
πολλά σε γράμματα eis μανίαν περιτρέπει (Ac. 26 : 24), but the matter 
goes much beyond the personal pronouns, as in ἐν πνεύματι βαπτισθή- 
σεσθε ἁγίῳ (Ac. 1:5), μικρὰν ἔχεις δύναμιν (Rev. 3:8), etc. Buta 
large amount of personal liberty was exercised in such trajection 
of words.! Is there any such thing as ryhthm in the N. T.? Deiss- 
mann? scouts the idea. If one thinks of the carefully balanced 
sentences of the Attic orators like Isocrates, Lysias and Demos- 
thenes, Deissmann is correct, for there is nothing that at all ap- 
proaches such artificial rhythm in the N. T., not even in Luke, 
Paul or Hebrews. Blass? insists that Paul shows rhythm in 
1 Cor. and that the book is full of art. He compares‘ Paul with 
Cicero, Seneca, Q. Curtius, Apuleius, and finds rhythm also in 
Hebrews which “ποῦ unfrequently has a really oratorical and 
choice order of words.’’> He cites in Heb. 1 : 4 τοσούτῳ κρείττων 
γενόμενος τῶν ἀγγέλων ὅσῳ διαφορώτερον παρ᾽ αὐτοὺς κεκληρονόμηκεν 
ὄνομα; 1:5; 11:32; 12:1, 8, etc. In Greek in general he suggests 
that lively and animated discourse gives rise to dislocations of 
words. Now one would think Blass ought to know something 
of Greek style. But Deissmann will have none of it. He refers 
Blass to Schramm, who wrote in 1710 of De stupenda eruditione 
Pauli apostoli and thinks that Blass is wilful and arbitrary in his 


1 Boldt, De lib. Ling. Greece. et Lat. Colloc. Verb. Capita Sel., p. 186. 

2 Theol. Literaturzeit., 1906, p. 484; Exp., Jan., 1908, p. 74. 

3. Die Rhythmen der asian. und rém. Kunstprosa, 1905, pp. 43, 53. 

4 Ib., pp. 73 f., 77. Cf. Hadley, On Anc. Gk. Rhythm and Metre in Ess. 
Phil. and Crit., pp. 81 ff. 

5. Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 288. Cf. Zarncke, Die Entstehung der griech. 
Literatursprachen, p. 5 f., for good remarks about rhythm. See also Dewing, 
The Orig. of the Accentual Prose Rhythm in Gk., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1910, 
pp. 313-328. 


THE SENTENCE 421 


use and proof of rhythm. On the other hand Sir W. M. Ramsay! 
contends that Paul was a better Hellenist in point of culture than 
some suppose, and knew Greek philosophy and used it. It is after 
all partly a dispute about terms. If by rhythm one means grace 
and charm of diction that naturally belong to the expression of 
elevated ideas under the stress of chastened passion, surely one 
would be hypercritical to deny it to 1 Cor. 13 and 15, Ac. 17, Ro. 
8 and 12, Eph. 3, Jo. 14-17, Heb. 2 and 11, not to mention many 
beautiful passages that seem perfect like pearls. At white heat 
nature often strikes off what is better than anything mere art can 
do even as to beauty of form and expression. Luke? may even 
have known Thucydides, and yet one has no right to expect the 
“niceties of language* in the vernacular which contribute so 
much to the charm of Plato.’ Intonation and gesture in spoken 
language take the place of these linguistic refinements to a very 
large extent. It is true that Paul’s ‘Greek has to do with no 
school, with no model, but streams unhindered with overflowing 
bubbling direct out of the heart,” but “‘yet is real Greek,” as Wila- 
mowitz-Mo6llendorff* remarks. Wilamowitz-MOllendorff does in- 
deed hold that Paul knew little Greek outside of the Greek Bible, 
but he thinks that his letters are unique in Greek literature. On 
Paul’s Hellenism see chapter IV, and also G. Milligan, Epistles to 
the Thess., p. lv. On p. lvi Milligan takes the writer’s view that 
the “well-ordered passages’ and “splendid outbursts” in Paul’s 
writings are due to natural emotion and instinctive feeling rather 
than studied art. Bultmann (Der Stil der Paulinischen Predigt 
und die Kynisch-stoische Diatribe, 1910) finds that Paul had the 
essential elements of the Stoic Diatribe in his argumentative style 
(question and answer, antithesis, parallelism, etc.). Paul’s art 
is indeed like that of the Cynic-Stoic Diatribe as described by 
Wendland,®* but he does not have their refinement or overpunc- 
tiliousness.° It is not surprising to find that occasionally N. T. 
writers show unintentional metre, as is common with speakers and 
writers of any language. In the Textus Receptus of Heb. 12:13 
there is a good hexameter, καὶ tpdxi| as dp |Aas ποι σᾶἄτεϊ τοις root | 


1 The Cities of Paul, 1908, pp. 6, 10, 34. Cf. Hicks, St. Paul and Hellen. 

2 J. H. Smith, Short Stud. on the Gk. Text of the Acts of the Apost., Pref. 

3 J. H. Moulton, Intr. to the Study of N. T. Gk., p. 7. 

4 Die griech. Lit. des Altert., p. 159. ΤΊ. 1, Abt. 8, Die Kultur der Gegenw., 
1907. W.H. P. Hatch, J.B.L., 1909, p. 149 f., suggests 7’ ay. in Jas. 1:17. 

5 Beitr. zur Gesch. der Gk. Phil. und Rel., 1905, p. 3 f. 

6 J. Weiss, Beitr. zur Paulin. Rhet., 1897, p. 167 f. 


422 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


vuar, but the critical text spoils it all by reading ποιεῖτε. So also 
one may find two trimeters in Heb. 12:14 f. (ob — ἀπό), one in 
Jo. 4:35 (rerpdunvos — ἔρχεται), one in Ac. 23 : 5 (ἄρχοντα --- κακῶς). 
Green (Handbook to the Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 356) cites the acci- 
dental English anapeestic line “To preach the acceptable year of 
the Lord,” the hexameter “Husbands, love your wives, and be 
not bitter against them,” and the iambic couplet ‘Her ways are 
ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.’”’ But surely 
no one would call these writers poets because occasional metre 
is found in their writings. ‘There is an unconscious harmony of 
soul between matter and form. Paul does indeed quote the Greek 
poets three times, once an iambic trimeter acataleptus from the 
comic poet Menander (1 Cor. 15: 39) φθείρου atv 4/04 xpn| ora ὅὄμι!] 
λῖαι κἄκαι, though one anapest occurs (some MSS. have χρησθ᾽), 
once half an hexameter from Aratus (Ac. 17:28) τοῦ yap|xat 
γένος [ἐσμέν, and a full hexameter from Epimenides of Crete (Tit. 
1:12) xpnrés alec ψεῦ  σταῖ xaxa|Onpia|yaorépés|apyar. How much 
more Paul knew of Greek poetry we:do not know, but he was 
not ignorant of the philosophy of the Stoics and Epicureans in 
Athens. Blass! indeed thinks that the author of Hebrews studied 
in the schools of rhetoric where prose rhythm was taught, such as 
the careful balancing of ending with ending, beginning with be- 
ginning, or ending with beginning. He thinks he sees proof of 
it in Heb. 1:1f., 3,4 f.; 12:14f., 24. But here again one is in- 
clined to think that we have rather the natural correspondence 
of form with thought than studied rhetorical imitation of the 
schools of Atticism or even of Asianism. We cannot now follow 
the lead of the old writers who saw many fanciful artistic turns 
of phrase.2 Antitheses and parallelisms could be treated here as 
expressions of rhythm, but they can be handled better in the 
chapter on Figures of Speech. As a specimen of an early Chris- 
tian hymn note 1 Tim. 3:16. Harnack (The Independent, Dec. 
28, 1912) takes this as a Christmas hymn. Elizabeth (Lu. 1: 
42-45), Mary (1:46-55) and Zacharias (1:67-79) break forth 
into poetic strains with something of Hebrew spirit and form. 
In Eph. 5 : 14 we have another possible fragment of a Christian 
hymn. The Lord’s Prayer in Mt. 6: 9-13 is given in metrical 
arrangement by W. H. Cf. Hort, Intr. to N. Το in Gk., Ὁ. 319 f. 
In general on N. T. parallelism see Briggs, Messiah of the Gospels 
Ie Gr. Of Lk ΠΟ: 


> Cf., for instance, Gersdorf, Beitr. zur Sprachcharakt. d. Schriftst. ἃ. N.T., 
1816, pp. 90, 502. 


THE SENTENCE 423 


and Messiah of the Apostles. In 1 Cor. 13 one can see the beauty 
and melody of a harmonious arrangement of words. See also the 
latter part of 1 Cor. 15. 

(7) PRouEpsis is not uncommon where either the substantive is 
placed out of its right place before the conjunction in a subordinate 
clause like τὴν ἀγάπην ἵνα γνῶτε (2 Cor. 2:4) and βιωτικὰ κριτήρια 
ἐὰν ἔχητε (1 Cor. 6 : 4), or the subject of the subordinate clause even 
becomes the object of the previous verb like ἰδεῖν τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν τίς 
ἐστιν (Lu. 19:3). Cf. Ac. 18:32. But this betokens no studied 
aru Cfo Mikes 24. 11] 1026; Ro..9 219, 20; 14: 4, 1031 Cor: 
15:36. So ἡμῖν in Ac. 3: 12. 

(g) HysTpERon ProtTeRON. We occasionally meet also an ex- 
ample of ὕστερον πρότερον like ἀγγέλους τοῦ θεοῦ ἀναβαίνοντας καὶ κατα- 
βαίνοντας (Jo. 1:51), a natural inversion from our point of view. 
But Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 553) does not admit this figure in 
the N. T. Certainly not all the apparent examples are real. The 
order of πεπιστεύκαμεν καὶ ἔγνώκαμεν (JO. 6: 69) is Just as true as 
that of ἔγνωσαν καὶ ἐπίστευσαν (Jo. 17:8). Cf. also περιπατῶν καὶ 
ἁλλόμενος (Ac. 8 : 8) and ἥλατο καὶ περιεπάτει (Ac. 14 : 10) where each 
order suits the special case. Cf. 1 Tim. 2:4 and 2 Pet. 1:9 for 
alleged examples that disappear on close examination. 

(h) HypERBATON. Adverbs sometimes appear to be in the 
wrong place, a phenomenon common in all Greek prose writers. 
In 1 Cor. 14:7 ὅμως would come in more smoothly just before 
ἐάν, but it is perfectly intelligible where it is. Cf. also Gal. 
3:15 for similar use of ὅμως. Cf. distance of ἤδη from κεῖται 
(Mt. 3:10). In Ro. 3:9 οὐ πάντως is our ‘not at all,’ while in 
1 Cor. 16:12 πάντως οὐκ ‘wholly not,’ just as in 1 Cor. 15:51 
πάντες ov κοιμηθησόμεθα means ‘all of us shall not sleep,’ not ‘none 
of us shall sleep.’ Cf. also οὐ πάντως in 1 Cor. 5:9 f., an explana- 
tion of the negative μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι just before, ‘not wholly.’ 
In the case of οὐ μόνον in Ro. 4:12, 16, the words οὐ μόνον are 
separated and in 4 : 12 the repetition of the article τοῖς makes ov 
μόνον seem quite misplaced. Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 555) is 
certainly right in insisting that οὐχ ὅτι (2 Cor. 8 : 5) is not to be 
treated as ὅτι οὐκ. Cf. οὐχ ἵνα — ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα (2 Cor. 13:7). A more 
difficult passage is found in Heb. 11:3, els τὸ μὴ ἐκ φαινομένων τὰ 
βλεπόμενα γεγονέναι, Where μή is the negative of the phrase ἐκ φαινο- 
μένων TO βλεπόμενον γεγονέναι. In general the negative comes before 
the word or words that are negatived. Hence οὐκ εἴων (Ac. 19: 30), 
οὐκ ἔστιν (Gal. 3:20). But note μὴ πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι γίνεσθε (Jas. 
3:1). Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 257) notes the possible am- 


424 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


biguity in Ac. 7:48 because of the use of οὐχ before ὁ ὕψιστος 
instead of before κατοικεῖ. Observe in strong contrasts how οὐ 
stands over against ἀλλά (Ro. 2:13). Blass! has little sympathy 
with the grammatical device of hyperbaton to help out exegesis. 
The construction, found in ὡς ἀπὸ σταδίων δεκαπέντε (Jo. 11 : 18) 
has been supposed to be a Latinism when compared with Lu. 
24:13. So also with πρὸ ἕξ ἡμερῶν τοῦ πάσχα (Jo. 12:1) was for- 
merly considered a Latinism. But Moulton? shows conclusively 
that it is Doric and Ionic before the possibility of Latin influence, 
and besides is common in the κοινή papyri, a mere coincidence with 
the Latin. See also ch. XIII, vi, (m), 5. 

(ὃ Postpositives. A number of words are always postposi- 
tive in Greek. In the N. T. ἄν, γάρ, γε, δέ, μέν, μέντοι, οὖν, Te NeVer 
begin a sentence, in harmony with ancient Greek usage. These 
words commonly in the N. T. come in the second place, always so 
with μέντοι (Jo. 4 : 27, etc.). In the case of μέν the third place is 
occasionally found as 1 Pet. 2:4, the fourth as 2 Cor. 10:1, the 
fifth in Eph. 4:11; Jo. 16: 22, or even, the sixth in Jas. 3:17. It 
occupies the seventh place in Herm. Sim. viii, 5:1 (Mr. H. Scott 
has noted). In general these words vary in position according to 
the point to be made in relation to other words. So also οὖν is 
more commonly in the second, but varies to the third (Jo. 16 : 22) 
and fourth (1 Cor. 8:4). The same remark applies to γάρ, for 
which see Mk. 1:38; 2 Cor. 1:19. As to δέ, it may not only go 
to the fourth place (Jo. 8 : 16), but even appears in the fifth (1 Jo. 
2:2), οὐ περὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων δέ. It stands in the sixth place in 
‘est. XII. Patr. Judah, 9:1 (Mr. H. Scott reports). In the case 
of γε it follows naturally the word with which it belongs as in 
Ro. ὃ : 32 (és ye), even in the case of ἀλλά γε (Lu. 24 : 21) which is 
always separated in the older Greek. Cf. also εἴ ye Eph. 3 : 2. 
"Av in the apodosis (ποῦς ἐάν) or with relatives or conjunctives, 
never begins a clause in Greek. It is usually the second word in 
the apodosis, either after the verb, as εἶπον ἄν (Jo. 14 : 2), or after 
οὐκ, as οὐκ ἄν (Mk. 18 : 20), or the interrogative, as ris ἄν (Lu. 9 : 46). 
With the relative ἄν follows directly or as the third word, as és ἄν 
and ὃς δ᾽ ἄν (Mt. 23:16). Te usually follows the word directly, 
as In πονηρούς τε (Mt. 22:10), even after a preposition, as σύν τε 
χιλίαρχοις (Ac. 25 : 23); but note τῶν ἐθνῶν re (Ac. 14 : δ). 

(j) Fuucruatina Worps. There is another group of words 
that vary in the matter, now postpositive, now not. Thus dpa’ 

1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 290. 
? Prol., pp. 100 ff. Cf. also LXX, as Amos 1:1; 4:7, ete. 


THE SENTENCE 425 


may be first in the clause (Mt. 12 : 28), contrary to older Greek 
custom. So also dpaye (Mt. 7: 20) and ἄρα οὖν (Ro. 7:3). Except 
in a few instances like Ro. 8:1 the examples where ἄρα is post- 
positive in the N. T. are in questions after the interrogative or 
after a conjunction. Once (Ro. 10:18) μενοῦνγε begins the sen- 
tence. Τοίνυν occurs only three times and twice begins the sen- 
tence (Lu. 20 : 25; Heb. 18 : 18) as τοιγαροῦν does (Heb. 12:1). 
The indefinite τὲς sometimes comes first in the sentence, as τινὲς δέ 
(Lu: 6: 2). Enclitics can therefore stand at the beginning, though 
not commonly so. In the case of ἕνεκεν its position is usually be- 
fore the word except with the interrogative, as τίνος ἕνεκεν (Ac. 
19 : 32), or a relative, as οὗ εἵνεκεν (Lu. 4:18). But χάριν follows 
its case save in χάριν τίνος (1 Jo. 3:12). Χωρίς precedes the word, 
but note οὗ χωρίς (Heb. 12:14). The N. T. therefore shows rather 
more freedom with these words. 

(k) THe ORDER OF CLAUSES IN COMPOUND SENTENCES. Blass! 
considers this a matter of style rather than of grammar. When 
the whole sentence is composed of a principal clause, with one or 
more subordinate clauses, the order of these clauses is largely 
dependent on the flow of thought in the speaker’s mind. In the 
case of conditional as Mt. 17 : 4, final as in Mt. 17 : 27, and rela- 
tive clauses as in Mt. 16 : 25, the dependent very often precedes 
the principal clause. There is usually a logical basis for this order. 
But in Jo. 19 : 28 the final clause somewhat interrupts the flow 
of the sentence. Cf. also Ro. 9:11. In 2 Cor. 8:10, οἵτινες οὐ 
μόνον τὸ ποιῆσαι ἀλλὰ Kal TO θέλειν προενήρξασθε ἀπὸ πέρυσι, there is no 
violent change of order. Logically the willing preceded the doing 
and makes the natural climax. Blass? is undoubtedly right in 
refusing to take rim λόγῳ εὐηγγελισάμην as dependent on εἰ κα- 
τέχετε (1 Cor. 15:2). In Jo. 10:36 we meet a somewhat tangled 
sentence because the antecedent of ὅν is not expressed. Here 
λέγετε is the principal verb, the apodosis of the condition, and has 
two objects (the relative clause and the ὅτι clause) with a causal 
clause added. So in Jo. 10:88 we have a good example of the 
complex sentence with two conditions, a final clause, an object- 
clause, besides the principal clause.* 

XI. Compound Sentences. 

(a) Two Kinps oF SENTENCES. The sentence is either simple 
or complex. The complex is nothing but two simple sentences 


ΠΟΙ iN yb Gk... 291: a" Ib. 
3 On the whole subject of the position of words in the sentence see K.-G., 
Bd. I, pp. 592-604, 


426 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


put together. All that is true of one part of this complex sentence 
may be true of the other as to subject and predicate. The same 
linguistic laws apply to both. But in actual usage each part of 
the complex sentence has its own special development. The two 
parts have a definite relation to each other. Originally men used 
only simple sentences. Cf. Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 552. 

(Ὁ) Two Kinps oF CompouND SENTENCES (Paratactic and 
Hypotactic). In parataxis (παράταξι) we have co-ordination 
of two parallel clauses. Take Mk. 14:37 as an example, καὶ 
ἔρχεται καὶ εὑρίσκει αὐτοὺς καθεύδοντας, καὶ λέγει τῷ Πέτρῳ. In hypo- 
taxis (ὑπόταξις) one clause is subordinated to the other, as in οὐκ 
οἴδατε τί αἰτεῖσθε (Mk. 10 : 38) where τί αἰτεῖσθε is in the accusative 
case, the object of οἴδατε. Parataxis is the rule in the speech of 
children, primitive men, unlettered men and also of Homer. Cf. 
Sterrett, Homer’s Iliad, N. 49. 

On the two kinds of sentences see Paul, Principles of Language, 
p. 1391. See also Delbriick, Vergl. Syntax, 3. Tl., pp. 259-286; 
Brugmann, Griech. Gr., pp. 551 ff.; Kiihner-Gerth, Bd. II, p. 351. 

(c) Paratactic SENTENCES. They are very common in the 
Sanskrit and in Homer (cf. Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 555) and in 
the Hebrew. In truth in the vernacular generally and the earlier 
stages of language parataxis prevails. It is more common with 
some writers than with others, John, for instance, using it much 
more frequently than Paul or even Luke. In John xai sometimes 
is strained to mean ‘and yet,’ as in 3:19; 4:20, etc.1 The 
κοινή Shows a decided fondness for the paratactic construction 
which in the modern Greek is still stronger (Thumb, Handb., 
p. 184). As in the modern Greek, so in the N. T. καί, according 
to logical sequence of thought, carries the notion of ‘but,’ ‘that,’ 
besides ‘and yet,’ introducing quasi-subordinate clauses. For 
details concerning paratactic conjunctions see chapter on Par- 
ticles. In the use of καί (cf. Heb.1) after éyévero the paratactic καί 
borders very close on to the hypotactic ὅτι. Thus ἐγένετο δὲ καὶ 
-- αὐτὸς τὸ πρόσωπον ἐστήρισεν (Lu. 9 : 51). 

(dq) Hyporactic SENTENCES. They are introduced either by 
relative pronouns or conjunctions, many of which are relatives in 
origin and others adverbs. The subject of conjunctions will demand 
special and extended treatment later on (chapters on Modes and 
on Particles), and so will relative clauses. On the use of the relative 
thus see Brugmann, Giriech. Gr., p. 553. The propensity of the 
later Greek for parataxis led to an impoverishment of particles. 

1 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 135. 


THE SENTENCE 427 


Hypotactic sentences, once more, are either substantival, ad- 
jectival or adverbial, in their relation to the principal or another 
subordinate clause. Thus in Lu. 22 : 2 τὸ πῶς ἀνέλωσιν is the sub- 
stantive object of ἐζήτουν, as τὸ τίς εἴη 15 Of συνζητεῖν in Lu. 22 : 23. 
As a sample of the subject-clause in the nominative take οὐ μέλει 
σοι ὅτι ἀπολλύμεθα (Mk. 4:38). In Mt. 7:12 ὅσα ἐὰν θέλητε is an 
adjective sentence and describes πάντα. In Mt. 6:16 ὅταν νηστεύ- 
nre is an adverb in its relation to γίνεσθε. 

In the beginning the hypotactic sentence corresponded closely 
to the principal sentence. Cf. Brugmann, Giriech. Gr., p. 554. On 
the whole subject of substantive, adjective and adverb sentences 
see Kiihner-Gerth, Bd. II, pp. 354-465. The matter has further 
discussion under Modes (Subordinate Clauses). 

XII. Connection in Sentences. 

(a) StnGLE Worps. These have connectives in a very natural! 
way, as δύναμιν καὶ ἐξουσίαν --- δαιμόνια καὶ νόσους (Lu. 9:1). But 
common also is καί --- καί (Jo. 2 : 14), re — καί (2 : 15), and rarely 
re — te (Ac. 26:16). This tendency to break up into pairs is well 
shown in Ac. 2:9-11. For ἤ see Mt. 5:17, ἀλλά 2 Cor. 7:11, 
οὐδὲ Rev. 5:3. In enumerations the repetition of καί gives a 
kind of solemn dignity and is called polysyndeton. Cf. Rev. 
7:12 ἡ εὐλογία καὶ ἡ δόξα Kal ἡ σοφία καὶ ἡ εὐχαριστία Kal ἡ τιμὴ Kal ἡ 
δύναμις καὶ ἡ ἰσχὺς τῷ θεῷ. Cf. also Rev. 4:11; 5:12; Ro. 9:4. 
Note also a similar repetition of οὔτε in Ro. 8:38 f. For μήτε 
see Jas. 5:12. So with ἤ in Mk. 10:29. Perhaps, as Blass sug- 
gests,2 polysyndeton is sometimes necessary and devoid of any 
particular rhetorical effect, as in Lu. 14:21. But asyndeton 15 
frequent also. It often gives emphasis. See Mt. 15:19; Jo. 5:3;1 
Cor. 14 : 24; 15:1f. Fora striking example of asyndeton see Ro. 
1 : 29-31, where some variety is gained by change in construction 
(case) and the use of adjective instead of substantive, πεπληρω- 
μένους πάσῃ ἀδικίᾳ πονηρίᾳ πλεονεξίᾳ κακίᾳ, μεστοὺς φθόνου φόνου ἔριδος 
δόλου κακοηθίας, ψιθυριστάς, καταλάλους, θεοστυγεῖς, ὑβριστάς, ὑπερ- 
ηφάνους, ἀλαζόνας, ἐφευρετὰς κακῶν, γονεῦσιν ἀπειθεῖς, ἀσυνέτους, ἀσυν- 
θέτους, ἀστόργους, ἀνελεήμονας. Cf. also 1 Cor. 3:12. Sometimes 
the connective is used with part of the list (pairs) and not with 
the rest, for the sake of variety, as in 1 Tim. 1: 91. An ex- 
ample like εὐκαίρως ἀκαίρως is compared by Blass* to nolens volens. 


1 On the whole subject of connection in sentences see Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., 
8. ΤΊ., pp. 406-437; Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 551-566; K.-G., Bd. IT, pp. 224-515. 
On asyndeton in general see Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., pp. 342-358. 

2°Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 277. 8 ΤΌ. 


428 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(Ὁ) CuausEs. But connection is by no means uniform between 
sentences. This remark applies to both the paratactic and the 
hypotactic sentences. Asyndeton in sentences and clauses is on 
the whole repugnant to the Greek language in the opinion of 
Blass... Hence complex sentences in the N. T. usually have con- 
nectives, but not always. 

1. Paratactic Sentences. The co-ordinating conjunctions form 
the most frequent means of connecting clauses into one paratactic 
sentence. These conjunctions will receive special treatment in the 
chapter on Particles and here only some illustrations can be given. 
Kal, re, δέ, οὐδέ, μηδέ, μέν and δέ, οὔτε, ἀλλά are the most frequent 
particles used for this purpose. They are more common indeed 
in historical writings, as in the Gospels and Acts. But in the Gos- 
pels the use of καί varies a good deal. Mark, for instance, has it 
more than 400 times, while John contains it only 100.2 Deissmann 
calls this use of καί primitive popular Greek. ‘The presence of 
dialogue in John hardly explains all the difference, and even in 
John the first chapter uses it much more frequently than the last. 
As a good example of the use of καί turn to Mt. 4 : 238-25. Cf. 
Lu. 6: 13-17 and Mk. 9:2. Te is common chiefly in the Acts, as 
14: 11-18. Sometimes the use of καί between clauses amounted 
to polysyndeton, as in Jo. 10:3, 9, 12. Aéis perhaps less common 
in clauses (Jo. 4:5) except with μέν (Mt. 3:11). For δὲ καί see 
Jo. 2:2. Οὐδέ is illustrated by Mt. 5:15, ἀλλά by 5:17, οὔτε by 
Ac. 28:21. But asyndeton appears also, as in Lu. 6: 27f., 
ἀγαπᾶτε, ποιεῖτε, εὐλογεῖτε, προσεύχεσθε, even if it be to a limited 
extent. Cf. Gal. 5:22. Blass® points out that that is not a case 
of asyndeton where a demonstrative pronoun is used which re- 
flects the connection. Cf. thus the use of τοῦτον in Ac. 16 : 8; Jo. 
5:6. Winer‘ finds asyndeton frequent in cases of a climax in 
impassioned discourse, as in 1 Cor. 4:8, ἤδη κεκορεσμένοι ἐστέ" ἤδη 
ἐπλουτήσατε, χωρὶς ἡμῶν ἐβασιλεύσατε. The absence of the connective 
gives life and movement, as in σιώπα, πεφίμωσο (Mk. 4:39). Ob- 
serve also ὕπαγε πρῶτον διαλλάγηθι (Mt. 5:24), ὕπαγε ἔλεγξον (18:15), 
ἔγειρε ἄρον (Mk. 2 : 11), ἐγείρεσθε ἄγωμεν (Mt. 26 : 46), ἄγε, κλαύσατε 
(Jas. δ : 1). This use of ἄγε is common in the old Greek (Gilder- 
sleeve, Greek Syntax, p. 29). But in Jo. 1:46 we have ἔρχου καὶ 
ἴδε. In 1 Tim. 3:16 the fragment of an rie hymn is neatly bal- 
anced in Hebrew parallelism. 

1_Gr, ONZE Gr epee 


5 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 134. On the subject of asyndeton in John see Abbott, 
pp. 69 ff. *) Gr. of NS ΟΠ 70: 4 W.-Th., p. 538. 


THE SENTENCE 429 


Ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, 
ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, 
ὥφθη ἀγγέλοις, 
ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, 
ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, 
ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ. 


Here the connective would be quite out of place. 

In contrast the connective may also be absent, as in ὑμεῖς 
προσκυνεῖτε ὃ οὐκ οἴδατε, ἡμεῖς προσκυνοῦμεν ὃ οἴδαμεν (JO. 4:22). So 
Ac. 25:12. Cf. in particular 1 Cor. 15 : 42 ff., σπείρεται ἐν φθορᾷ, 
ἐγείρεται ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ" σπείρεται ἐν ἀτιμίᾳ, Evyelperar ἐν δόξῃ" σπείρεται ἐν 
ἀσθενείᾳ, ἔγείρεται ἐν δυνάμει᾽ σπείρεται σῶμα Ψψυχικόν, ἔγείρεται σῶμα 
πνευματικόν. Here the solemn repetition of the verbs is like the 
tolling of a bell. Cf. also Jas. 1:19, ταχὺς εἰς τὸ ἀκοῦσαι, βραδὺς εἰς 
τὸ λαλῆσαι, βραδὺς eis ὀργήν. John is rather fond of repetition with 
asyndeton in his report of Jesus’ words, as ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς Kai ἡ 
ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ fan’ οὐδεὶς ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸν πατέρα εἰ μή δὶ ἐμοῦ (14 : 6). 
Cf. 10:11; 15:13, etc. But this sort of asyndeton occurs else- 
where also, as in 1 Cor. 7:15, od δεδούλωται ὁ ἀδελφός. Cf. also 7: 
23; Rev. 22:18. A common asyndeton in Luke occurs after καὶ 
ἔγένετο Without another καί, as εἶπέν τις (11:1). 

2. Hypotactic Sentences. In the nature of the case they usu- 
ally have connectives. The subordinating conjunctions are more 
necessary to the expression of the exact shade of thought than in 
paratactic clauses. The closeness of connection varies greatly in 
various kinds of subordinate clauses and often in clauses of the 
same kind. The use of the correlative accents this point, as οἷος 
ὁ ἐπουράνιος, τοιοῦτοι Kal of ἐπουράνιοι (1 Cor. 15 : 48); ὥσπερ --- οὕτως 
(Mt. 12:40). But real antithesis may exist without the correla- 
tive, asin Mt. 5:48; 6:2. In relative clauses the bond is very 
close and is sometimes made closer by agreement of the relative 
and antecedent not only in number and gender but even in case, 
as ots (Lu. 2 : 20) and τὸν ἄρτον ὅν (1 Cor. 10: 16). There may be 
several relative clauses either co-ordinate (Ac. 3 : 2 f.) or subordi- 
nate to another (Ac. 13:31; 25:15f.). So also the use of εἶτα, 
τότε, ἄρα, Kai, ἀλλά, δέ In the apodosis accents the logical connection 
Dmiuoucht. Gf Mt. 12 : 28° Mk. 13 314° Jo.i7 2 10:20: 21; 1 
Cor. 15 : 54; 2 Cor. 7:12, etc. But much closer than with tem- 
poral, comparative, conditional, or even some relative clauses is 
the tie between the principal clause and the subordinate objec- 
tive, consecutive, final and causal clauses. These are directly de- 


430 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


pendent on the leading clause. Interrogative sentences when in 
indirect discourse really become object-clauses, like τὸ τίς ἄρα εἴη 
(Lu. 22 : 23), object of συνζητεῖν. The ὅτι, ἵνα, ὅπως (and ὡς rarely) 
clauses are closely knit to the principal clause as subject, object 
(direct or indirect) of the verb. There is a natural interblending 
between object and causal sentences, as shown by the use of ὅτι for 
both and διότι in late Greek in the sense of ‘that,’ objective ὅτι. 
Cf. quod and quia in late Latin, and English the ‘reason that” 
and colloquial the “‘reason why.” In Greek ὅτι even interchanges 
with εἰ (cf. English “wonder if” and “ wonder that”). So ἐθαύμασεν 
εἰ ἤδη τέθνηκεν (Mk. 15: 44). Cf. Ac. 8: 22; 26: 8. Clauses with 
the consecutive idea usually have the infinitive in the N. T. Hy- 
potactic sentences cannot be here discussed in detail, but only as 
illustrating the point of connection between sentences. Winer! is 
hardly right in describing as asyndeton Jas. 5:13, κακοπαθεῖ τις 
ev ὑμῖν; προσευχέσθω, Where εἰ is not used, and the structure is para- 
tactic. He cites also δοῦλος ἐκλήθης; μή σοι μελέτω (1 Cor. 7:21). 
The questions in Jas. 2:19 f. are also paratactic. But more cer- 
tain examples exist than these, where either a conjunction has 
dropped out or, as is more likely, we have original parataxis. 
Thus ἄφες ἐκβάλω (Mt. 7:4), ἄφες ἴδωμεν (Mt. 27:49) can 
be compared with δεῦτε ἴδετε (Mt. 28 : 6), δεῦρο ἀποστείλω (Ac. 
7:34), δεῦτε ἀποκτείνωμεν (Mk. 12:7) and the common Greek 
idiom with ἄγε, φέρε. Cf. Jas. 5:1. In Mk. 15:36 note ἄφετε 
ἴδωμεν. One verb really supplements the other much as the infin- 
itive or participle. Cf. English “let us 566.᾽ In the modern Greek 
as (abbreviation of ἄφες) is used uniformly as the English and al- 
most like a particle. Of a similar nature is the asyndeton with 
θέλεις συλλέξωμεν (Mt. 18 : 28) and βούλεσθε ἀπολύσω (Jo. 18 : 39). 
Cf. θέλετε ποιήσω (Mk. 10 : 36). Cf. also ἐγείρεσθε ἄγωμεν (Mt. 26: 
46) above. These are all paratactic in origin, though hypotactic 
in logical sequence. But see chapter on Modes for further details. 
In the case of ὅρα, ὁρᾶτε, βλέπετε, we can find examples of both the 
conjunctional use of μή and clear cases of asyndeton with some on 
the border line. Thus clearly conjunctional μή is found in βλεπέτω 
μὴ πέσῃ (1 Cor. 10 : 12), βλέπετε μὴ ἐπέλθῃ (Ac. 18 : 40), βλέπετε μὴ 
παραιτήσησθε (Heb. 12 : 25). Asyndeton is undoubtedly in ὅρα μη- 
devi μηδὲν εἴπῃς (Mk. 1 : 44) with which compare ὕπαγε δεῖξον in the 
same verse. Cf. also Mt. 8:4. Thus again ὁρᾶτε μηδεὶς γινωσκέτω 
(Mt. 9:30) where note two imperatives as in ὁρᾶτε, μὴ θροεῖσθε 
(Mt. 24:6). But in βλέπετε μή τις ὑμᾶς πλανήσῃ (Mt. 24:4) and 
1 W.-Th., p. 541. 


THE SENTENCE 431 


ὁρᾶτε μή τις ἀποδῷ (1 Th. 5:15) the asyndeton is more doubtful, 
since μή can be regarded as a conjunction. Cf. 2 Cor. 8 : 20. 

3. The Infinitive and Participle as Connectives. A very common 
connection is made between clauses by means of the infinitive 
or the participle, sometimes with particles like ὥστε and πρίν 
with the infinitive or ὡς, ὥσπερ, καίπερ, with the participle, but 
usually without a particle. The infinitive often is used with 
the article and a preposition, as ἐν τῷ εἶναι (Lu. 9:18). But 
usually the infinitive is brought into the closest connection 
with the verb as subject (τὸ yap θέλειν παράκειταί μοι, Ro. 7 : 18) 
or object (βούλομαι προσεύχεσθαι ἄνδρας, 1 Tim. 2:8), or in a 
remoter relation, as ἐξῆλθεν ὁ σπείρων τοῦ σπεῖραι (Mk. 4 : 8). 
The participle sometimes is an essential part of the predicate, as 
ἐπαύσατο λαλῶν (Lu. 5:4), or again it may be a mere addendum 
or preliminary or even an independent statement. Thus observe 
εἰσελθών, διαλεγόμενος καὶ πείθων in Ac. 19:8. As further examples of 
participles somewhat loosely strung together without a connec- 
tive in more or less close relation to each other and the principal 
sentence see Ac. 12:25; 16:27; 23:27. The genitive abso- 
lute is common in such accessory participles. The only point to 
consider concerning the infinitive and participle here is the fre- 
quency with which they are used in the structure of the Greek sen- 
tence. Thus long sentences are easily constructed and sometimes 
the connection is not clear. Frequent examples of anacoluthon 
come from the free use of the participle, as will be shown later. 
See χειροτονηθείς and στελλόμενοι aS instances in 2 Cor. 8:19 f. 
By means of the infinitive and participle the Greek enjoyed much 
elasticity and freedom which the modern Greek has lost. In 
modern Greek conjunctions and finite verbs have very largely dis- 
placed the infinitive and the participle. Even in the N. T. a tend- 
ency in that direction is discernible, as is seen in the use of ἵνα 
with θέλω (Mk. 6 : 25), ἀφίημι (Mk. 11:16). One is inclined to 
think that Viteau! overstates it when he says that the N. T. writers 
have a natural and general inability to combine and subordinate 
the elements of thought and so express them separately and make 
an abnormal use of asyndeton. I would rather say that there is 
a great simplicity and directness due partly to the colloquial style 
and the earnestness of the writers. They are men with a message 
rather than philosophical ramblers. But part of this absence of 
subordination may be due to the Hebrew temper as in John, and 
part to the general spirit of the time as less concerned, save in the 

1 Le Verbe, Synt. des Prop., p. 9. 


432 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


case of the Atticists, with the niceties of style. Clearness and force 
were the main things with these N. T. writers. They use connec- 
tives or not as best suits their purposes. But the infinitive con- 
struction and the conjunction construction must not be regarded 
as identical even in the N. T. Note καλὸν αὐτῷ εἰ οὐκ ἔγεννήθη 
(Mk. 14 : 21), ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι (1 Jo. 5: 2), βουλὴ ἔγένετο ἵνα 
(Ac. 27 : 42). 

(c) Two Kinps or StyLe. There are indeed two kinds of style 
in this matter, the running (εἰρομένη) and the periodic (ἐν περιόδοις) 
or compact (κατεστραμμένη), to use Aristotle’s terminology.! In 
the words of Blass? the running or continuous style is character- 
istic of the oldest prose as well as unsophisticated, unconventional. 
prose like the vernacular κοινή, and hence is the usual form in the 
N. T. The periodic style, on the other hand, belongs to “artistic- 
ally developed prose” like that of Demosthenes and Thucydides. 
As a matter of fact the O. T. narrative is also in the running style, 
while the prophets sometimes use the periodic. The longer N. T. 
sentences are usually connected by «ai or use asyndeton as shown 
above. But occasionally something approaching a real period 
appears somewhat like that of the great Greek writers, but by no 
means so frequently. Interesting examples of some length may 
be found in Lu. 1:1-4; Ac. 15 : 24-26; 26: 10-14, 16-18; Ro. 
1:1-73 1. Pet. 3 :18-22; 2 Pet. 1 2-7; Heb) 2: 2-4.) In Luvt: 
1—4 Blass? notes that the protasis has three clauses and the apod- 
osis two, while in Heb. 1: 1-3 he finds some ten divisions of the 
sentence which is not so neatly balanced as the passage in Luke. 
It is noticeable that Luke uses this classic idiom nowhere else in 
his Gospel, while the Epistle to the Hebrews has a fluent oratorical 
style of no little beauty. Chapter 11 finds a splendid peroration 
in 12: 1f., which should belong to chapter 11 as the closing period 
in the discussion about the promises. Cf. a similar peroration, 
though not in one sentence, in Ro. 11 : 33-36. So also Ro. 8 : 31- 
39, where verses 38 and 39 form a really eloquent period. Blass? 
indeed gives a rather free interpretation to the term period and 
applies it to sentences of only two parts like a conditional sentence 
when the condition comes first, sentences with antithesis with 
μέν --- δέ, disjunctive clauses with #, or parallelisms with re — καί. 
He even finds a period in a case of asyndeton like 1 Cor. 7 : 27. 
But this is to make nearly all complex sentences periods. Blass’ 

1 Arist. Rhet., 11. 9. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 275, who amplifies 


this point. 2 Ib. 
* Gr. of ΝΕ ΤΟ 80: 


THE SENTENCE 433 


opinion on this point is to be borne in mind when he argues for 
literary rhythm on a considerable scale in the N. T. “Paul indeed 
has some noble periods like Eph. 1:3-14; 2: 14-18; 3 : 14-19. 
He would show many more than he does but for the fact that he 
seems to grow impatient with the fetters of a long sentence and 
breaks away in anacoluthon which mars the fulness and sym- 
metry of the sentence as a period. Cf. 2 Cor. ὃ : 18-21; Ro. 12: 
6-8; Col. 1 : 9-238. In Ro. 3:7f. the καθώς and ὅτι clauses make 
a not very strong culmination. The ground element in Paul’s — 
speech is the short sentence. Only occasionally does he combine 
these into a period.! But Paul does use antithetic and comparative 
particles and apposition. One other reason for the absence of 
rhetorical periods is the avoidance of prolonged passages of indi- 
rect discourse. In truth none of that nature occurs at all, so that 
we do not have in the N. T. passages of much length in indirect 
discourse such as one meets in Xenophon or Thucydides (ef. 
Cesar). But the quotations are usually direct either with recita- 
tive ὅτι (Mt. 9 : 18) or without (Mt. 9 : 22). Winer? well remarks 
that what the style thus loses in periodic compactness, it gains in 
animation and vividness. But the use of the participle in giving 
periodic compactness is to be noticed, as in Ac. 23 : 27. The at- 
traction of the relative to the case of its antecedent, as already 
observed, adds another bond of union to the compactness of the 
relative sentence as in Lu. 5:9. 

(d) THe PARENTHESIS (παρένθεσις). Such a clause, inserted in 
the midst of the sentence without proper syntactical connection, 
is quite common in the N. T.’ Once the editors used too many 
parentheses in the N. T., but the number is still considerable. 
The term is somewhat loosely applied to clauses that really do 
not interrupt the flow of the thought. Thus it is not necessary to 
find a parenthesis in Jo. 7:39. The γάρ clause is merely ex- 
planatory. The same thing is true of Jo. 9:30 and Ac. 13:8. 
Certainly not every explanatory remark is to be regarded as pa- 
renthetical. On the other hand even a relative clause may be 
regarded as parenthetical where it is purely by the way as the 
interpretation of Ῥαββεί (Jo. 1:38 ὃ λέγεται) and of Μεσσίαν (6 
ἐστιν, etc., Jo. 1:41). But see Mk. 7:11. Editors indeed will 


1 J. Weiss, Beitr. zur Paulin. Rhet., Theol. Stud., 1897, p. 167. 

2 W.-Th., p. 545. 

3 For the Joh. use of parenthesis see Abbott, Joh. Gr., pp. 470-480. John 
is fond of the resumptive οὖν after a parenthesis, as in 2:18; 3:25;4:28. On 
the parenthesis in general see K.-G., Bd. II, pp. 358, 602. 


434 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


differ as to what constitutes a parenthesis as in the case of Mk. 
3:17 where W. H. use the marks of parenthesis while Nestle does 
not consider this a parenthesis. In Jo. 1:15 W. H. print a double 
parenthesis, using the dash inside the parenthetical marks. Here 
again Nestle has the colon instead of the dash and the full stop in 
lieu of the parenthetical marks. W. H. are not uniform in the in- 
dication of the parenthesis. They do it by the curved lines () as 
in Mk. 3:16, 17, or the dash as in Jo. 7 : 22; 10:12, or merely 
the comma as in the short phrases like φησίν (2 Cor. 10 : 10), or 
again with no punctuation at all as in the case of δοκεῖτε (Heb. 
10 : 29). The insertion of one or two words in the midst of the 
sentence is the simplest form of the parenthesis, like πολλοί, λέγω 
ὑμῖν, ζητήσουσιν (Lu. 18 : 24) and ὅτι κατὰ δύναμιν, μαρτυρῶ, καί (2 
Cor.8:3). Cf. φησίν (Mt. 14: 8), ἔφη (Ac. 28 : 35), οὐ ψεύδομαι (Ro. 
9:1), ἐν ἀφροσύνῃ λέγω (2 Cor. 11 : 21), etc. But the insertion of 
φησίν and ἔφη between words is rare in the N. T. Cf. Simcox, 
Language of the N. T., p. 200. A very interesting parenthesis is 
the insertion in the speech of Jesus to the paralytic, of λέγει τῷ 
παραλυτικῷ (Mk. 2:10). Mt. (9:6) adds τότε. Lu. (δ : 24) has 
εἶπεν TS παραλελυμένῳ: The Synoptists all had the same source 
here. These phrases, common also to the ancient Greek, do not 
need marks of parenthesis, and the comma is sufficient. A little 
more extended parenthesis is found in a clause like ὄνομα αὐτῷ 
᾿Ιωάνης (Jo. 1 : 6), Νικόδημος ὄνομα αὐτῷ (Jo. 3 : 1), though this again 
may be considered merely a form of apposition. A more distinct 
parenthesis still is the insertion of a note of time like ἦσαν δὲ 
ἡμέραι τῶν ἀζύμων (Ac. 12:3). Thackeray (Gr., p. 149 note) notes a 
tendency in the LX X to put numeral statements in parenthesis. 
Note also the explanatory parenthesis in Ac. 1:15 introduced by 
te. Cf. also ὡσεὶ ἡμέραι ὀκτώ In Lu. 9 : 28, which can be explained 
otherwise. In Mt. 24:15 the parenthetical command of Matthew 
or of Jesus, ὁ ἀναγινώσκων νοείτω, is indicated by W. H. only with 
the comma. In general the historical books have fewer parentheses 
than the Epistles, and naturally so. In Paul it is sometimes hard 
to draw the line between the mere parenthesis and anacoluthon. 
Cf. 1) Cor. 1625; Ro δ᾽: 12.018} 9 iL b= 23-28) πὴ 
look back beyond the parenthesis as in Jo. 4:7 ff. (Abbott, Jo- 
hannine Grammar, Ὁ. 470). See Jo. 10:35 καὶ ob δύναται λυθῆναι 
ἡ γραφή. Cf. the sharp interruption in Jo. 4:1-3. In Gal. 2:5f. 
we have two parentheses right together marked by the dash in 
W. H.’s text, besides anacoluthon. Cf. Lu. 23:51, Col. 1:21 f. for 
parenthesis of some length. But see 2 Pet. 2:8 for a still longer 


THE SENTENCE 435 


one, not to mention 2 Cor. 9:12; Heb. 7: 20f.; Lu. 6:4. See 
Viteau, Htude, 1896, p. 11. As illustrating once more the wide 
difference of opinion concerning the parenthesis, Blass! comments 
on the harshness of the parenthesis in Ac. 5:14, while W. H. do 
not consider that there is a parenthesis in the sentence at all, At 
bottom the parenthesis in the text is a matter of exegesis. Thus 
if in Jo. 13:1 ff. eis τέλος ἠγάπησεν αὐτοὺς be regarded as a paren- 
thesis and verses 1-- be considered one sentence (note repetition 
of εἰδώς) a much simpler construction is the result.2. Instead of a 
parenthesis a writer switches off to one aspect of a subject and then 
comes back in another sentence as Paul does in 1 Cor.8 : 1-4. He 
resumes by the repetition of περὶ — εἰδωλοθύτων οἴδαμεν. Cf. also a 
similar resumption in Eph. 3 : 14 τούτου χάριν after the long digres- 
sion in verses 1-13. This construction is not, however, a technical 
parenthesis. 

(ὁ) ANACOLUTHON. But amore violent break in the connection 
of sentences than the parenthesis is anacoluthon. This is merely 
the failure to.complete a sentence as intended when it was begun 
(ἀνακόλουθον). The completion does not follow grammatically from 
the beginning. The N. T. writers are not peculiar in this matter, 
since even in an artistic orator like Isocrates such grammatical 
blemishes, if they be so considered, are found.’ And a careful 
historian like Thucydides will have ἔδοξεν αὐτοῖς --- ἐπικαλοῦντες (ill. 
36. 2). It is just in writers of the greatest mental activity and ve- 
hemence of spirit that we meet most instances of anacoluthon. 
Hence a man with the passion of Paul naturally breaks away from 
formal rules in the structure of the sentence when he is greatly 
stirred, as in Gal. and 2 Cor. Such violent changes in the sentence 
are common in conversation and public addresses. The dialogues 
of Plato have many examples. The anacoluthon may be therefore 
either intentional or unintentional. The writer may be led off by 
a fresh idea or by a parenthesis, or he may think of a better way of 
finishing his sentence, one that will be more effective. The very 
jolt that is given by the anacoluthon is often successful in making 
more emphasis. The attention is drawn anew to the sentence to 
see what is the matter. Some of the anacolutha belong to other 
languages with equal pertinence, others are peculiar to the Greek 
genius. The participle in particular is a very common occasion 


Gr. ΟἿΌΝ. 1 (τ p.279. 

2. 5, Μ. Provence, Rev. and Exp., 1905, p. 96. 

3 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 282. On the anacoluthon see K.-G., Bd. IT, 
pp. 588-592. 


436 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


for anacoluthon. The Apocalypse, as already shown, has many 
examples of anacoluthon. The more important N. T. illustra- 
tions of anacoluthon will now be given. It is difficult to make a 
clear grouping of the examples of anacoluthon in the N. T. on 
any scientific principle. But the following will answer. 

1. The Suspended Subject. What Abbott! calls the suspended 
subject finds illustration elsewhere than in John, though he does 
have his share. It may be looked at indeed as suspended object 
as well sometimes. The point is that the substantive, pronoun or 
participle is left by the wayside and the sentence is completed 
some other way. Thus in πᾶν ῥῆμα ἀργὸν ὃ λαλήσουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι 
ἀποδώσουσιν περὶ αὐτοῦ (Mt. 12 : 80) observe how πᾶν ῥῆμα is dropped 
in the construction and περὶ αὐτοῦ used. In πᾶς οὖν ὅστις ὁμολογή- 
σει --- ὁμολογήσω κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ (Mt. 10:32) the same principle holds 
in regard to πᾶς and ἐν αὐτῷ. But in the same verse the regular 
construction obtains in ὅστις ἀρνήσηται --- ἀρνήσομαι κἀγὼ αὐτόν. In 
Lu. 6 : 47 πᾶς ὁ ἐρχόμενος κτλ., ὑποδείξω ὑμῖν τίνι ἐστὶν ὅμοιος We See 
a similar anacoluthon unless πᾶς 6 ἐρχ. be regarded as a rather vio- 
lent prolepsis of the subject, which is not so likely in this instance. 
In Lu. 11:11 the anacoluthon is not quite so simple, though τίνα 
is after all left to itself (τίνα δὲ ἐξ ὑμῶν τὸν πατέρα αἰτήσει ὁ vids 
ἰχθύν, μὴ ἀντὶ ἰχθύος ὄφιν αὐτῷ ἐπιδώσει;). If instead of τίνα the sen- 
tence read εἰ or ἐάν, all would go smoothly except that ἐξ ὑμῶν would 
be slightly awkward. Observe that αἰτήσει has two accusatives 
without τίνα. The apodosis is introduced by μή and as an interrog- 
ative clause expects the answer "πο." But in spite of the gram- 
matical hopelessness of the sentence it has great power. In Lu. 
12:48 the matter is simpler (παντὶ δὲ ᾧ ἐδόθη πολύ, πολὺ ζητηθή- 
σεται παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ). Here two things are true. We not only have the 
stranded subject (cf. zap’ αὐτοῦ), but it has been attracted into the 
ease of the relative (inverse attraction), παντί, not πᾶς. With this 
compare πᾶς ὃς ἐρεῖ — ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ (Lu. 12:10). In 2 Cor. 12: 
17 we merely have the anacoluthon without any attraction, τινὰ 
expecting a verb governing the accusative (μή τινα ὧν ἀπέσταλκα 
πρὸς ὑμᾶς, du’ αὐτοῦ ἐπλεονέκτησα buas;). Here indeed ὧν is attracted 
into the case of τούτων unexpressed. A simpler instance is ὁ Μωυ- 
σῆς οὗτος — οἴδαμεν τί ἔγένετο αὐτῷ (Ac. 7:40; Ex. 32:1). Blass? 
finds anacoluthon in Mk. 9:20 (ἰδὼν αὐτὸν τὸ πνεῦμα συνεσπά- 
ραξεν αὐτόν), but surely this is merely treating πνεῦμα as masculine 
(natural gender). But in Ac. 19:34 (ἐπιγνόντες δὲ ὅτι ᾿Ιουδαϊός ἐστιν 
φωνὴ eyevero μία ἐκ πάντων) there is a clear case of anacoluthon in 

1 Joh, Gr, ps 32s ΟΡ ΝΟ spezsee 


THE SENTENCE 437 


the change to ἐκ πάντων. The writings of John show similar ilustra- 
tions. There is no anacoluthon in Jo. 6:22 in the text of W. H., 
which reads εἶδον ὅτι instead of ἰδὼν ὅτι --- ὅτε (margin of W. H.). 
-But in 6 : 39 there is real anacoluthon (πᾶν ὃ δέδωκέν μοι μὴ ἀπολέσω 
ἐξ αὐτοῦ) in the change from πᾶν to ἐξ αὐτοῦ. It is possible to re- 
gard πᾶν μή here! as equivalent to οὐδείς and not like πᾶς --- μή in 
Jo. 3:16. In 7:88 another suspended subject is found in ὁ m- 
στεύων eis ἐμέ (cf. αὐτοῦ further on). But 10 : 36 is hardly anacolu- 
thon,” since one has merely to supply the demonstrative ἐκείνῳ or 
the personal pronoun αὐτῷ with λέγετε to make the sentence run 
smoothly. In 15:2 πᾶν κλῆμα --- αὐτό we have very slight anacolu- 
thon, if any, since both may be in the same case (cf. resumptive 
use of οὗτος). But in 15:5 the matter is complicated by the in- 
sertion of κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ (ὁ μένων ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ οὗτος φέρει). In 
17: 2 (πᾶν ὃ δέδωκας αὐτῷ δώσει αὐτοῖς) we have the more usual ana- 
coluthon. In 1 Jo. 2 : 24 (ὑμεῖς ὃ ἠκούσατε ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ἐν ὑμῖν μενέτω) 
ὑμεῖς may be merely prolepsis, but this seems less likely in verse 
27 (ὑμεῖς τὸ χρίσμα ὃ ἐλάβετε ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ μένει ἐν ὑμῖν) Where note the 
position of ὑμεῖς and ἐν ὑμῖν. In Rey. 2:26 the anacoluthon 
(ὁ νικῶν --- δώσω αὐτῷ) does not differ from some of those above.? So 
also as to Rev. 3:12, 21, but in 2:7, 17 (τῷ νικῶντι δώσω αὐτῷ) 
the case is the same and may be compared with Jo. 15:2, 5. Cf. 
the probable reading (W. H. bracket αὐτῷ) in Rev. 6: 4 as well as 
Mt. 6:4 (LXX); 5:40 (τῷ θέλοντι --- αὐτῷ), where there is no real 
anacoluthon, but a resumptive use of αὐτῷ. Cf. also ὑμᾶς repeated 
after parenthesis in Col. 1:22. The LXX has other similar ex- 
amples like Josh. 9 : 12; Ps. 108 : 15. A similar resumptive use of 
ᾧ occurs in the text (not marg. in W. H.) of Ro. 16:27. Inasim- 
ilar way a relative clause may be left as a suspended subject or 
object, as in Lu. 9:5, ὅσοι ἂν μὴ δέχωνται buds — ἀποτινάσσετε En’ 
avrobs. Cf. Mt. 10:14; Lu. 10:8, 10. Cf. this with the very 
common use of resumptive οὗτος after the article and the participle, 
like ὁ ὑπομείνας eis τέλος οὗτος σωθήσεται (Mt. 10 : 22). 

2. Digression. A somewhat more complicated kind of anacolu- 
thon is where a digression is caused by an intervening sentence or 
explanatory clause. Those naturally occur mainly in the Epistles 
of Paul where his energy of thought and passion of soul overleap 
alltrammels. In Jo. 5:44 the participle is dropped for the indica- 
tive ζητεῖτε. In Jo. 21:12 (οὐδεὶς ἐτόλμα τῶν μαθητῶν ἐξετάσαι αὐτόν 
Σὺ τίς εἶ; εἰδότες) the question breaks the smooth flow and εἰδότες 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 283. 2 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 33. 
8 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 283, calls it a “very awkward instance.” 


438 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


agrees in case with οὐδείς and number with μαθητῶν. With this 
compare the change from ἵνα μὴ alpwow in Mk. 6: 8 to the infini- 
tive μὴ ἐνδύσασθαι in verse 9. Nestle has, however, ἐνδύσησθε. In 
Mk. 7:19 (καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα) the participle can be con-- 
nected in thought, as Mark probably did, with λέγει in verse 18, 
but the intervening quotation makes Mark’s explanatory adden- 
dum a real anacoluthon. The example in Jo. 1:15 Abbott? calls 
‘‘impressionism”’ due to the writer’s desire to make his impression 
first and then to add the explanatory correction. He compares 
4:1 with 3:22. In 1:15 οὗτος ἦν ὃν εἶπον is taken by Abbott as a 
part of the Baptist’s statement, but ΝΥ. H. read οὗτος ἦν ὁ εἰπών as 
a parenthetical remark of the writer. So in Jo. 20:18 καὶ ταῦτα 
εἶπεν αὐτῇ does not fit in exactly after ὅτι ‘Ewpaxa τὸν κύριον. The 
added clause is the comment of John, not of Mary. The margin of 
Ac. 10:36 (W. H.) with ὅν is a case of anacoluthon, but the text 
itself is without ὅν. In Ac. 24: 6 the repetition of ὃν καί leaves εὑρόν- 
τες cut off from ἐκρατήσαμεν. In Ac. 27:10 (θεωρῶ ὅτι --- μέλλειν) the 
ὅτι clause is changed to the infinitive, a phenomenon noted by 
Winer? in Plato, Gorg. 453 6. The anacoluthon in Gal. 2 : 6 (ἀπὸ δὲ 
τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί TL— ὁποῖοί ποτε ἦσαν οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει --- πρόσωπον ὁ 
θεὸς ἀνθρώπου οὐ λαμβάνει --- ἐμοὶ γὰρ οἱ δοκοῦντες οὐδὲν προσανέθεντο) 
is noteworthy for the complete change of construction as shown by 
the repetition of the of δοκοῦντες in the nominative and followed by 
the middle instead of the passive voice. Observe the two paren- 
theses that led to the variation. It is easier in such a case to make 
a new start, as Paul does here. In Gal. 2:5 Blass? follows D in omit- 
ting οἷς in order to get rid of the anacoluthon, as he does also in Ro. 
16 : 27 (@), but it is more than likely that the difficulty of the an- 
acoluthon with οἷς led to the omission in D. One of the most strik- 
ing anacolutha in Paul’s Epistles is found at the end of Ro. 5: 12 
where the apodosis to the ὥσπερ clause is wanting. The next sen- 
tence (ἄχρι yap) takes up the subordinate clause ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ἥμαρτον and 
the comparison is never completed. In verse 18 a new comparison 
is drawn in complete form. The sentence in Ro. 9 : 22-24 is with- 
out the apodosis and verse 25 goes on with the comparative ὡς. 
2 Pet. 1:17 shows a clear anacoluthon, for the participle λαβών is 
left stranded utterly in the change to καὶ ταύτην τὴν φωνὴν ἡμεῖς 
ἠκούσαμεν. Winer’ seems to be wrong in finding an anacoluthon in 
the long sentence in 2 Pet. 2:4-10. The apodosis is really οἶδεν 
in verse 9 (verse 8 being a long parenthesis as W. H. rightly punc- 


1 Joh. Gr., p. 34. ® Gr, ΠΟΥ ΟΝ p: 284, 
2 W.-Th., p. 573. 4 W.-Th., p. 569. 


THE SENTENCE 439 


tuate). However, Winer! is justified in refusing to see anacoluthon 
in many passages formerly so regarded and that call for no dis- 
cussion now. See further Mt. 7:9; 12:36; Mk. 2:28; 7:3f.; 
fae le linto eas, 10: 21 0. 62393172185 Ac. 15722 '71.: 
ieee 20926557 ΠΟΙ 10 25.2.7: 1 Cor..9)::15; Οὐ]. 2 : 2; 
ἢ 5. 5.“ 2ιε ΟΣ τ; ΟΡ ΑἸ Heb.'3 515; 10:15 ἢ; 
1 Tim. 1:3-5; Ju. 16. It is very common in the Apocalypse as 
in 2 Corinthians and Galatians. 

3. The Participle in Anacolutha. It calls for a word of its own 
in the matter of anacoluthon, although, as a matter of fact, it 
occurs in both the kinds of anacoluthon already noticed. The 
reason is, the free use of the participle in long sentences (cf. Paul) 
renders it peculiarly subject to anacoluthon. The point with the 
participle is not that it is a special kind of anacoluthon in any other 
sense. Gal. 6:1, καταρτίζετε, σκοπῶν σεαυτόν, μὴ Kal σὺ πειρασθῇς May 
be regarded as anacoluthon in the change of number, but it is a 
natural singling-out of the individual in the application. In 2 Cor. 
5:12 the ellipsis of γράφομεν ταῦτα with διδόντες is so harsh as to 
amount to anacoluthon. Cf. also θλιβόμενοί in 2 Cor. 7:5. It is 
less certain about στελλόμενοι in 2 Cor. 8 : 20, for, skipping the long 
parenthesis in verse 19, we have συνεπέμψαμεν. But in the paren- 
thesis itself χειροτονηθείς is an example of anacoluthon, for regu- 
larly ἐχειροτονήθη would be the form. In 2 Cor. 9:11, 138, the 
participles πλουτιζόμενοι and δοξάζοντες have no formal connection 
with a principal verb and are separated by a long parenthesis in 
verse 12. But these participles may be after all tantamount to the 
indicative and not mere anacoluthon. Just as sequimini (sec. pl. 
mid. ind.)= ἑπόμενοι, so other Greek participles may correspond 
to the indicative or imperative.2, Moulton*® cites numerous ex- 
amples from the papyri which make this possible for the κοινή. 
But Moulton‘ sees a sharp difference between the “hanging nom- 
inative” like ἔχων ὁ νόμος in Heb. 10:1 (Gf δύνανται be accepted, 
W. Η. δύναται marg.) and ἔχοντες in Ph. 1: 80, where, however, 
W. H. make a long parenthesis and seek to connect ἔχοντες with 
στήκετε (verse 27). These are indeed mere anacolutha, but one 
wonders if the connection between these and Ro. 12 : 6 (ἔχοντες) is 
so very distant after all. Participles are scattered along in this 
chapter in an “unending series”®> mingled with infinitives and 
imperatives. Thus in 12 : 9-13 we have participles, verse 14 the 

1 Tb. p. 571. 


2 Moulton, Prol., p. 223. aI: sbi pease. 
6 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 285. 


440 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


imperative, verse 15 infinitive, verse 16* participles, 16> impera- 
tive, 17 participles. Here the participle does seem to be practi- 
cally equivalent to the imperative (cf. inf. also). See Participle 
(Verbal Nouns) for discussion of this point. In 2 Cor. 6:3 the 
participles skip over verse 2 and carry on the construction of 
verse 1, and it is resumed in verse 9. For a group of participles 
with the imperative see Eph. 5 : 15-22. Cf. also Col. 3:16. The 
point is that these various gradations in the use of the participle 
are not always clearly defined. As regards the nominative par- 
ticiple rather than the genitive absolute, Winer! remarks that 
thus the participle gains greater prominence in the sentence. In 
Eph. 4 : 2 ἀνεχόμενοι may not be anacoluthon, but may be in ac- 
cord with ἧς ἐκλήθητε. Col. 1: 26 is the case of the indicative rather 
than a participle (ἐφανερώθη, not πεφανερωμένον). See 1 Cor. 7:37 
where ἔχων is succeeded by ἔχει, but (W. H.) ἐγείρας καὶ καθίσας 
(Eph. 1:20). Cf. Rev. 2:2, 9. As to Heb. 8:10 (10:16) dcd0ts 
is explained by Winer? as referring to διαθήσομαι without anaco- 
luthon, while Moulton® considers it equal to an indicative and 
parallel to ἐπιγράψω. I am inclined to agree with Winer on this 
point. In 2 Cor. 5:6ff. Paul, after using θαρροῦντες, repeats it in 
the form of θαρροῦμεν because of the intermediate clauses before 
he expresses εὐδοκοῦμεν, the main verb.* Finally compare ἐφ᾽ ὃν ἂν 
ἴδῃς τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον καὶ μένον ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν (Jo. 1 : 33) with τὸ πνεῦμα 
καταβαῖνον ὡς περιστερὰν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ ἔμεινεν ἔπ᾽ αὐτόν (verse 32), 
where the last clause is the comment of the Baptist to give spe- 
cial emphasis to that point, more than the participle would. 

4. Asyndeton Due to Absence of δὲ and ἀλλά. Winer’ considers 
the absence. of δὲ or ἀλλά to correspond with μέν as a species of 
anacoluthon, and Blass® shares the same idea. Asa matter of fact 
(see chapter on Particles) μέν does not require δέ either by etymol- 
ogy or usage. It is rather gratuitous to call such absence an in- 
stance of anacoluthon. The examples will be discussed later, such 
as. ACelel 134d: Romi alexete: 

(f) Oratio VARIATA. 

1. Distinction from Anacoluthon. Sometimes indeed the line 
between anacoluthon and oratio variata is not very clearly drawn. 
Thus in Lu. 17:31 (ὃς ἔσται ἐπὶ τοῦ δώματος καὶ τὰ σκεύη αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ 
οἰκίᾳ) the second clause cannot repeat the relative és, but has to 
use αὐτοῦ. Cf. 1 Cor. 8 : 6 (ἐξ οὗ — καὶ εἰς αὐτόν), 2 Pet. 2:3 (ots — 
καὶ αὐτῶν). So also in 1 Cor. 7:18 αὐτῆς repeats ἥτις. Cf. Rev. 

1 W.-Th., p. 572. ’ Prol., p.'224. 5 Tb. 

2 Ib., p. 573. 4 W.-Th., p. 573. 6 Op. cit., Ὁ. 286. 


THE SENTENCE 441 


17:2. In Ro. 2: 6ff. after the relative clause ὃς ἀποδώσει there 
is a subdivision of the object, on the one hand (rots μὲν --- ζητοῦσιν 
ξωὴν αἰώνιον), on the other (τοῖς 6¢ — ἀδικίᾳ ὀργὴ καὶ θυμός) where the 
nominative changes the construction and ὅς cannot here be re- 
peated. In Ro. 11:22 indeed both of the phrases that extend the 
accusatives χρηστότητα Kal ἀποτομίαν θεοῦ are put in the nominative 
(ἀποτομία, χρηστότης). In Gal. 4:6f. Paul changes from ἐστέ to 
ei. This is all oratio varzata in reality and is in accord with the 
ancient Greek idiom. Blass! considers Tit. 1 : 2 f. an instance of 
oratio vartata, but τὸν λόγον in all probability is to be regarded as 
in apposition with ἥν, which is the object both of ἐπηγγείλατο and 
ἐφανέρωσεν. Thus W. H., but Nestle agrees with Blass. 

2. Heterogeneous Structure. That is what oratio variata really 
is and it can be illustrated by a number of passages other than the 
relative and with less element of obscurity about them. In Rev. 
2:18 ὁ ἔχων is followed by καὶ αὐτοῦ just like the relative sentences 
above. Thus also 2 Jo. 2. In Rev. 7:9 after εἶδον καὶ ἰδοῦ we find 
a mixed construction, ὄχλος ἑστῶτες (constr. κατὰ σύνεσιν) with ἰδού, 
περιβεβλημένους With εἶδον. Winer? rightly distinguishes the varia- 
tion in case in Rev. 18 : 12 f. (gen., acc., gen., acc.) and the similar 
phenomenon in Rev. 2 : 17 where there is a real distinction between 
the use of the genitive and the accusative. The use of ὑποδεδε- 
μένους in Mk. 6:8 is probably due to the ellipse of πορεύεσθαι, for 
the correct text has μὴ ἐνδύσασθαι just after. For similar ellipse and 
oratto variata see 2 Cor.8:23. InMk. 12:38 after θελόντων περιπατεῖν 
it looks like a sudden change to find ἀσπασμούς, but after all both 
are in the accusative with θελόντων. The irregularity in Mk. 3 : 16 
is met in the text of W. H. by a parenthesis, but it could have 
been cleared up also by @ (referring to Πέτρον instead of καί as 
Winer’ suggests). In Jo. 8: 53 the continuity of the interrogative 
form of sentence is abruptly broken by the short clause καὶ οἱ προ- 
φῆται ἀπέθανον, a very effective interruption, however. The case 
of 1 Jo. 2:2 is simple where instead of περὶ τῶν ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου 
(to be parallel with od περὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων) John has merely περὶ 
ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου, a Somewhat different conception. A similar ex- 
ample is found in Ac. 20 : 84 as between ταῖς χρείαις μου and τοῖς 
οὖσι per’ ἐμοῦ. Heb. 9:7 furnishes the same point in inverse order 
(ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ ἀγνοημάτων). A lack of parallel is 
shown also in Ph. 2 : 22 between πατρὶ τέκνον and σὺν ἐμοί where 
Paul purposely puts in σύν to break a too literal carrying out of 
the figure. In Rev. 1:6 the correct text in the parenthesis has 

1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 286. 2 W.-Th., p. 579. ‘1b. 


442 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ἡμᾶς βασιλείαν, ἱερεῖς τῷ θεῷ, a different conception from βασιλεῖς. 
See further Ac. 16:16 f. 

3. Participles in Oratio Variata. These offer a frequent occa- 
sion for oratio variata, since they can so often be used parallel 
with subordinate clauses of various kinds. Thus in Jo. 5:44 
λαμβάνοντες would naturally be followed by ζητοῦντες, but we have 
ζητεῖτε. So, on the other hand, in 1 Cor. 7:18 καὶ συνευδοκεῖ does 
not fit in as smoothly with ἄπιστον as καὶ συνευδοκοῦντα would. The 
same lack of parallel in the use of the participle is seen in Jo. 
15:5 (ὁ μένων κἀγὠ) and in Lu. 17 : 31 where the relative and the 
participle are paired off. So also Ph. 1:23 and 1 Jo. 3:24. Cf. 
the Participle in Anacolutha. In Ro. 12:6 f. participles and sub- 
stantives are placed in antithesis, as in 2 Cor. 6:3 f. we have 
participles, in 4-78 ἐν, in 7” f. διά, in 9 f. adjectives and parti- 
ciples. Cf. 2 Cor. 11:23 ff. where: adverbs, adjuncts and verbs 
are in antithesis. 

4. Hxchange of Direct and Indirect Discourse. But the most 
striking instance of oratio variata is that between direct and in- 
direct discourse. It is either from the indirect to the direct or 
from the direct to the indirect. As Blass! justly observes, the N.T. 
writers, like all popular narrators, deal very little in indirect dis- 
course. The accusative and the infinitive is not common in the 
old sense nor is ὅτι always the sign of indirect quotation. Fre- 
quently it is merely recitative ὅτι and corresponds to our quotation- 
marks, as in Mk. 14:14, εἴπατε τῷ οἰκοδεσπότῃ ὅτι ‘O διδάσκαλος 
λέγει. So also ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι βλασφημεῖς (Jo. 10: 36). This re- 
version to one form of discourse from another is not unknown to 
the ancient Greek. But it is peculiarly in harmony with the N. T. 
vernacular and essentially vivid narrative style. In Lu. 5:14 we 
have a typical instance of the change from indirect to direct dis- 
course (παρήγγειλεν αὐτῷ μηδενὶ εἰπεῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπελθὼν δεῖξον σεαυτόν). 
Exactly parallel with this is Ac. 1 : 4 ἀλλὰ περιμένειν τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν 
τοῦ πατρὸς ἥν ἠκούσατξ μου Where Observe μου. Cf. also Ac. 17:3 
where after διελέξατο ὅτι --- ὁ ᾿Τησοῦς Luke concludes with the direct 
words of Paul ὃν eye καταγγέλλω ὑμῖν. In Jo. 13 : 29 we have the 
reverse process where the writer drops from the direct to the in- 
direct statement (aydpacov ὧν χρείαν ἔχομεν eis τὴν ἑορτήν, ἢ τοῖς 
πτωχοῖς ἵνα τι δῷ). So also we see the same thing in Ac. 23 : 23 f. 
(ἑτοιμάσατε --- τῆς νυκτός, κτήνη τε παραστῆσαι iva — διασώσωσιν). But 
in Ac. 28 : 22 the other change occurs, as παραγγείλας μηδενὶ ἐκλα- 
Ajoa ὅτι ταῦτα ἐνεφάνισας πρὸς ἐμέ. In W. H.’s text of Ro. 12: 

1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 286. 


THE SENTENCE 443 


1f. we have παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς παραστῆσαι᾽ Kal μὴ συνσχηματίζεσθε (not 
-σθαι). In Mk. 11:32 the writer proceeds with his own remarks 
(ἐφοβοῦντο τὸν ὄχλον) after the question rather in the nature of ana- 
coluthon, though in Mt. 21 : 26 φοβούμεθα is read as indeed a few 
MSS. do in Mark. So also Mt. 9:6, where the writer injects 
into the words of Jesus τότε λέγει τῷ παραλυτικῷ, we probably have 
anacoluthon rather than oratio variata (see (d), Parenthesis). 

(g) CONNECTION BETWEEN SEPARATE SENTENCES. So far we 
have been considering the matter of connection between the vari- 
ous parts of the same sentence, whether simple or complex, and 
the various complications that arise. But this is not all. The 
Greeks, especially in the literary style, felt the propriety of indi- 
cating the inner relation of the various independent sentences that 
composed a paragraph. This was not merely an artistic device, 
but a logical expression of coherence of thought. Particles like 
Kal, δέ, ἀλλά, yap, οὖν, δή, etc., Were very common in this connec- 
tion. Demonstrative pronouns, adverbs, and even relative pro- 
nouns were also used for this purpose. JI happen to open at Mt. 
24 : 32-51 a paragraph of some length. The first sentence begins 
with δέ. The sentences in verses 33 and 34 have asyndeton and so 
are without a connective. In verse 36 δέ reappears, while the two 
sentences in verses 37 and 38 both have yap. Verse 40 begins with 
τότε, A common word in this usage in Matthew, as ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ is in 
Luke. Verse 42 begins with οὖν as its connective, while 438 drops 
back to δέ. In 44 διὰ τοῦτο answers as a link of union while 45 
uses ἄρα. Verses 46 f. have asyndeton while 48 has δέ. This long 
sentence completes the paragraph save the short sentence in verse 
51 introduced by ἐκεῖ. I think this paragraph a fair sample of the 
didactic portion of the Gospels. Asyndeton occurs, but it is not 
the rule. In the Gospel of John οὖν is a much more frequent con- 
nective between sentences than καί, as any chapter (11 for instance) 
will show. The Beatitudes (Mt. 5:3-12) have no connectives 
at all, and are all the more effective because of the asyndeton. 
Winer! finds this didactic asyndeton common also in James, the 
Gospel of John (cf. 14-17) and 1 John. But asyndeton is sometimes 
noticeable also in the non-didactic portions of John, as 20: 14-18. 
No formal rules on the subject can be made, as the individual 
speaker or writer follows his mood of the moment in the matter. 
The point is to observe that, while asyndeton often occurs, in 
general Greek writers even in the N. T. use connectives between 
separate sentences. 

1 W.-Th., p. 536. 


\ 


444 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(h) CONNECTION BETWEEN Paracrapus. It is only natural 
to carry the matter one step further and unite paragraph with 
paragraph. For a discussion of the origin of the paragraph see 
the chapter on Orthography and Phonetics. The paragraphs in 
our printed Greek texts are partly the work of the modern editors, 
yet not wholly so. But even in real or original paragraphs the 
connection varies greatly. In some there will be none at all, but 
an entirely new theme will be presented, whereas with others we 
merely have a new aspect of the same subject. I happen to turn 
to the sixth chapter of John. The chapter opens with μετὰ ταῦτα, a 
real connective that refers to the incidents in chapter 5, which may 
have been a full year before. The next paragraph in W. H. begins 
at verse 14 and has οὖν. At verse 22 there is no connective ex- 
cept τῇ ἐπαύριον which may be compared with the τότε of Matthew. 
The paragraph at verse 41 has οὖν again, which is very common in 
John in this connection, as can be seen illustrated also in verses 
52 and 60. At verse 66 the paragraph begins with ἐκ τούτου, a real 
connective. If we go into chapter 7 we find καί in verse 1, δέ in 
verse 10, δέ again in verse 14, οὖν in verse 25, no connective in verse. 
32, δὲ in verse 37, οὖν in verse 45. Asyndeton on the whole is 
rather more frequent in the Gospel of John than in the Synoptic 
Gospels.! Abbott? gives a detailed discussion of the kinds of 
asyndeton in John. In Paul’s Epistles one would expect, little 
asyndeton between the paragraphs especially in the argumentative. 
portions. In general this is true, and yet occasionally even in 
Ro. asyndeton is met as in 9:1; 18:1. But in chapter 8 every 
paragraph has its connective particle. Note also οὖν in 12 : 1 at the 
beginning of the hortatory portion after the long preceding argu- 
ment. As between sentences, there is freedom in the individual 
expression on the subject. For Hort’s theory of the paragraph see 
Intr. to N. T. in Gr., p. 819. By means of spaces he has a system 
of sub-paragraphs, as is plain in the text of W. H. 

XIII. Forecast. There are other things to be considered in 
the construction of the sentence, but enough has been treated in 
this chapter. What remains in syntax is the minute examination 
of the relations of words (cases, prepositions, pronouns, verbs in 
mood and voice and tense, infinitives and participles), the relations 
of clause with clause in the use of subordinating conjunctions, 
the particles, figures of speech (aposiopesis, ellipsis, paronomasia, 
zeugma, etc.). There is a natural order in the development of 
these matters which will be followed as far as possible in the dis- 

1 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 70 f. 5105 Cf. WaTh, pob37. 


THE SENTENCE 445 


cussion of syntax. The individual words come before the relation 
of sentences or clauses. In the discussion of words either nouns 
or verbs could be taken up first, but, as verbs are connected more 
closely with conjunctions than nouns they are best treated just 
before conjunctional clauses. Prepositions are properly discussed 
after cases. The article is a variation of the demonstrative pro- 
noun. But at best no treatment of syntax can handle every aspect 
and phase of language. The most that can be achieved is a pres- 
entation of the essential principles of N. T. syntax so that the 
student will be able to interpret his Greek N. T. according to 
correct grammatical principles derived from the living language 
of the time. 


CHAPTER XI 
THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 


I. History of the Interpretation of the Greek Cases. 

(a) Conrusion. Perhaps nowhere has confusion been worse 
confounded than in the study of the Greek cases. The tendency 
has been usually to reason backwards and to explain past phenom- 
ena by present conditions. The merely logical method of syntax 
has turned the pyramid on its apex and has brought untold error 
into grammar.! The Stoics took interest in grammar for philo- 
sophical purposes and gave the logical bent to it in lieu of the his- 
torical. Dionysius Thrax and Apollonius Dyscolus went off on 
the wrong trail in the matter of the Greek cases. 

(0) Borpr’s ContrisutTion. Bopp brought daylight out of 
darkness by comparative grammar. Hiibschmann? gives an ad- 
mirable history of the matter. He illustrates the eight cases 
copiously from the Sanskrit, Zend and Persian. Thanks now to 
such workers as Schleicher, Brugmann, Delbriick, the eight Indo- 
Germanic cases are well wrought out and generally acknowledged. 
Cf. brief discussion of the forms of the Greek cases in chapter VII 
(Declensions). Greek grammarians still differ, however, in the 
terminology applied to the cases. In 1911 the Oxford and Cam- 
bridge scholars issued a tract “On Terminology in Grammar,” 
but confusion still reigns. See also W. Havers, Untersuchungen 
zur Kasussyntax der indog. Sprachen. When the Stoic gramma- 
rians wrote, the genitive and ablative had the same forms, and 
the locative, instrumental and dative likewise. There were oc- 
casional survivals of distinction like οἴκοι and οἴκῳ, Cypriotic 
instrumental ἀρᾷ and dative apa, etc. But in general the work of 
syncretism was complete in the respects just mentioned, though 


1 Hiibschmann, Zur Casuslehre, p. v. 

2 Ib. Cf. Dewischeit, Zur Theorie der Casus (1857); Rumpel, Die Casuslehre 
(1875). Hadley (Essays Phil. and Crit., Gk. Gen. as Abl., p! 46) speaks of “the 
Beckerite tendency, too frequently apparent in Kiihner, to impose a meaning on 
language rather than educe the meaning out of it.’’ 

446 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 447 


in Arcadian the genitive and the locative took the same form! 
(cf. Latin Romae, domi). But the grammarians, ignorant of the 
history of the language, sought to explain the genitive and ablative 
ideas from a common source. Thus Winer? boldly calls the gen- 
itive the ‘‘whence-case”’ and undertakes to explain every usage of 
the genitive from that standpoint, a hopeless exercise in grammat- 
ical gymnastics. ‘The same sinuosities have been resorted to in 
the effort to find the true dative idea in the locative and instru- 
mental uses of the forms called dative by the grammars. 

(c) MoprrRN Usacr. Some modern grammarians® help mat- 
ters a good deal by saying true genitive, ablatival genitive, true 
dative, locatival dative, instrumental dative. This custom recog- 
nises the real case-distinctions and the historical outcome. But 
some confusion still remains because the locative and the dative 
never mean exactly the same thing and are not the same thing in 
fact. It partly depends on whether one is to apply the term 
“case’”’ to the ending or to the relation expressed by the ending. 
As a matter of fact the term is used both ways. Ὄνομα is called 
indiscriminately nominative, vocative or accusative, according to 
the facts in the context, not nominatival accusative or accusatival 
nominative. So with βασιλεῖς or πόλεις. We are used to this in 
the grammars, but it seems a shock to say that πόλεως may be 
either genitive or ablative, that ἐμοί may be either locative, instru- 
mental or dative. But why more of an absurdity than in the case 
of ὄνομα and πόλεις ἡ The only difference is that in the gen.-abl. 
the syncretism of form applies to all Greek words. For various 
examples of syncretism in the forms of the Greek cases with 
fragments of distinctive endings also see Brugmann, Griech. ΟὟ. 
p. 375 f.; Brugmann, Kurze vergl. Gr., 11, Ὁ. 420 f.; and chapter 
VII (Declensions). 

(d) GREEN’S CLASSIFICATION. I agree with Green, whom I 
shall here quote at some length: “I shall classify the uses of the 
cases under the heads of the Aryan Cases, as in every instance the 
true method of explanation of any particular idiom is to trace its 
connection to the general meaning of the original Aryan case, to 
which the case in Greek or Latin corresponds, and not arbitrarily 
to distinguish the uses of any case in Greek or Latin by terms 
which cannot be properly applied to that case; e.g., the term 
dative of manner is no explanation. Manner cannot be expressed 

1 Hoffmann, Griech. Dial., Bd. I, p. 308. 2 W.-Th., p. 184 f. 


3 Cf. Babbitt, A Gr. of Attic and Ionic Gk., 1902. 
4 Notes on Gk. and Lat. Synt., 1897, p. 11. 


448 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


by the true dative case. ‘The correct explanation is that the use 
is instrumental, but the instrumental case in Greek has coalesced 
in form with the dative. This method of explanation has the ad- 
vantage of demanding fewer set terms, while at the same time it 
requires a logical connection to be made between the particular use 
in question and the fundamental meaning of the case involved. 
Such an explanation is the better the simpler the words used in it 
are.’ This is wonderfully well said and has the advantage of be- 
ing true, which is not always said of grammatical comments. It 
is the method of history, of science, of life. It is the method pur- 
sued in the etymology and history of a word. It is the only way 
to get at the truth about the significance of the Greek cases. 

(e) SYNCRETISM OF THE CAsES. This method of interpretation 
does not ignore the syncretism of the cases. On the other hand 
it accents sharply the blending of the forms while insisting on the 
integrity of the case-ideas. There are indeed some instances where 
either of the blended cases will make sense, like τῇ δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ 
ὑψωθείς (Ac. 2 : 33), which may be locative ‘exalted at,’ instrumen- 
tal ‘exalted by,’ or dative ‘exalted to’ (a rare idiom and in the 
older Greek), ‘the right hand of God.’ Cf. also τῇ ἐλπίδι ἐσώθημεν 
(Ro. 8:24). So in Heb. 12:11 χαρᾶς and λύπης may be explained 
either as genitive or ablative. But such occasional ambiguity 
is not surprising and these instances on the ‘‘border-line’”’ made 
syncretism possible. In general the context makes it perfectly 
clear which of the syncretistic cases is meant, just as in English 
and French we have to depend on the order of the words to show 
the difference between nominative and accusative. Yet no one 
would say that nominative and accusative are the same in Eng- 
lish and French.! 

(f) FREEDOM IN Use oF Case. Asa matter of fact it was often 
immaterial whether a writer or speaker used one of several ways 
of expressing himself, for the Greek allows liberty and flexibility 
at many points. Thus τὸ γένος and τῷ γένει would either answer 
for the specifying idea, rpooxvvéw is used with either accusative or 
dative, μιμνήσκομαι with accusative or genitive, etc.2 But this is 
not to say that one construction is used for another or is identical 
with the other. The difference may be “‘subtle, no doubt, but real”’ 
(Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 66). Moulton properly (7b.) cites the 


1 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 75, illustrates the rapid disappearance of 
case-endings in the Irish tongue, which as late as i/a.p. had a full set of inflec- 
tions, whereas by the fifth century only traces of the dat. plur. survive. 

2 W.-Th., p. 180. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 449 


well-known distinction between the accusative and genitive with 
ἀκούω in Ac. 9:7 and 22 : 9 as disproof of apparent self-contradic- 
tion and a gentle hint not to be too ready to blur over case-dis- 
tinctions in Luke or elsewhere in the N. T. He notes also genitive 
and accusative with γεύεσθαι in Heb. 6:4 f. and the common use 
of εἰς with accusative after verbs of rest and ἐν with locative even 
after verbs of motion. But it is hazardous to insist always on a 
clear distinction between εἰς and ἐν, for they are really originally 
the same word. The point is that by different routes one may reach 
practically the same place, but the routes are different. Indeed 
one may take so many different standpoints that the border-lines 
of the cases come very close sometimes. So ἐξ ἀριστερᾶς (abl.), ἐν 
ἀριστερᾷ (loc.), εἰς ἀριστεράν (acc.) are all good Greek for ‘on the left’. 
(we have also in English ‘at the left,’ ‘to the left’). 

II. The Purpose of the Cases. 

(a) ARISTOTLE’S UsacE. He applied the term πτῶσις to verb, 
noun, adverb, etc., but the later grammarians spoke only? of the 
πτῶσις ὀνόματος, though as a matter of fact adverbs and prepo- 
sitions are in cases, and even conjunctions and other particles 
are usually in cases. But in ordinary parlance substantives, ad- 
jectives, pronouns, the article are in cases and have inflection. 
The cases originally had to do only with these. The adverbs were 
merely later modifications or fixed case-forms. 

(b) Worp-RELATIONS. The cases were used to express word- 
relations, the endings serving to make it plain what the particular 
case was. The isolating languages, like the Chinese, show such 
relations by the order of the words and the tone in pronunciation. 
Modern English and French use prepositions chiefly besides the 
order of the words. These word-relations concern substantives in 
their relations with other substantives, with adjectives, with prep- 
ositions and with verbs. So adjectives and pronouns have all 
these relations. It is immaterial whether verb or substantive is 
the earliest in the use of a case with a substantive. In the old 
Sanskrit practically all the word-relations are expressed by the 
eight cases. This was a very simple plan, but as language became 
more complicated a great strain was bound to be put on each of 
these cases in order to convey clearly so many resultant ideas. 

As a matter of fact the ground-meaning of the case-forms is not 
known.’ On Origin of Case-Forms see chapter VII, 1, 2, (c). 

1 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 67. 


2 Cf. Steinthal, Gesch. der Sprachw., p. 259; Hiibschm., Zur Casusl., p. 3. 
8 Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 374. 


450 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


III. The Encroachment of Prepositions on the Cases. 

(a) Tue Reason. The burden upon the cases was too great. 
Even in the later Sanskrit a number of set case-forms (adverbs) 
came to be used with some of the cases to make clearer the exact 
relations of words, whereas in the older Sanskrit no such helpers 
were felt to be needed. This was the beginning of prepositions. 
Prepositions have a wrong name. They do not come before any- 
thing essentially, and just as often in Homer came after the noun. 
Indeed ὀμμάτων ἄπο is not anastrophe, but the original type.t| Nor 
was the preposition originally used with verbs. The preposition 
is merely an adverb that is used with nouns or in composition 
with verbs. But more about that hereafter (Prepositions). The 
point to note here is that when the burden upon the cases grew 
too great adverbs were called in to make clearer the meaning of 
the case in harmony with the analytic tendency of language.” 

(Ὁ) No “GovERNING” oF Cases. These adverbs did not 
govern cases. They were merely the accidental concomitants, 
more or less constant, of certain cases. At best ‘‘the cases could 
express relationship only in a very general way. Hence arose the 
use of adverbs to go with cases in order to make the meaning more 
specific. These adverbs, which we now call prepositions, in time 
became the constant concomitants of some cases; and when this 
has happened there is an ever-increasing tendency to find the 
important part of the meaning in the preposition and not in the 
case-ending.?’’ This quotation from Giles puts the matter in a 
nutshell. In spite of the average grammarian’s notion that prep- 
ositions govern cases, it is not true. The utmost is that the prep- 
osition in question is in harmony with the case in question.* 

(c) Nor Usrep INpIFFERENTLY. These prepositions were not 
used indifferently with all the cases. They are, of course, impos- 
sible with the vocative. But the nominative may be used with 
such adverbs, not called prepositions by the grammarians because 
it seems difficult to explain a preposition ‘‘governing”’ the nom- 
inative. But Paul does not hesitate to say ὕπερ éyw (2 Cor. 11: 23) 
though ὕπερ is not construed with éyw. Cf. also εἷς κατὰ εἷς (Mk. 
14:19), καθ’ eis (Ro. 12:5). It is not certain that any preposi- 
tions are [see x11, (f)] used with the true dative and few with 


1 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 341. 2 Ib. 

5.10 piei2is 

4 Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 173. Farrar (Gk. Synt., p. 94 f.) puts 
the matter succinctly: “It is the case which borrows the aid of the preposition, 
not the preposition which requires the case.” 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 451 


the instrumental (ἅμα, σύν). Giles! denies that the genitive is ever 
used with a preposition. Certainly what is called the geni- 
tive with prepositions is often the ablative. Probably ἐπί and 
ἀντί are used with the real genitive. Naturally the cases that 
are more local in idea like the locative (‘where’), the accusa- 
tive (‘whither’) which is partly local, the instrumental (‘where- 
with’) and the ablative (‘whence’) are those that are most 
frequently supplemented by prepositions.’ 

(d) Or1GgINAL UsE witH Locau Casss. Originally most of 
the prepositions were used with either of these local cases (loc., 
instr., abl.). Some few of them continued to be so used even in 
the N. T. This matter will come up again under the head of 
Prepositions, but we may note here that ἐπί and παρά are the only 
prepositions that use three cases with any frequency? in the N. T., 
and in the case of ἐπί it is probably the true genitive, not the abla- 
tive. Πρός has accusative 679 times, locative 6, and ablative 1 
(Ac. 27 : 34, a literary example). The bulk of those that have two 
are narrowing down to one case® while ἀνά, ἀντί, eis, ἐν, πρό have 
only one, and ἀμφί has disappeared save in composition. If this 
N. T. situation, which is amply supported by the papyri, is com- 
pared with the usage of Homer, the contrast will be very great.® 
To carry the matter a step further one may note that in late 
Greek there is a constant tendency for all prepositions to be used 
with the accusative, so that in modern Greek vernacular all the 
“proper” prepositions are regularly employed with the accusa- 
tive.’ The occasional LX X use of σύν + accusative, while a mere 
error, was in line with this tendency. 

(e) INcREASING UsE or Prepositions. The constantly in- 
creasing use of prepositions is one of the main reasons for the 
blending of the case-forms. This was already partly apparent in 
the Sanskrit in the assimilation of genitive and ablative singular 
and in the plural of ablative and dative. So the Latin locative, 
dative, ablative, instrumental, in most words merged their forms. 
Moulton’ accents the fact that it was the local cases (loc., abl., 
instr.) in the Greek that first gave way in their endings. That is 
true with the exception of the accusative (not a purely local 


1 Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 341. 

2 Ib. But Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 125, correctly admits the gen. 

3 Moulton, Prol., p. 106 f. 4 Ib. * Ib., p. 105 f. 
6 Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., pp. 125 ff. 

7 Thumb, Handb., p. 98; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 366. 

8 Prol., p.-60 f. 


Ane A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


case), which has shown more persistence than any case save the 
genitive. The genitive is a non-local case and has held on, though 
the dative has disappeared in modern Greek vernacular before 
εἰς + accusative, the accusative without εἰς, and the genitive. But 
this break-down of the case-endings.seen in Sanskrit, much more 
apparent in Greek and Latin, has reached its climax in modern 
English and French. In modern English the six Anglo-Saxon end- 
ings, barring pronouns, have disappeared save one, the genitive (s), 
and even that can be expressed by the prep. of. In French the 
process is complete except in prons. Modern Greek vernacular 
shows the influence of this tendency very decidedly. The Greek 
of the N. T. comes therefore in the middle of the stream of this 
analytic tendency. In the old Sanskrit it was all case and no 
preposition. In modern French it is all preposition and no case- 
ending. The case-ideas have not disappeared. They are simply 
expressed more minutely and exactly by means of prepositions. 
By and by the case-endings were felt to be useless as the prepo- 
sition was looked to entirely for the idea. The case without prep- 
osition belongs to the early stage of language history... When 
Delbriick? speaks of a ‘living’ case, he means the case-ending, 
as does Moulton’? when he asserts that ‘“we can detect a few 
moribund traces of instrumental, locative and ablative.” If he 
means the case-meaning, the instances are abundant. And even 
in case-ending it is not all one-sided, for the locative - and the 
instrumental —o.s both contributed to the common stock of forms. 
Henry‘ even suggests that in ὀνόμα-τος we have the ablative ¢ (d), 
for the Latin word is nomen (nominis). 

(f) DistiINncTION PRESERVED IN THE N. T. But the N. T. has 
not lost distinctive use of the cases and prepositions. Special 
causes explain some of the phenomena in the N. T. The excessive 
use of ἐν in the N. T. is parallel to that in the LXX (cf. Jer. 21, 
for instance) and is doubtless due partly to the Hebrew 2 which 
it so commonly translates as Moulton® observes. But the so- 
called instrumental use of ἐν like ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ (Rev. 6:8; cf. Mt. 
12 : 26 f.) is not due entirely to the Hebrew, for, while very com- 
mon in the LXX, where it is in “the plenitude of its power,’’® 
yet the papyri show undoubted examples of the same instrumental 


1 See further Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 376; Brug., Kurze vergl. Gr., II, p. 419. 
2 Vergl. Synt., I, p. 193. 

aa PYOlee eo, 

4 Comp. Gr. of Gk. and Lat.,-p. 217. 

5° Prol.,'p. OL: 6 C. and §., Sel. from the. LXX, p. 82. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 453 


usage.! See further Locative Case and also Prepositions (ἐν). In- 
deed in the N. T. ἐν outnumbers εἰς three to two.? If these two 
prepositions are left out of consideration, the disappearance of 
the locative with prepositions is quite marked in the N. T., a de- 
cay already begun a good while before,’ only to be consummated 
in the modern Greek vernacular, where eis has displaced ἐν (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 100). When one recalls that dative and instrumental 
also have gone from the modern Greek vernacular and that στό 
with the accusative (εἰς τόν) replaces all three cases in modern Greek 
and that originally ἐν and eis were the same preposition, he is not 
surprised to read 6 εἰς τὸν ἀγρόν (Mk. 18:16) where Mt. 24:18 
has ὁ ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ. So Mt. 12:41, μετενόησαν εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα ᾿Ιωνᾶ. 
Moulton‘ has a very suggestive study of πιστεύω. He omits those 
examples where the verb means ‘entrust’ and finds about forty 
others with the simple dative. In the majority of these forty the 
verb means ‘believe.’ There are some debatable passages like 
JO. 5''24,38; 8:31; Ac. 5:14; 16:34;18:8.. He finds only one 
passage outside of Eph. 1:13 where ἐν ᾧ is assimilated (cf. ἐσφρα- 
γίσθητε), viz. Mk. 1: 15 (πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ), and he follows 
Deissmann® in taking ἐν as ‘in the sphere of.’ Πιστεύω ἐπί is 
found six times with the genitive and seven with the accusative 
_ in the sense of ‘repose one’s trust’ upon God or Christ. But πι- 
στεύω eis occurs 45 times (37 in Jo. and 1 Jo.) in the sense of 
‘mystical union with Christ,’ like Paul’s ἐν Χριστῷ. 

IV. The Distinctive Ideas of Each of the Cases. 

(a) FUNDAMENTAL IDEA. The point is, if possible, to get at 
the fundamental idea of each of the eight original cases. To do 
this it 1s essential that one look at the Greek cases historically 
and from the Greek point of view. Foreigners may not appreciate 
all the niceties, but they ean understand the respective import 
of the Greek cases.’ The N. T. writers, as we now know per- 
fectly well, were not strangers to the vernacular κοινή, nor were 
the LXX translators for that matter, though they indeed were 
hampered by translating a Semitic tongue into Greek. The 
N. T. writers were in their element when they wrote vernacular 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 61 f. 

2 Ib., p. 62. Helbing, Die Prepos. bei Herodot und andern Histor. (1904), 
pp. 8 ff., gives a summary of the uses of & and eis. Cf. also Moulton’s re- 
marks on Helbing’s items (Prol., p. 62). 

8. Moulton, Prol., p. 62. 

4 Prol., p. 67 f. 6 Cf. Heitmiiller, Im Namen Jesu, I, ch. 4. 

5 In Christo, p. 46 f. 7 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 68. 


454 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


xown. They knew the import of the Greek cases as used at 
that time by the people at large. 

(b) Cases NoT Usep FOR ONE ANOTHER. We have no right 
to assume in the N. T. that one case is used for another. That is 
to say, that you have a genitive, but it is to be understood as an 
accusative. Winer! properly condemns such enallage casuwm. 
Not even in 2 Cor. 6:4 (συνιστάνοντες ἑαυτοὺς ws θεοῦ διάκονοι) do 
we have an instance of it, for the nominative (lit. plural) means ‘as 
minister of God I commend myself,’ while the accusative (διακόνους) 
would be, ‘I commend myself as a minister of God.’ We are then 
to look for the distinctive idea of each case just as we find it. In 
the modern Greek, to be sure, the cases are in such confusion (da- 
tive, locative, instrumental gone) that one cannot look for the old 
distinctions. | 

(c) ViraLity oF CAsE-IDEA. This independence of the case- 
idea is not out of harmony with the blending of case-forms (abl. 
and gen., loc. and instr. and dat.). This is a very different matter 
from the supposed substitution of cases alluded to above. The 
genitive continued to be a genitive, the ablative an ablative in 
spite of the fact that both had the same ending. There would be, 
of course, ambiguous examples, as such ambiguities occur in other 
parts of speech. The context is always to be appealed to in order 
to know the case. 

(d) THe HistoricAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE CassEs. This 
is always to be considered. The accusative is the oldest of the 
cases, may, in fact, be considered the original and normal case. 
Other cases are variations from it in course of linguistic develop- 
ment. With verbs in particular which were transitive the accusa- 
tive was the obvious case to use unless there was some special 
reason to use some other. The other oblique cases with verbs 
(gen., abl., loc., instr., dat.) came to be used with one verb or the 
other rather than the accusative, because the idea of that verb 
and the case coalesced in a sense. Thus the dative with πείθο- 
μαι, the instrumental with ypdoua, etc. But with many of these 
verbs the accusative continued to be used in the vernacular (or 
even in the literary language with a difference of idea, as ἀκούω). 
In the vernacular κοινή the accusative is gradually reasserting itself 
by the side of the other cases with many verbs. This tendency 
kept up to the complete disappearance of the dative, locative and 
instrumental in modern Greek (cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 31), and the 


1 W.-Th., p.180f. The ancients developed no adequate theory of the cases 
since they were concerned little with syntax. Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 37. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 455 


genitive, accusative and eis compete for the function of the old 
dative (ib., pp. 38 ff.).1. The accusative was always the most 
popular case. Krebs? has made a useful study of the cases in 
the literary κοινή, and Moulton® thinks that these tendencies of 
the literary κοινή are really derived from the vernacular. But not 
all the verbs fall in with the decay of the dative-locative-instru- 
mental. Thus προσκυνεῖν in the N. T. has the dative twice as often 
as the accusative, just the opposite of the inscriptions.4’ But the 
papyri show little proof of the decay of the dative save in the 
illiterate examples. The accusative gains from the genitive and 
ablative in the N. T. also, as Krebs found in the later literary 
Greek. Moulton® finds that out of 46 examples κρατεῖν has the 
genitive only ὃ times, but διαφέρειν has the ablative always. 
᾿Εντρέπεσθαι takes only the accusative, and the accusative appears 
with verbs of filling (Rev. 17: 3).7 Moulton concludes his résumé 
of Krebs by calling attention to the list of verbs that were once 
intransitive, but are transitive in the κοινή. This is a matter 
that is always changing and the same verb may be used either 
way. A verb is transitive, by the way, whether it takes the 
accusative or not; if it has any oblique case it is transitive. As 
illustrations of this varied usage Moulton cites from the N. T. 
ἐνεργεῖν, συνεργεῖν, ἐπέρχεσθαι, καταβαρεῖν, καταλαλεῖν, καταπονεῖν, Ka- 
τισχύειν, πλεονεκτεῖν, προσφωνεῖν, ὑποτρέχειν, χορηγεῖν. He concludes 
his discussion of the matter with a needed caveat (p. 65 f.) against 
thinking that all distinctions of case are blurred in the N. T. “We 
should not assume, from the evidence just presented as to varia- 
tion of case with verbs, that the old distinctions of case-meaning 
have vanished, or that we may treat as mere equivalents those 
constructions which are found in common with the same word.” 
Analogy no doubt played its part in case-contamination as well 
as in the blending of the case-endings.°® 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 325. 

2 Zur Rection der Casus in der spit. hist. Gric., 1887-90. 

3 Prol., p. 64. 5 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 153. 
4 Ib.; Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 436. ἐν Prol:; p. 65. 


7 Ib. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 102. Cf. Thumb, Theol. Lit., XXVIII, 
p. 422, for mod. Gk. usage. As a matter of fact the acc. was always more pop- 
ular in the vernac. Gk., and no wonder that the pap. show it to be so even with 
verbs usually in the lit. lang. used with other cases. Cf. Volker, Pap. Graec. 
Synt., 1900, p. 5f. | 

8 Middleton, Anal. in Synt., pp. 47-55. Farrar, Gk. Synt., overstates it 
when he says that the acc. alone has preserved its original force. He means 
form alone. 


456 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(ec) THe Mertruop or THis GRAMMAR. In the study of each 
case the method of this grammar is to begin with the root-idea of 
the particular case in hand. Out of that by means of context 
and grammatical history the resultant meaning in the particular 
instance can be reached. This is not only more simple, but it is 
in harmony with the facts of the linguistic development and usage. 
Even in an instance like ἐν μαχαίρῃ (Lu. 22 : 49) the locative case 
is not out of place. The smiting (πατάξομεν) is conceived as located 
in the sword. Cf. ἐν ῥάβδῳ (1 Cor. 4:21). The papyri show the 
same usage, as indeed the older classical Greek did occasionally. 
In English we translate this resultant idea by ‘with,’ but we 
have no right to assume that the Greeks thought of é as ‘with.’ 
The LXX shows that the Hebrew 2 corresponded closely to the 
Greek ἐν in this resultant idea. In translation we often give not 
the real meaning of the word, but the total idea, though here the 
LXX follows closely the Hebrew. One of the chief difficulties in 
syntax is to distinguish between the Greek idiom and the English 
translation of the idiom plus the context. But enough of prelim- 
inary survey. Let us now examine each case in turn. 

V. The Nominative (πτῶσις ὀρθή, εὐθεῖα, ὀνομαστική). 

For the older books on the nominative case see Hiibner, Grund- 
γι88 οὗο., ἢ. 96. 

(a) Not Tur Outprst Case. The first thing to observe about 
the nominative is that it is not the oldest case. The accusative 
is treated first in some grammars and seems to be the oldest. 
That is the proper historical order, but it seems best on the 
whole to treat the so-called “oblique” cases together. The term 
“oblique cases” (πτώσεις πλάγιαι) has a history. The nominative 
was not originally regarded as a case, but merely the noun (ὄνομα). 
So Aristotle! The vocative is not a real case, as we shall see di- 
rectly. Hence a case (casus) was considered ws ἀπὸ τοῦ ὀνόματος 
πεπτωκυῖΐῖα, Areal πτῶσις. All the true cases therefore were oblique. 
Indeclinable words are ἄπτωτα. When the nominative was con- 
sidered a case it was still called by the word for noun (ὀνομαστική, 
nominativus), the naming or noun case. The Hindu grammarians 
indeed call the nominative prathamd (‘first’) as the leading case, 
not in time, but in service. This is merely the logical arrangement 
followed by the Western scholars.2 There was once no need felt 
for a nominative, since the verb itself had its own subject in the 
personal endings.’ But originally one may suppose a word served 


1 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 67. 2 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 89. 
§ Monro, Hom. Gr., Ὁ. 113; Giles, Man., p. 301. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 457 


as subject of the verb and may have become an ending. Even 
the impersonal verbs like καλῶς ἔχει have the subject in the same 
way. The use of a special case for this purpose was an after- 
thought. | 

(Ὁ) REASON FoR THE Case. Why then was the nominative 
used? Why was it ever originated? Its earliest use was in apposi- 
tion to the verbal subject alluded to above.! Greater precision in 
the subject was desired, and so a substantive or pronoun was put 
in apposition with the verbal ending. Sometimes both substan- 
tive and pronoun are employed as in αὐτὸς δὲ ἐγὼ Παῦλος παρακαλῶ 
(2 Cor. 10:1). Other languages can even use other cases for 
such apposition in the predicate. Cf. English It’s me, French c’est 
mot and Latin dedecori est. And the Greek itself shows abundant 
evidence of lack of concord of case in apposition (cf. Rev. in the 
N. T.).2 But the nominative is a constant resource in appositional 
phrases, whatever case the other word may be in. The whole 
subject of apposition was discussed in the chapter on the Sentence. 
Cf. ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος, Where the same point applies.t Cf. ἀνήρ τις 
’Avavias (Ac. 5:1). In the modern Greek this usage partly re- 
places the explanatory genitive, as σπυρὶ σινάπι, ‘mustard seed’ 
(Thumb, Handb., p. 33). 

(c) PrepicaTtE Nominative. The predicate nominative is in 
line with the subject nominative. It is really apposition.® The 
double nominative belongs to Greek as to all languages which use 
certain verbs as a copula like εἶναι, γίνεσθαι, καλεῖσθαι, etc. Cf. 
σὺ εἶ Πέτρος (Mt. 16:18). The Latin is fond of the dative in such 
examples as id mihi honor? est, and the Greek can use one dative, as 
ὄνομά ἐστί μοι. Thus in the N. T. ἐκλήθη τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦς (Lu. 
2:21), ἀνὴρ καλούμενος Ζακχαῖος (Lu. 19 : 2), ἦν ὄνομα τῷ δούλῳ Μάλχος 
(Jo. 18 : 10), as well as’ ᾿Ιωάνης ἐστὶν ὄνομα αὐτοῦ (Lu. 1:63). The 
use of the nominative in the predicate with the infinitive in indirect 
discourse (φάσκοντες εἶναι σοφοί, Ro. 1:22) is proper when the sub- 
ject of the principal verb is referred to. See Indirect Discourse 
(Modes and Infinitive). But the N. T., especially in quotations 
from the LXX and passages under Semitic influence, often uses 


1 Tb., p. 302. 

2 Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 188. 

3 Cf. Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 203, for exx. of the free use of the 
noun in app. 

4 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 117. 

5 Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 393 f.; Monro, Hom. Gk., p. 114f. 

6 Cf. K.-G., I, p. 44. 7 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 256. 


458 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


els and the accusative rather than the predicate nom. Moulton! 
denies that it is a real Hebraism since the papyri show the idiom 
ἔσχον παρ᾽ ὑμῶν eis δά(νειον) σπέρματα, K.P. 46 (ii/A.D.), where εἰς 
means ‘as’ or ‘for,’ much like the N. T. usage. But the fact that it 
is so common in the translation passages and that the LXX is so 
full of it as a tranlation of 3 justifies Blass* in saying that it is 
formed on a Hebrew model though it is not un-Greek. Winer? 
finds it in the late Greek writers, but the Hebrew is chiefly respon- 
sible for the LXX situation. The most frequent examples in the 
N. T. are with εἶναι (ἔσονται εἰς σάρκα μίαν, Mt. 19 : 5, which can be 
compared with Lu. 3:5; 2 Cor. 6:18; Ac. 8 : 23, etc.), γίνεσθαι 
(ἐγενήθη εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας, Mt. 21:42, with which compare Lu. 
13:19; Jo. 16:20; Rev. 8:11, etc.), ἐγείρειν eis βασιλέα (Ac. 13: 22), 
ἐλογίσθη eis δικαιοσύνην (Ro. 4 : 8 ff.). Cf. also Jo. 16:20. Probably 
the following examples have rather some idea of purpose and are 
more in accord with the older Greek idiom. In 1 Cor. 4 : 3, ἐμοὶ εἰς 
ἐλάχιστόν ἐστιν, the point is not very different. Cf. also 1 Cor. 
14 : 22 (eis σημεῖον). But observe μὴ els κενὸν γένηται (1 Th. 8 : δ), 
els πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς κατάκριμα (Ro. 5:18), ἐγένετο ἡ πόλις εἰς τρία 
μέρη (Rev. 10 : 19). 

(4) ΘΟΜΕΤΙΜῈΒ UNALTERED. As the name-case the nominative 
is sometimes left unaltered in the sentence instead of being put in 
the case of the word with which it is in apposition. Cf. Rev. 1:5; 
Mk. 12 : 38-40; Lu. 20:27; Ac. 10:37. This is in accord with 
the ancient Greek idiom, though the Book of Rev. has rather more 
than the usual proportion of such examples. See chapter on the 
Sentence for detailed discussion. In Rev. 9:11 observe ὄνομα 
ἔχει ᾿Απολλύων (cf. ᾿Αβαδδών also), where the nominative is retained 
much after the fashion of our quotation-marks. The same thing4 
is noticeable in Jo. 18 : 13 ὑμεῖς φωνεῖτέ we Ὃ διδάσκαλος καὶ ‘O κύριος, 
for thus W. H. print it. This is a classic idiom. Cf. Xenoph., 
Oec. 6, 14 ἔχοντας, τὸ σεμνὸν τοῦτο τὸ καλός τε κἀγαθός. Cf. Lu. 
19 : 29; 21:37, where W. Η. print εἰς τὸ ὄρος τὸ καλούμενον ἐλαιῶν. 
But, we know from Ac. 1:12 (ἀπὸ ὄρους τοῦ καλουμένου ἐλαιῶνος) 
that ἐλαιών could be in Luke a nominative (abundantly confirmed 


ls Prolene Gite 

2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 85. “Ein starker Hebraismus,”’ W.-Sch., p. 257. 

3 W.-Th., p. 184. ; 

4 Moulton, Prol., p. 235, endorses Blass’s view (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 85) 
that in Jo. 13 : 13 we have the voc. The nom. is hardly “incredible” (Blass). 
Cf. loose use of the nom. in lists in Boeot. inser. in the midst of other cases 
(Claflin, Synt., etc., p. 46). 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 459 


by the papyri). The most that can be said about the passages 
in Luke is that the nominative ἐλαιών is entirely possible, perhaps 
probable! In Rev. 1:4 (ἀπὸ ὁ ὧν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος) the 
nominative is kept purposely, as has been shown, to accent the 
unchangeableness of God, not that John did not know how to use 
the ablative after ἀπό, for in the same sentence he has ἀπὸ τῶν 
πνευμάτων. Moulton? aptly describes the nominative as “resid- 
uary legatee of case-relations not obviously appropriated by 
other cases.’”’ But as a matter of fact the nominative as a rule 
is used normally and assimilation is general so that in Mt. 1:21 
(cf. 1 : 25 also) we read καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦν. Cf. Mk. 
3:16 ὄνομα Πέτρον and Ac. 27:1 ἑκατοντάρχῃ ὀνόματι ᾿Ιουλίῳ. Cf. 
Ac. 18:2. It is, of course, nothing strange to see the nomina- 
tive form in apposition with a vocative, as ὑμεῖς of φαρισαῖοι (Lu. 
11 : 39), πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (Mt. 6:9). This is only nat- 
ural as the article and participles have no vocative form. Cf. ὦ 
ἄνθρωπε ὁ κρίνων (Ro. 2:38). Cf. even oval ὑμῖν, of ἐμπεπλησμένοι 
(Lu. 6 : 25), where we have really the vocative, not apposition. 
(6) THE NOMINATIVE ABSOLUTE. ‘The nominative is sometimes 
used absolutely, nominatus pendens, just as the genitive (abla- 
tive) and accusative are. Cf. ablative absolute in Latin, loca- 
tive in Anglo-Saxon, and nominative absolute in modern Greek 
and modern English. In titles the nominative is the natural case 
and is left suspended. Cf. Παῦλος κλητὸς ἀπόστολος (1 Cor. 1:1). 
The LXX has an abnormal number of suspended nominatives, 
due to a literal translation of the Hebrew.? But the N. T. has 
some also which are due to change of structure, as ὁ νικῶν ποιήσω 
αὐτόν (Rev. 3:12), ὁ νικῶν δώσω αὐτῷ (Rev. 3:21), ὁ yap Μωυσῆς 
οὗτος --- οὐκ οἴδαμεν τί ἔγένετο αὐτῷ (Ac. 7:40), πᾶν ῥῆΊμα ἀργὸν --- 
ἀποδώσουσι περὶ αὐτοῦ λόγον (Mt. 12 : 36), ταῦτα ἃ θεωρεῖτε, ἐλεύσονται 
ἡμέραι (Lu. 21:6). In particular is the participle (cf. Jo. 7 : 38, 
ὁ πιστεύων eis Eve) COMMON in such a nominative, about which see 
the chapter on the Sentence (anacoluthon). Moulton‘ considers 
this one of ‘‘the easiest. of anacolutha.”’ Cf. further πᾶς ὃς ἐρεῖ 
— ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ (Lu. 12 : 10; cf. verse 8). Cf. Jo. 18:11. Some 
of the examples, like τὸ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου, ἐν ᾧ ἠσθένει (Ro. ὃ : 3), 
may be regarded as accusative as easily as nominative. The 


1 See extended discussion in Moulton, Prol., pp. 69, 235. See also note in 
this Gr. in ch. on Orthog. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 256 f. 

2 Prol., p. 69. X 

8. C. and S., Sel. from the LXX, p. 55. 

4 Prol., pp. 69, 225. 


460 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


papyri! show plenty of examples of this suspended nominative. 
For classical instances see Riemann and Goelzer, Syntaxe, p. 41. 
For elliptical nominative see Εὐδία (Mt. 16 : 2). There was a con- 
stant tendency in the LXX to drift into the nominative in a long 
series of words in apposition (Thackeray, p. 23). 

(f) THe PARENTHETIC NOMINATIVE is of a piece with what we 
have been considering. So in Jo. 1:6 we have ὄνομα αὐτῷ ᾿Ιωάνης 
all by itself. Cf. 3:1 (Νικόδημος ὄνομα αὐτῷ). Similarly the nom- 
inative in expressions of time rather than the accusative may be 
explained.2. For example in Mk. ὃ : 2 we read ὅτι ἤδη ἡμέραι τρεῖς 
προσμένουσίν μοι. Cf. Mt. 15:32. In Lu. 9: 28 ὡσεὶ ἡμέραι ὀκτὼ the 
matter is simpler. Blass* compares with this passage ὡς ὡρῶν τριῶν 
διάστημα (Ac. 5:7) and ἰδοὺ δέκα καὶ ὀκτὼ ἔτη (Lu. 13:16). The use 
of ἰδού with the nominative is very common and may be a case of 
ellipsis. Cf. ἰδοὺ φωνὴ ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν λέγουσα (Mt. 3:17). Cf. Heb. 
2:13, ete. In Mk. 6:40 observe ἀνέπεσαν πρασιαὶ πρασιαί. This 
leads one to suspect that συμπόσια συμπόσια In verse 89 may be 
nominative also. The repetition is not a mere Hebraism, since 
the papyri show examples of it. See Eccl. 2:16 καθότι ἤδη αἱ 
ἡμέραι ἐρχόμεναι τὰ πάντα ἐπελήσθη. ‘This use of the nominative is 
common in the papyri (cf. ἔτι ἡμέραι yap ἤδη τρεῖς Kal νύκτες τρεῖς 
Θέκλα οὐκ eynyepta, Acta Pauli et Theclae in O.P.1., p. 9) and can 
be traced in the Attic vernacular back to the fifth century B.c.4 
Thumb finds it still in the modern Greek, and Hopkins (A.J.P. 
xxiv. 1) “cites a rare use from the Sanskrit: ‘a year (nom.) almost, 
I have not gone out from the hermitage’’’ (Moulton, Prol., p. 235). 
See other papyri examples in Cl. Rev., April, 1904, p. 152. Of a 
piece with this is the nominative with adverbs (prepositions) like 
els κατὰ εἷς (Mk. 14 : 19) where the first εἷς is in partitive apposition 
and the second is kept rather than made accusative. Cf. καθ᾽ εἷς 
(Ro. 12:5), ava εἷς (Rev. 21:21). Brugmann® indeed considers 
the adverbs πρῶτον, δεύτερον, etc., in the nominative neuter rather 
than the accusative neuter singular. He cites ἀναμίξ as proof. 
Cf. the use of καὶ τοῦτο (and also καὶ ταῦτα), as καὶ τοῦτο ἐπὶ ἀπίστων 
(1 Cor. 6 : 0). But αὐτὸ τοῦτο (2 Pet. 1 : 5) is probably accusative. 
The prolepsis of the nominative as in 1 Cor. 14 : 10 (ὁ ἀναπληρῶν 
τὸν τόπον τοῦ ἰδιώτου πῶς ἐρεῖ) is natural. Cf. examples like χρόνος 
ὁ αὐτός in Boeotian inscriptions (Claflin, Syntax, ete., p. 47). 


1 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 151 f. 

2 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 70. 5. Grvot NAG; psa 
4 Moulton, Prol., p. 70; Meisterh., Gr., etc., p. 203. 

5 Griech. Gr., p. 378. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 461 


(g) In Excuamations. The nominative is natural in exclama- 
tions, a sort of interjectional nominative.' So Paul in Ro. 7 : 24, 
ταλαίπωρος ἔγὼ ἄνθρωπος, and 11:33, ὦ βάθος (a possible vocative) 
πλούτου. So. Ro. 7:24; 2 Cor. 12:18. Cf. χάρις τῷ θεῷ (Ro. 
6:17). For parallel in papyri see Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 436. 
Cf. χάρις τοῖς θεοῖς, B.U. 843 (i/a.D.). 

(h) Usep as Vocative. It only remains to consider the nom- 
inative form which is used as a vocative. Cf. chapter VII, 7, (a), 
for details as to form. It all depends on what one means by the 
term “case” when he says that the nominative is used as a voca- 
tive. The form is undoubtedly the same as that of the vocative in 
a multitude of instances (all neuter nouns, for instance, singular 
‘and plural, plural of all nouns in truth). It is only in the singular 
that any distinction was made between the nominative and voca- 
tive in form, and by no means always here, as in the case of fem- 
inine nouns of the first declension, θεός (usually) in the second, 
liquid oxytones like ποιμήν in the third, ete. But if by the voca- 
tive one means the case of address, then the nominative form in 
address is really vocative, not nominative. Thus σύ, πατήρ (Jo. 
17:21) is just as truly vocative as ot, πάτερ (17:5). Indeed in 
Jo. 17:25 we have πατὴρ dixae, showing that πατήρ is here re- 
garded as vocative. The article with the vocative in address was 
the usual Hebrew and Aramaic idiom, as indeed in Aristophanes? 
we have ὁ παῖς ἀκολούθει. It is good Greek and good Aramaic too 
when we have ᾿Αββά ὁ πατήρ (Mk. 14:36) whether Jesus said one 
or both. In Mt. 11 : 26 (vai, ὁ πατήρ) we have the vocative. When 
the article is used, of course the nominative form must occur. 
Thus in Rev. 18:20 we have both together, οὐρανὲ καὶ οἱ ἅγιοι. 
Indeed the second member of the address is always in the nom- 
inative form.’ Thus Κύριε, ὁ Θεός, ὁ παντοκράτωρ (Rev. 15:3). Cf. 
Jo. 20:28. I shall treat therefore this as really the vocative, not 
the nominative, whatever the form may be, and now pass on to 
the consideration of the Vocative Case. 

VI. The Vocative (πτῶσις κλητική). 

(a) NATURE OF THE VocaTIVE. Dionysius Thrax called it also 
προσαγορευτική, but in reality it is not a case at all. Practically it 
has to be treated as a case, though technically it is not (Farrar, 
Greek Syntax, p. 69). It is wholly outside of syntax in that the 
word is isolated and has no word-relations.*| The isolation of the 

1 Cf. Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 41; Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 115 f. 


2 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 86; Moulton, Prol., p. 70. 
8 Riem. and Goelzer, p.42. 4 Brug., Griech. Gr., p.376; Giles, Man., p. 302. 


462 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


vocative may be compared to the absolute use of the nomina- 
tive, genitive and accusative. The native Sanskrit grammarians 
do not name it in their list of cases, and Whitney! merely 
treats it in the singular after the other cases. Indeed the 
vocative is sometimes as much a sentence as a case, since the 
word stands to itself and forms a complete idea. Thus Μαριάμ 
and 'Ῥαββουνεί (Jo. 20:16) tell the whole story of recognition 
between Jesus and Mary. When Thomas said ‘O κύριός μου καὶ ὁ 
θεός μου (Jo. 20:28), he gave Christ full acceptance of his deity and 
of the fact of his resurrection. 

(b) Various Devices. The vocative has no case-ending, but 
has to resort to various expedients. In general it is just like the 
nominative in form. ‘This is true in all pronouns, participles and 
various special words like θεός, besides the plurals, neuters and 
feminines mentioned under v, (h). Cf. the same practical situation 
in the Sanskrit.2. Farrar’ indeed conjectures that originally there 
was no difference in form at all between the nominative and voca- 
tive and that the variation which did come was due to rapid 
pronunciation in address. Thus πατήρ, but πάτερ. Cf. ἄνερ (1 Cor. 
7:16). In most languages there is no distinction in form at all 
between nominative and vocative, and in Latin the distinction is 
rare. It need not be surprising, therefore, to find the nominative 
form of many singular words used as vocative as noted above 
under the discussion of the nominative. Moulton® indeed re- 
marks: ‘The anarthrous nominative should probably be regarded 
as a mere substitute for the vocative, which begins from the ear- 
liest times to be supplanted by the nominative.’ Even in the 
singular the distinction was only partial and not very stable at 
best, especially in the vernacular, and gradually broke down till 
‘in modern Greek the forms in ε are practically the only separate 
vocatives surviving.’ Thus Blass® observes: “From the earliest 
times (the practice is as old as Homer) the nominative has a tend- 
ency to usurp the place of the vocative.”’ This nominative form 
in the singular is just as really vocative as in the plural when used 
in address. The N. T. therefore is merely in line with the oldest 
Greek idiom in such examples. So θυγάτηρ (Mk. 5 : 34; Lu. 8: 48; 
Jo. 12:15, LXX), but see θύγατερ in Mt. 9:22. In Jo. 17: 21, 
24, 25, W. H. read πατήρ, but πάτερ in Jo. 12: 28; 17:1, 5, 11, ete. 
Moulton’ rightly refuses to follow Hort in writing πάτηρ in voca- 

1 Sans. Gr., p. 89. 5. Giksynt- paso: ΡΟ Dads 


2 Whitney, p. 105. 4 Ib., p. 69. °° Gr, of N:-T..Gki, pass. 
7 Prol., p. 71. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 158. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 463 


tive. In the margin of Mt. 9: 27 W. H. read υἱὸς Δαυείδ rather 
than vié A. Mt. 1:20 has ᾿Ιωσὴφ vids Δανείδ, and 15: 22 κύριε vids 
Δαυείδ, all examples of apposition. Cf. Mt. 20:30. But in Lu. 
8 : 28 and 18 : 38 we have vie. The adjective ἄφρων is vocative in 
Lu. 12 : 20 and 1 Cor. 15:36. Cf. also γενεὰ ἄπιστος in Lu. 9 : 41. 
In Acts 13:10 πλήρης is vocative. Cf. indeclinable use of this 
word. As is well known θεός was usually retained in the voca- 
tive in the older Greek, not θεέ. In the N. T. θεξ only appears 
in Mt. 27:46 in quotation from the LXX where it is rare. 
Jannaris? indeed thinks that in the N. T. this idiom is 
rather frequent. Cf. λαός wou in Baruch 4:5. In Ac. 7:42 
οἶκος ᾿Ισραήλ is vocative (from LXX). Cf. also βάθος πλούτου 
(Ro. 11 : 88), not address, but exclamation. When the vocative 
has a separate form in the singular it is usually merely the stem 
of the word, like πολῖτα, δαῖμον, λέον(τ), etc. But it is more than 
doubtful if this usage goes back to the original Indo-Germanic 
stock.? Cf. βασιλεῦ in Ac. 26:7. In the second declension mas- 
culine nouns in the singular show a change in the stem-vowel, o 
changing to e. This usage has persisted in modern Greek verna- 
cular in most words; but note θεός above and the variations about 
υἱός. But see ἄνθρωπε (Ro. 2:1) as usual. In γύναι (Mt. 15:28) 
x has dropped from the stem, as in forms like λέον the 7 vanishes 
for euphony. In θύγατερ and πάτερ the mere stem suffers recessive 
accent. In Ps. 51:6 (γλῶσσαν δολίαν) we actually have the ac- 
cusative form used as a vocative.4 See further discussion in ch. VII 
(Declensions). 

(c) USE OF ὦ WITH THE VocaTIVE. It is rare in the N. T., 
only 17 times, all but four of these in Luke and Paul. In Blass- 
Debrunner, p. 90, the rarity of ὦ is attributed to the Semitic in- 
fluence. The common absence of it gives a sort of solemnity 
where it is found. Moulton® observes that it is only in Luke’s 
writings that it appears in the N. T. without emphasis after the 
classical fashion. Take as an instance of this literary usage ὦ 
Θεόφιλε (Ac. 1:1), but κράτιστε Θεόφιλε in Lu. 1:3. Moulton 
likewise notes the absence of ὦ in prayer in the N. T. (though 
sometimes in the LXX) and considers ‘‘the progressive omission 
of &’” in Greek not easy to explain. It came up from the verna- 
cular and then gradually vanished from the vernacular much as 


1 W.-Sch., p. 258 f.; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 86 f. 

ae Hist. Gk. Grd. p. 327. 

8 Delbriick, Syntakt. Forch., IV, p. 28. 5 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 327. 
4 C, and S., Sel. from the Sept., p. 56. eaProls Diet ls 


464 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


our O has done.! Blass? notes that in most of the N. T. examples 
it expresses emotion, as ὦ γύναι (Mt. 15 : 28), ὦ γενεὰ ἄπιστος (Mk. 
9:19), ὦ πλήρης (Ac. 13 :10), etc. The tone may be one of censure 
as in Ro. 2:3; 9:20. But it is a mistake to think that the ancient 
Greeks always used ὦ in formal address. Simcox? notes that 
Demosthenes often said ἄνδρες ᾿Αθηναῖοι just as Paul did in Ac. 
17:22. Paul says ὦ ἄνδρες once (Ac. 27:21). But the addresses 
in the N. T. are usually without ὦ (cf. Ac. 7:3). 

(d) ApsectiIves UseD WITH THE VocATIVE naturally have the 
same form. Thus ὦ ἄνθρωπε κενέ (Jas. 2:20), δοῦλε rovnpe (Mt. 
18:32), πάτερ ἅγιε (Jo. 17:11), κράτιστε Θεόφιλε (Lu. 1:3). In 
Jo. 17:25 we read πατὴρ dixae, clearly showing that πατήρ was 
regarded as a true vocative form. In Lu. 9:41 ὦ γενεὰ ἄπιστος 
the substantive has the same form in nominative and vocative 
and the adjective here follows suit. Cf. also Ac. 18:10; Lu. 12: 20 
where the adjective alone in the vocative has nominative form. 

(6) APPOSITION TO THE VocATIVE. The nominative forms and 
distinctive vocative forms are freely used side by side, in apposi- 
tion, etc., when the case is vocative.t In Mt. 1:20 we have 
᾿Ιωσὴφ vids Δαυείδ, and in 15:22 W. H. read in the text κύριε vids 
Aaveié. Cf. also Mt. 20:30. So κύριε, ὁ θεός, 6 παντοκράτωρ (Rev. 
15 : 3), and ὦ ἄνθρωπε, πᾶς ὁ κρίνων (Ro. 2:1). In the last instance 
the participle and article naturally are unchanged. See again 
οὐρανὲ Kal of ἅγιοι, etc. (Rev. 18:20). Cf. also πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς 
οὐρανοῖς (Mt. 6:9). So κύριέ μου πατήρ, B.U. 428 (ii/a.p.). But two 
vocative forms are put together also. So ’Inaod υἱὲ τοῦ ὑψίστου 
(Lu. ὃ : 28), πάτερ κύριε τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (10 : 21), ᾿Ιησοῦ υἱὲ Δαυείδ (18 : 38). 
In Ac. 13:10 the nominative form is followed by two vocative 
forms, ὦ πλήρης παντὸς δόλου KTX., υἱὲ διαβόλου, ἐχθρὲ πάσης δικαιοσύνης. 
But πλήρης may be here indeclinable. There is a distinct tendency 
among the less educated writers in the papyri to use the nominative 
as a convenient indeclinable (Moulton, Cl. Rev., April, 1904). So 
τῆς ἐπιτήρησις, N. P. 38 (ili/A.p.). 

(f) Vocative IN Prepicatr. The vocative is rarely found in 
the predicate, though not grammatical predicate. This was oc- 


1 Cf. J. A. Scott, Am. Jour. of Philol., xxvi, pp. 32-43, cited by Moulton, 
ῬΙΟΙ ἢ 11 

? Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 86. Cf. also W.-Sch., p. 257 f.; Johannessohn, Der 
Gebr. d. Kasus u. ἃ. Priip. in ἃ. LXX, 1910, pp. 8-13. 

5 Lang. of the N. T., p. 76. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 378. 

* K.-G., I, p. 50; Giles, Man., p. 302; Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 116. Cf. also 
C. and §S., Sel. from the Sept., p. 55. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 465 


casionally the case in the older Greek by a sort of attraction to a 
real vocative in the sentence.! But in the N. T. we only have a 
few examples in the nature of quotation or translation. So in Jo. 
1:38, ἹΡαββεί, ὃ λέγεται μεθερμηνευόμενον Διδάσκαλε; 20: 16 ‘PaB- 
βουνεί, ὃ λέγεται Διδάσκαλε. 

(g) THe ARTICLE WITH THE VOCATIVE. This idiom is frequent 
in the N. T., some 60 examples.? It is a good Greek idiom and not 
infrequent.’ Delbriick‘ finds it in harmony with the Indo-Germanic 
languages. Moulton® denies that the coincident Hebrew and 
Aramaic use of the article in address had any influence on the 
N. T. But one must admit that the LXX translators would 
be tempted to use this Greek idiom very frequently, since the He- 
brew had the article in address. Cf. 3 Ki. 17:20, 21, ete. In 
Mk. 5:41 the Aramaic Ταλειθά is translated τὸ κοράσιον. One is 
therefore bound to allow some influence to the Hebrew and Ara- 
maic.’ Cf. also ’ABGa ὁ πατήρ in Mk. 14 : 36, Gal. 4:6, and Ro. 
8:15. It is doubtless true that ἡ παῖς ἔγειρε (Lu. ὃ : 54) has a 
touch of tenderness, and that τὸ μικρὸν ποίμνιον (Lu. 12 : 32) means 
‘you little flock.’ But one can hardly see such familiarity in 
ὁ πατήρ (Mt. 11:26). But in Mk. 9:25 there may be a sort of 
insistence in the article, like ‘Thou dumb and deaf spirit’ (τὸ 
ἄλαλον καὶ κωφὸν πνεῦμα). Even here the Aramaic, if Jesus used 
it, had the article. Moulton’ considers that βασιλεῦ in Ac. 20: 7 
admits the royal prerogative in a way that would be inappropriate 
in the mockery of Jesus in Jo. 19: 3 (χαῖρε, ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων). 
But Mk. 15 : 18 does have βασιλεῦ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων, due, according to 
Moulton, to ‘‘the writer’s imperfect sensibility to the more delicate 
shades of Greek idiom.”’ Possibly so, but may not the grammarian 
be guilty of slight overrefinement just here? In Mt. 27:29 the 
text of W. H. has βασιλεῦ while the margin reads ὁ βασιλεύς. In 
Rev. 15:3 we have ὁ βασιλεύς τῶν αἰώνων. In Heb. 1:8 it is not 
certain whether (6 θρόνος σου ὁ θεός) ὁ θεός is Vocative or nominative. 
But ὁ δεσπότης ὁ ἅγιος καὶ ἀληθινός (Rev. 6:10) is vocative. As 
examples of participles in the vocative take ὁ καταλύων (Mt. 27 : 40) 


1 Giles, Man., p. 302; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 377. Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., 


p. 397 f. 2 Moulton, Prol., p. 70. 
8 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 70. Cf. K.-G., I, pp. 46 ff. 
4 Vergl. Synt., p. 398 f. 5 Prol., p. 70. 


6 C. and S., Sel., etc., p. 54. 

7 Moulton in a note (p. 235) does concede some Aram. influence. In He- 
brews it only occurs, as he notes, in O. T. citations. Cf. also Dalman, Gr., 
p. 118. 

8 Prol., p. 70. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 327. 


466 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


and of ἐμπεπλησμένοι νῦν (Lu. 6:25). In Rev. 4:11 we have also 
the vocative case in ὁ κύριος καὶ 6 θεός. In Jo. 20 : 28 Thomas ad- 
dresses Jesus as ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου, the vocative like those 
above. Yet, strange to say, Winer! calls this exclamation rather 
than address, apparently to avoid the conclusion that Thomas 
was satisfied as to the deity of Jesus by his appearance to him 
after the resurrection. Dr. KE. A. Abbott? follows suit also in an 
extended argument to show that κύριε 6 θεός is the LX X way of 
addressing God, not ὁ κύριος καὶ 6 θεός. But after he had written 
he appends a note to p. 95 to the effect that “this is not quite 
satisfactory. For ΧΙ]. 19, φωνεῖτέ we ὁ διδάσκαλος καὶ ὁ κύριος, and 
Rev. 4:11 ἄξιος εἶ, ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, ought to have been 
mentioned above.” This is a manly retraction, and he adds: 
“John may have used it here exceptionally.”’ Leave out ‘‘excep- 
tionally’? and the conclusion is just. If Thomas used Aramaic he 
certainly used the article. It is no more exceptional in Jo. 20 : 28 
than in Rev. 4:11. 

VII. The Accusative (4 αἰτιατικὴ πτῶσις). 

(a) THE Name. It signifies little that is pertinent. Varro calls 
it accusander casus from αἰτιάομαι, while Dionysius Thrax explains 
it as κατ᾽ αἰτίαν (‘cause’), a more likely idea. Glycas calls it also 
τὸ αἴτιον. So Priscian terms it causatwus. Gildersleeve (“A Syn- 
tactician among the Psychologists,” Am. Jour. Philol., Jan., 1910, 
p. 76) remarks: ‘‘ The Romans took the bad end of αἰτία, and trans- 
lated αἰτιατική, accusatiwus — hopeless stupidity, from which 
grammar did not emerge till 1836, when Trendelenburg showed 
that αἰτιατικὴ πτῶσις means casus effectivus, or causatiwus .. . 
The object affected appears in Greek now as an accusative, now 
as a dative, now as a genitive. The object effected refuses to give 
its glory to another, and the object affected can be subsumed under 
the object effected.” With this I agree. Cf. Farrar, Greek Syntax, 
p. 81. Old English “accuse” could mean ‘betray’ or ‘show,’ but 
the “showing” case does not mark it off from the rest. Originally, 
however, it was the only case and thus did show the relations of 
nouns with other words. On the small value of the case-names see 
Brugmann, Grech. Gr., Ὁ. 379. But at any rate accusativus is a 
false translation of αἰτιατιακή. Steinthal, Geschichte d. Spr., p. 295. 

(Ὁ) Ack AND History. A more pertinent point is the age and 
history of the accusative, the oldest of all the cases. Farrar (Greek 
Syntax, p. 81) calls attention to the fact that ἔγών (old form of 
ἐγώ), Sanskrit aham, tudm, Boeotian τούν, Latin idem, all have the 

1 W.-Th., p. 183. 2 Joh. Gr., pp. 93:ff. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 467 


accusative ending though in the nominative. If it is true that 
the accusative is the oldest case, perhaps we are to think of the 
other oblique cases as variations from it. In other words the ac- 
cusative was the normal oblique case for a noun (especially with 
verbs) unless there was some special reason for it to be in another 
case. The other oblique cases were developed apparently to ex- 
press more exactly than the accusative the various word-relations. 
Indeed in the vernacular Greek the accusative retained its old 
frequency as the normal case with verbs that in the literary style 
used other cases.! In the old Greek poets the same thing is no- 
ticeable. Pindar,’ for example, has “‘a multiplicity of accusatives.”’ 
In the modern Greek vernacular the accusative has regained its 
original frequency to the corresponding disuse of the other oblique 
cases. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 35. ‘‘When a fine sense for lan- 
guage is failing, it is natural to use the direct accusative to ex- 
press any object which verbal action affects, and so to efface the 
difference between ‘transitive’ and ‘intransitive’ verbs.”* There 
was therefore first a decrease in the use of the accusative as the 
literary language grew, then an increase in the κοινή vernacular,! 
the later Greek,®> and especially the modern Greek vernacular.® 
This gain or rather persistence of the accusative in the vernacular 
is manifest in the N. T. in various ways. But the literary κοινή 
shows it also, as Krebs’ has carefully worked out with many verbs. 

(c) THe MEANING OF THE ACCUSATIVE. It is not so easy to 
determine this in the view of many scholars. Delbriick® despairs 
of finding a single unifying idea, but only special types of the ac- 
cusative. Brugmann® also admits that the real ground-idea of the 
case is unknown, though the relation between noun and verb is 
expressed by it. The categories are not always sharply defined 
in the soul of the speaker.!° Hiibschmann" treats the expansion 


1 Mullach, Gr. der griech. Vulgarspr., pp. 328-333. 
2 Giles, Man., p. 306. 
8 Jebb, Vincent and Dickson’s Handb. to Mod. Gk., p. 307. 
4 Volker, Pap. Gr. Synt. Spec., p. 5 f. 
eJann., Hist. Gk..Gr., p. 328. 6 Hatz.; Hinl., p. 221. 
7 Zur Rect. der Casus in der spit. hist. Griic. (1887-90). Cf. also Moulton, 
Prol., pp. 63 ff. 
8. Die Grundl. d. griech. Synt., Bd. IV, p. 29; Vergl. Synt., I, p. 187. Cf. 
III, pp. 360-393. 
® Kurze vergl. Gr., p. 441. 10 Griech. Gr., p. 379. 
1 Zur Casusl., p. 133. For list of books on the acc. see Hiibner, Grundr. 
etc., p. 40f. Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 44, agree with Hiibschm. Cf. also 
K.-G., I, p. 291. 


468 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


of the verb as the ground-idea of the accusative. ‘The relation 
of the accusative to its governing verb resembles the relation of 
the genitive to its governing substantive.”’! La Roche? considers 
it originally a local case and that the inner meaning came later. 
The usage of the accusative can indeed, for convenience, be di- 
vided into the outer (οἰκίαν, Mt. 7 : 24) and the inner (ἐφοβήθησαν 
φόβον μέγαν, Mk. 4:41) usage. But the whole case cannot be 
discussed on this artificial principle, as Monro? rightly sees. He 
sees hope only in the direction of the wide adverbial use of the 
accusative. In the Sanskrit certainly “a host of adverbs are 
accusative cases in form.’’* Green? calls it “‘the limitative case,” 
and he is not far out of the way. Farrar® thinks that ‘motion 
towards” explains it all. Giles,’ while recognising all the diffi- 
culties, defines the accusative as the answer to the question 
“How far?’ The word extension comes as near as any to ex- 
pressing the broad general idea of the accusative as applied to 
its use with verbs, substantives, adjectives, prepositions. It is 
far more commonly used with verbs, to be sure, but at bottom 
the other uses have this same general idea. Being the first case 
it is naturally the most general in idea. If you ask a child (in 
English) “Who is it?” he will reply ‘It’s me.”’ This is, however, 
not a German idiom. The accusative measures an idea as to 
its content, scope, direction. But the accusative was used in 
so many special applications of this principle that various sub- 
divisions became necessary for intelligent study. 

(α) Wir Verss or Motion. It is natural to begin with verbs 
of motion, whether we know that this was the earliest use or not, 
a matter impossible to decide. We still in English say “‘go home,”’ 
and the Latin used domum in exactly that way. Extension over 
space is, of course, the idea here. One goes all the way to his 
home. It is found in Homer and occasionally in Greek writers.’ 
Modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 37, has a local accusative) 
Tape σπίτι, ‘we are going home.’ Moulton (Prol., p. 61) notes that 
it is just the local cases that first lost their distinctive forms (abla- 
tive, locative, associative-instrumental; and the “terminal accusa- 
tive” like ire Romam disappeared also. “The surviving Greek 


1 Strong, Logeman and Wheeler, Hist. of Lang., p. 128. 

2 Der Accus. in Hom., p. 1. 5 Notes on Gk. and Lat. Synt., p. 10. 
3’ Hom. Gr., p. 92. 6 Gk. Synt., p. 81 f. 

4 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 90. 7 Man., p. 303. 

8 


See K.-G., I, p. 311 f. for exx.; Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 96. Extremely com- 
mon in Sanskrit. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 469 


cases thus represent purely grammatical relations, those of subject, 
object, possession, remoter object and instrument.”’ The place- 
adverb does supply the place of the terminal accusative, but not 
entirely of the locative, ablative and instrumental. 

Some MSS. in Ac. 27:2 read πλεῖν τοὺς κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ασίαν τόπους, 
but the best (W. H.) have eis after πλεῖν. In ὑπεπλεύσαμεν τὴν 
Kbrpovand τὸ πέλαγος διαπλεύσαντες (cf. English “sail thesea’’), verses 
4 f., the prepositions in composition help to explain the case. In 
Mt. 4:15 ὁδὸν θαλάσσης has no verb of motion and comes in 
the midst of vocatives in a way quite startling. Green! refers to 
the LXX (Is. 9:1) for the explanation and quotes ‘Christ and 
Him Crucified.” But the LXX gives little relief, for, while B 
does not have it, several MSS. do and without a verb. B how- 
ever reads of τὴν παραλίαν, which presents the same difficulty as to 
case. Winer? suggests οἰκοῦντες with of, possibly correct. But 
even in Matthew the writer may have had in mind the general 
accusative notion of extension, ‘along the way of the sea.’ 

(e) Exrent oF Space. The ordinary accusative for extent of 
space does not differ materially from that of motion above. Here 
the root-idea of the case is easily perceived apart from the force 
of the verb. The point is that this is not a special development 
of the accusative, but is the normal idea of the case, extension. 
The application to space is natural. The Greek continues all 
along to have this idiom as the Latin and English. The adverb 
μακράν (Ac. 22 : 21) is a good example. Take Jo. 6 : 19 ἐληλακότες 
ὡς σταδίους εἴκοσι πέντε ἢ τριάκοντα, Lu. 22:41 ἀπεσπάσθη an’ αὐτῶν 
ὡσεὶ λίθου βολήν. The accusative tells “how far.” Observe in Lu. 
2:44 ἦλθον ἡμέρας ὁδόν. ἹΠροσελθὼν μικρόν (Mt. 26 : 39) is a good 
example of this use of the accusative. In Ac. 1 : 12 σαββάτου ἔχον 
ὁδόν varies the construction by the insertion of ἔχον. In Lu. 24 : 13 
similarly we have ἀπέχουσαν σταδίους ἑξήκοντα. Cf. Mt. 14 : 24. 
The use of ἀπό, as ὡς ἀπὸ σταδίων δεκαπέντε (Jo. 11 : 18; cf. 21 : 8; 
Rev. 14 : 20), Blass (Gr. of Ν. T. Gk., p. 95) calls a Latinism (cf. 
a millibus passuum duobus), but Moulton (Prol., p. 101 f.) cites 
Doric and papyri parallels for πρό and makes a mere Latinism 
unlikely. So O.P. 492 (ii/A.D.) μετ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν ἕναᾳ. Diodorus and Plu- 
tarch use the same idiom. It is clearly not a direct Latinism. In 
modern Greek the accusative is common for locality or place 
affected (Thumb, Handb., p. 35 f.). 

(f) Extent or Time. It answers the question “how far?” in 
time, or “how long?” Inthe N. T. the examples of time are far 

1 Handb., etc., p. 234. 2 W.-Th., p. 231. 


470 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


more frequent than those of mere space. The locative, instru- 
mental and genitive are also used to express time, but they bring 
out a different idea, as will be shown. The accusative is thus used 
for duration or extension in the Indo-Germanic languages gener- 
ally. Cf. τί ὧδε ἑστήκατε ὅλην THY ἡμέραν apyot (Mt. 20 : 6); τοσαῦτα 
ἔτη δουλεύω σοι (Lu. 15:29). A good example is ἔμειναν τὴν ἡμέραν 
ἐκείνην (Jom liso} Ch 2 12 sie ore που 
(text) read πάσαις ταῖς ἡμέραις (instr.). Another good illustration 
iS ἀπεδήμησεν χρόνους ἱκανούς (Lu. 20:9). Cf. ἐκ δηναρίου τὴν ἡμέραν 
(Mt. 20:2) where the accusative well brings out the agreement 
between the landlord and the labourers. In νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν (Mk. 
4 : 27) the sleeping and rising go on continually from day to day. 
Cf. ἡμέραν ἐξ ἡμέρας (2 Pet. 2:8). The papyri examples are nu- 
merous, like τόκους διδράχμους τῆς μνᾶς τὸν μῆνα ἕκαστον, A.P. 50 
(ii/B.c.). Cf. Moulton, Cl..Rev., Dec., 1901. The plural is like- 
wise so used, as τὰς ἡμέρας --- τὰς νύκτας (Lu. 21:37). 

Perhaps little difficulty is felt in the accusative in Ac. 24 : 25, τὸ 
νῦν ἔχον πορεύου. So also as to τὸ λοιπόν (or λοιπόν) in Mk. 14:41, 
τὸ πλεῖστον (1 Cor. 14:27), and even ἐνεκοπτόμην τὰ πολλά (Ro. 15: 
22). But there are uses of the accusative in expressions of time 
that do furnish trouble at first blush. In some of these the accu- 
sative seems to be merely adverbial (Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 94) 
with little stress on duration. Indeed a point of time may be in- 
dicated. Cf. τὸ πρότερον (Jo. 6:62), πρότερον (Heb. 10:32), 
πρῶτον (Mt. 5:24). It is not hard to see how the accusative of 
general reference came to be used here, although it is a point of 
time. Note the article (τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, Lu. 19 : 47) in the accusa- 
tive. We can now go on to τὸ τέλος (1 Pet. 3 : 8) and even τὴν ἀρχήν 
(Jo. 8:25). But a more difficult example is found in Jo. 4 : 52, 
ἐχθὲς ὥραν ἑβδόμην, where a point of time is indicated. See also 
ποίαν ὥραν in Rev. 3:3; πᾶσαν ὥραν (1 Cor. 15:30). One may 
conjecture that this use of ὥραν was not regarded as essentially 
different from the idea of extension. Either the action was re- 
garded as going over the hour or the hour was looked at more 
as an adverbial accusative like τὸ λοιπόν above. Cf. also τὴν ἡμέ- 
ραν τῆς πεντηκοστῆς γενέσθαι εἰς ᾿Ιεροσόλυμα (Ac. 20:16). In Blass- 
Debrunner, p. 98, examples are given from A‘schylus, Euripides, 
Aristotle, Demosthenes, where ὥραν Ξε ες ὥραν. Cf. Moulton, 
Prol., Ὁ. 63, for τὸ πέμπτον Eros (O.P. 477, 11/a.D.) ‘in the fifth year.’ 
To παρόν B.U. 22 (ii/A.p.) means ‘at present’ (Moulton, Cl. Rev., 
1901, p. 437). In the modern Greek vernacular the accusative is 
used freely to designate a point of time as well as extent of time 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 471 


(Thumb, Handb., p. 37). Soin the N. T. the accusative is widen- 
ing its scope again. In Ac. 10:30 ἀπὸ τετάρτης ἡμέρας μέχρι ταύτης 
τῆς ὥρας ἤμην τὴν ἐνάτην προσευχόμενος We Can see an interesting ex- 
ample where τὴν ἐνάτην is explanatory of the previous note of time, 
a point of time, and yet a whole hour is meant. In Ac. 10:3 
(rept ὥραν ἐνάτην) observe περί, though some MSS. do not have the 
preposition. Cf. also μεσονύκτιον (ace.) ἢ ἀλεκτοροφωνίας (gen.) ἢ 
πρωί (loc.) for points of time.! The papyri have examples of 
a point of time in the accusative,? as already seen. But the 
locative is still more frequent in the N. T. for a point of time, 
as ποίᾳ wpa (Lu. 12:39). It is not difficult to see the appro- 
priateness of the accusative in τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτην σήμερον ἡμέραν 
προσδοκῶντες ἄσιτοι διατελεῖτε (Ac. 27:33). It is good Greek with 
the ordinal. 

(g) Wirth TRANSITIVE VerBS. The most common accusative 
is when it is the object of a transitive verb. One cannot hope 
to pursue all the uses of the accusative in the order of historical 
development. For instance, no one knows whether cognate ac- 
cusative (of inner content or objective result) preceded the ordi- 
nary objective use of the case. Does the adverbial accusative (so 
common in adjectives) precede the accusative with verbs? These 
points have to be left unsettled. In actual usage the accusative 
with transitive verbs calls for most attention. But the term “tran- 
sitive’? needs a word. It means a verb whose action passes over 
to anoun. This idea may be intransitive in another language, as, 
for instance, μὴ ὀμνύετε μήτε τὸν οὐρανὸν μήτε τὴν γῆν (Jas. 5:12). 
In English ὀμνύω is rendered by ‘swear by.’ Cf. ἐργάζεσθε μὴ τὴν 
βρῶσιν (Jo. 6:27), English ‘work for.’ Not all Greek verbs are 
transitive, as εἰμί, for example. The same verb may be used now 
transitively, now intransitively, as ἔμενον ἡμᾶς (Ac. 20:5) and 
ἔμενεν παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς (Ac. 18:3). So ὁ βλέπων ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ (Mt. 6 : 4) 
and τί δὲ βλέπεις τὸ κάρφος (Mt. 7:3). Cf. English word “see.” 
As further illustration of the freedom of the Greek verb note 
βλέπετε τί ἀκούετε (Mk. 4 : 24), βλέπετε τοὺς κύνας (Ph. 3 : 2), βλέπετε 
ἀπὸ τῆς ζύμης (Mk. 8 : 15).2 There is indeed a difference between 
the accusative and the use of a preposition as in φεύγετε τὴν πορνείαν 
(1 Cor. 6:18) and φεύγετε ἀπὸ τῆς εἰδωλολατρείας (1 Cor. 10 : 14). 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 311. 

2 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 152. O.P. 477 (21) éros is so used. The acc. 
is used in the Sans. for a point of time. Cf. Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 92. For 
exx. in the LXX see C. and S., Sel. from the LXX, p. 56. Cf. also Abbott, 
Φοῇ. ΟΥ., Ρ. 78. 8 Green, Handb., etc., p. 290. 


472 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


But for practical purposes many Greek verbs were used with lib- 
erty. In the case of φοβέομαι with accus. (Mt. 10: 26, 28) or with 
ἀπό and ablative (Mt. 10: 28) we have a Hebraism. Moulton (Prol., 
p. 102) admits that this use of ἀπό is a “translation-Hebraism” 
(3). It occurs in both Mt. (10: 28) and Lu. (12:4) and repre- 
sents probably the Aramaic original. Cf. ὁρᾶτε καὶ φυλάσσεσθε ἀπό 
(Lu. 12 : 15) and ὁρᾶτε καὶ προσέχετε ἀπό (Mt. 16:6). Xen. (Cyr., 
11. 3, 9) uses ἀπό with φυλάσσω. This matter will call for further 
discussion directly. 

But. we have already observed that transitive verbs in Greek 
do not always have the accusative. The transitiveness may be 
as clearly expressed by a dative as with ἀκολουθέω, the genitive 
with ἐπιθυμέω, the ablative with ἀποστερέω, etc. The accusative is 
indeed the normal case with transitive verbs, but not the only 
one. Some verbs continued to use the accusative parallel with 
the other cases. Thus ἐπιλανθάνομαι has τὰ μὲν ὀπίσω in Ph. 8 : 18, 
but φιλοξενίας in Heb. 18 : 2. Sometimes the point lies in the dif- 
ference of case, as ἀκούοντες μὲν τῆς φωνῆς (Ac. 9:7), but τὴν δὲ 
φωνὴν οὐκ ἤκουσαν (Ac. 22:9). Then. again verbs otherwise in- 
transitive may be rendered transitive by the preposition in com- 
position. Cf. διήρχετο τὴν ᾿Ιερειχὠ (Lu. 19 : 1), but ἐκείνης in 19 : 4. 
So παραπλεῦσαι τὴν "Edecov (Ac. 20:16), etc. Another introduc- 
tory remark about transitive verbs is that it is not a question of 
the voice of the verb. Many active verbs are intransitive like εἰμί; 
middle verbs may be either transitive or intransitive; even passive 
verbs may be transitive. Thus ἤκουον ταῦτα (Lu. 16 : 14), ἐκτήσατο 
χωρίον (Ac. 1:18), and μὴ οὖν φοβηθῆτε αὐτούς (Mt. 10 : 26) are all 
transitive constructions. Cf. Mk. 8: 38; Ro. 1:16; 2 Tim. 1:8 
for ἐπαισχύνομαι (passive) with accusative. 

One cannot, of course, mention all the N. T. transitive verbs 
that have the accusative. Here is a list of the most frequent verbs 
that are not always transitive, but sometimes have the accusa- 
tive! ᾿ΑΛδικέω indeed may be either transitive (Mt. 20: 13) or 
intransitive (Ac. 25:11), in the one case meaning ‘do wrong to,’ 
in the other ‘be guilty.’ Bdarrw (only twice in the N. T., Mk. 
16 : 18; Lu. 4 : 35) is transitive both times. Βοηθέω has only da- 
tive (Mk. 9 : 22) and ὠφελέω only accusative (Mk. 8 : 36). In Lu. 
17 : 2 we have λυσιτελεῖ αὐτῷ. ᾿Απορέομαι is always intransitive in 
the N. T. (like dca.) except in Ac. 25 : 20 (so ancient Greek some- 
times). ᾿Αποστρέφομαι as in Attic is found with the accusative in 
Tit. 1:14 and Heb. 12:25. In 2 Tim. 1:15 the aorist passive 

1 See Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 87-89. Cf. also W.-Th., pp. 221 ff. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 473 


(ἀπεστράφησάν με) is So used. For like use of the aorist or future 
passive with accusative see ἐντραπήσονται τὸν υἱόν μου (Mt. 21: 37), 
where the earlier writers generally had dative (ἐντρέπομαι) ; ἐπαι- 
σχυνθῇ με (Mk. 8:38) from ἐπαισχύνομαι, whereas αἰσχύνομαι is in- 
transitive (ἀπό and abl. in 1 Jo. 2:28). So also οὐδὲν ἀπεκρίθη 
(Mk. 15 : 5) as οὐδὲν ἀπερίνατο (Mt. 27:12), but note ἀπεκρίθη πρὸς 
οὐδὲ ἕν ῥῆμα (Mt. 27:14). Cf. τί ἀποκριθῇ (Mk. 9:6). For φοβηθῆτε 
αὐτούς see Mt. 10:26 and note φοβηθῆτε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποκτεινόντων 
(10 : 28) which happens to be in imitation of the Hebrew idiom 
(ya) as of the English “be afraid οἱ." (Cf. above.) See Jer. 1:8. 
In Mt. 10 : 81 φοβεῖσθε is intransitive. 

Βασκαίνω in Attic Greek was used with the dative in the sense 
of ‘envy,’ but in Gal. 3:1 the accusative in the sense of ‘be- 
witch.’ Βλασφημέω in the Attic had εἰς as in Lu. 12:10, but it 
also occurs as transitive with accusative (Mt. 27:39). In 2 Pet. 
2:12 we find ἐν, not εἰς (cf. Jude 10). ᾿Επηρεάζω has the accusa- 
tive, not dative as Attic, in Lu. 6 : 28; 1 Pet. 3:16. So καταράομαι 
has ὑμᾶς (Some MSS. ὑμῖν like Attic) in Lu. 6 : 28. Cf. Mk. 11 : 21; 
Jas.3:9. For λοιδορέω with accusative see Jo. 9:28; Ac. 23:4, and 
for λυμαίνομαι see Ac. 8:3. The MSS. vary in Heb. 8:8 between 
αὐτοὺς and αὐτοῖς (as in Attic) with μέμφομαι, but W. H. read ai- 
τοὺς. In Mt. 5:11 and 27:44 ὀνειδίζω has the accusative, though 
Attic used the dative. The accusative alone occurs with ὑβρίξζω 
(Lu. 11:45). So also both εὐλογέω (Lu. 2 : 28) and κακολογέω (Ac. 
19:9) have the accusative. In Ac. 23 : 5 οὐκ ἐρεῖς κακῶς is found 
with the accusative. In the margin of Jo. 1:15 W. H. give ὃν 
εἶπον. In Jo. 8:27 we have τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῖς ἔλεγεν, with which 
compare ois ἔλεγον (Ph. 8 : 18), a construction common in the 
older Greek. A similar construction is found in Attic Greek with 
εὖ (καλῶς) ποιέω, κακῶς ποιέω, etc. In the N. T., however, note αὐ- 
τοῖς εὖ ποιεῖν (Mk. 14 : 7) and καλῶς ποιεῖτε τοῖς μισοῦσιν (Lu. 6 : 27). 

The remaining verbs! that call for discussion in this connection 
cannot be grouped very well. They will be treated simply in 
alphabetical order. In the LXX γεύομαι is fairly common with 
the accusative, and some examples occur in other later writers in- 
stead of the usual genitive. In the N. T. the genitive is still the 
usual case (θανάτου, Lu. 9 : 27; Jo. 8:52; Heb. 2:9; δείπνου, Lu. 
14 : 24; δωρεᾶς, Heb. 6 : 4; μηδενός, Ac. 23 : 14), but the accusative 


1 Vélker, Pap. Gr. Synt. Spec., pp. 6-8, gives the following verbs as having 
the acc. in the pap.: ἀλλάσσω, δουλεύω, ἐπιθυμέω, ἐπιτυγχάνω, ἐπιλανθάνομαι, 
ἐξέρχομαι, εὐδοκέω, κατηγορέω, κρατέω, κυριεύω, AUTEW, παρίσταμαι, πορεύομαι, πληρόω, 
ὑπαντάω, χράομαι, etc. ΞΕ Chr Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 77. 


474 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


is found in Jo. 2:9 (τὸ ὕδωρ) and Heb. 6:5 (καλὸν θεοῦ ῥῆμα). In 
Rev. 17:3 we even have γέμοντα ὀνόματα instead of ὀνομάτων. The 
accusative appears with yovureréw (Mk. 10: 17), but absolutely in 
Mk. 1:40, and with ἔμπροσθεν in Mt. 27:29. In Rev. 2: 14 διδάσκω 
has the dative (τῷ Badax), a construction which might a priori seem 
natural with this verb, but not so used in Greek (cf. Latin and 
English). Διψάω and πεινάω are intransitive in the N. T. save in 
Mt. 5:6 where the accusative is used, not the usual genitive. 
Δράσσομαι appears only once (1 Cor. 3 : 19) in a quotation from the 
LXX and has the accusative. ᾿Ελεέω is transitive (Mt. 9 : 27, 
etc.) as is οἰκτείρω (Ro. 9:15, quotation from LXX). ’Epropeto- 
μαι occurs only twice, once intransitive (Jas. 4 : 13), once with ac- 
cusative (2 Pet. 2:3). ’Evedpebw likewise occurs only twice (Lu. 
11 : 54; Ac. 23 : 21) and with accusative both times. Cf. O.P. 484 
(ii/A.D.) in sense of ‘defraud’ with accusative. (Moulton, Cl. 
Rev., Apr., 1904). ᾿Επιθυμέω is found with the genitive (Ac. 20: 
33) or with the accusative (Mt. 5 : 28) according to W. H. (BD, 
etc.). ’Epyafoua is often transitive, but τὴν θάλασσαν ἐργάζονται 
(Rev. 18 : 17) is somewhat unusual, to say the least. Evayyedivo- 
μαι (active in Rev. 10:7; 14:6; passive Gal. 1:11; Heb. 4:6, 
etc.) has the Attic idiom of accusative of the thing and dative of 
the person (Lu. 4 : 43; Ac. 8 : 35, ete.), but examples occur of the 
accusative of the person and of the thing (Lu. ὃ : 18; Ac. 8 : 25). 
In Ac. 13:32 Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 90 note) denies two 
accusatives to ebayy., construing τὴν — ἐπαγγελίαν with ὅτι ταύτην ὁ 
θεὸς ἐκπεπλήρωκεν. This is rather forced, but even so the ὅτι clause 
would be in the accus. Evéoxéw is trans. in the LX-X and so appears 
in the N. T. twice (Mt. 12: 18, quotation from the LX X; Heb. 10: 
6, 8, LXX also). Evyapioréw in 2 Cor. 1 : 11 occurs in the passive 
(τὸ χάρισμα εὐχαριστηθῇ) in a construction that shows that the active 
would have had an accusative of the thing and a dative of the 
person. Cf., for instance, πλεονεκτηθῶμεν in 2 Cor. 2:11 with 
ἐπλεονέκτησα ὑμᾶς (2 Cor. 12 : 17 f.), only εὐχ. did not go so far as to 
have the accusative. On the other hand in the N. T. θαρρέω is 
not transitive (2 Cor. 10:2 instr.), though in the older Greek it 
was sometimes. It occurs absolutely (2 Cor. 5:6), with & (2 
Cor. 7 : 16), with εἰς (2 Cor. 10:1). Θαυμάζω has the accusative in 
Lu. 7:9, Ac. 7:31 and Ju. 16. Θριαμβεύω has the accusative in 2 
Cor 2:14 and Col. 2 : 15, though the verb has a different sense in 
each passage. ‘Iepovpyew occurs only once (Ro. 15 : 16) and with 
the accusative. In Heb. 2:17 ἱλάσκομαι has accusative of the 
1 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 80. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 475 


thing as in LXX, Philo and inscriptions (Blass, Gr. of N. T., p. 
88). Καυχάομαι has accusative in 2 Cor. 9:2 and 11:30. Κλαίω 
has accusative in Mt. 2: 18 (O. T. quotation unlike LXX), but ἐπί 
in Lu. 23:28. However, D omits ἐπί. Κληρονομέω has only the 
accusative. Κόπτομαι has accusative in Lu. ὃ : 52 (ἐπί Rev. 1 : 7). 
Kparéw out of forty-six instances in the N. T. has the genitive in 
only eight, rest accusative. (Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 65).1. Ma- 
θητεύω is a late word and has the accusative in Mt. 28:19 and 
Ac. 14:21. The other examples (Mt. 13 : 52; 27 : 57) are passive, 
but in Mt. 27:57 the active (intr.) is the marginal reading of 
W.H. Cf. old English verb ‘‘disciple.”” Μέμφομαι has the accu- 
sative, not dative, in Heb. 8:8, but the text is doubtful. Méw 
is usually intransitive, but in Ac. 20:5, 28, the accusative occurs 
(sense of ‘wait for’). Cf. also accusative with ἀναμένω (1 Th. 
1:10), περιμένω (Ac. 1:4), ὑπομένω (Heb. 10 : 32) in sense of ‘en- 
dure.’ Νικάω is transitive with accusative usually, but in Rev. 
15 :2 it uses ἐκ with ablative. So ξἕενίζομαι is transitive with ac- 
cusative in Heb. 18:2. Ομνυμι usually has ἐν (Mt. 23 : 16, etc., 
οἵ. Hebrew 3), sometimes κατά (Heb. 6: 13), or occurs absolutely 
(Mt. 5 : 34), but the accusative (sense of ‘swear by,’ common in 
ancient Greek, cf. Hos. 4:15 for LXX) appears only in Jas. 5: 
12, except ὅρκον ὃν ὥμοσεν (Lu. 1 : 73), a cognate accusative. The 
papyri show it with the accusative, B.U. 548 (i/B.c.).. Moulton, 
Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901. ’Ovedigw has the accusative, not the dative, 
in the N. T. ‘Opxitw has the accusative in both instances that 
occur in the N. T. (Mk. 5:7; Ac. 19:18), while ἐξορκίζω, (Mt. 
26 : 63) has the accusative and κατά also (ce κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ). ‘Ouo- 
λογέω is common with the accusative or absolutely, but in Mt. 
10 : 32 (two examples) and Lu. 12 : 8 (two examples) ἐν is used as 
the translation of the Aramaic 3. Moulton? is unable to find any 
justification for this idiom in Greek and calls attention to the fact 
that both Matthew and Luke have it in a parallel passage as 
proof of the Aramaic original as the language of Jesus. One may 
note περιβαλεῖται ἐν ἱματίοις (Rev. 3:5). The use of ἐν ἡμῖν ἐξελέξατο 
(Ac. 15: 7) is not parallel as Winer’ observes. Here ἐν ἡμῖν means 
‘among us.’ In Ac. 27 : 22 παραινέω (like παρακαλέω, Blass, Gr. of 
N. T., p. 90) has the accusative instead of the dative of the person. 
In 2 Cor. 12 : 21 πενθέω has the accusative, but ἐπί in Rev. 18: 11. 
Moulton (Prol., p. 67 f.) has a very helpful discussion of πιστεύω 

1 Moulton (ib., p. 235) comments on Wellhausen’s remark that D prefers 


uniformly ace. with ἀκούω, κατηγορέω and κρατέω. 
2 Prol., p. 104. 3. W.-Th., p. 226. 


476 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


when not absolute and not meaning ‘entrust.’ Under the dative 
his remarks will be pertinent. Πιστεύω is often absolute (Jo. 1: 50) 
and often means ‘entrust’ when it has the accusative (Jo. 2 : 24). 
Προσκυνέω in the ancient Greek uses the accusative regularly. In 
the Ptolemaic inscriptions the accusative is still the more usual 
case,! but the N. T. uses the dative twice as often as the accusative.? 
In Jo.4:23 the accusative and the dative occur with little differ- 
ence in result.? Cf. also Rev. 13:4, 8. Abbott‘ observes that the 
dative is the regular usage in the LXX. As to ὑστερέω we find it 
used absolutely (Mt. 19 : 20), with the ablative (Ro. 3 : 23) and 
once with the accusative (ἕν σε ὑστερεῖ, Mk. 10 : 21) as in Ps. 22: 1. 
Some of the MSS. in Mark have σοι, as the LX X usually. Φεύγω 
occurs absolutely (Mt. 2:13), with ἀπό (Mt. 23 : 33), with ἐκ (Ac. 
27:30) or with the accusative (Heb. 11:34; 1 Tim. 6:11). So 
ἐκφεύγω is transitive (Lu. 21:36) with accusative while ἀποφεύγω 
has accusative in 2 Pet. 2:20. Φυλάσσω has, of course, the accu- 
sative, but in Ac. 21:25 two accusatives occur with the sense of 
‘shun.’ In Lu. 12:15 the middle is used with ἀπό and in 1 Jo. 
5:21 φυλάξατε ἑαυτὰ ἀπό. Χράομαι still uses the instrumental (cf. 
utor in Latin), as Ac. 27:3, 17, etc., but in 1 Cor. 7:31 the ac- 
cusative is found (χρώμενοι τὸν κόσμον) in response to the general 
accusative tendency. Cf. καταχρώμενοι In the same verse. The 
accusative with χράομαι appears in later writers. 

It remains in this connection to call special attention to the in- 
transitive verbs which have the accus. by reason of a preposition 
in composition. This applies to intrans. verbs and trans. verbs 
also which in simplex used some other case. ᾿Ανά furnishes one 
example in ἀνα-θάλλω (Ph. 4:10) if τὸ φρονεῖν there is the object 
of the verb after the transitive use in the LXX (Ezek. 17: 24). 
But most probably this is the accusative of general reference. 
᾿Απελπίζω (Lu. 6 : 35) is indeed transitive with accusative, but so 
is ἐλπίζω (1 Cor. 18:7; 2 Cor. 1:18, etc.) sometimes. Here are 
some examples of διά: τὸ πέλαγος διαπλεύσαντες (Ac. 27: 5), διεπορεύ- 
ovro τὰς πόλεις (Ac. 16:4), διελθὼν τὴν Μακεδονίαν (Ac. 19 : 21; cf. 
acc. in Lu. 19:1 and gen. ἐκείνης in 19:4). In Heb. 11 : 29 (διέβη- 
σαν τὴν θάλασσαν ws διὰ ξηρᾶς γῆς) Blass? notes both accusative and 
genitive (with διά). Even évepyéw has the accusative in 1 Cor. 
12:6, 11. As examples of κατά observe κατεβάρησα ὑμᾶς (2 Cor. 12: 


1 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 436. * Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 89. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. θά. 6 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 78. 
8. Simcox, Lang. of the N. Τῇ) p.80. 7 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 89. 

4 Joh. Gr., p. 78. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 477 


16), ὑμᾶς καταβραβευέτω (Col. 2:18), κατηγωνίσαντο βασιλείας (Heb. 
11:33). Note also κατασοφισάμενος τὸ γένος (Ac. 7: 19). Cf. κατα- 
χρώμενοι in 1 Cor. 7:31, but instrumental in 1 Cor. 9:18. For 
mapa note mapaBaivere τὴν ἐντολήν (Mt. 15:3) and παρέρχεσθε 
τὴν κρίσιν (Lu. 11:42; ef. 15:29 and Mk. 6:48). Περί furnishes 
several examples like ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα περιάγειν (1 Cor. 9:5; ef. 
Mt. 9:35, etc.), but intransitive in Mt. 4:23. This verb, ἄγω, 
however, is both transitive (Mt. 21 : 7) and intransitive (Mk. 1: 
38) in the simple form. Περιερχόμεναι has the accusative in 1 
Tim. 5 : 13, but elsewhere intransitive. So περιέστησαν αὐτόν in Ac. 
25:7, but intransitive (περιεστῶτα) in Jo. 11:42. In Mk. 6:55 
we find περιέδραμον ὅλην τὴν χώραν. With πρό one notes mpoayw 
(Mt. 14:22, προάγειν αὐτόν), προήρχετο αὐτούς (Lu. 22 : 47), with 
which compare προελεύσεται ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ (Lu. 1:17). In Ac. 12: 
10 both διέρχομαι and προέρχομαι are used with the accusative. 
Προσφωνέω, like προσκυνέω, has either the accusative (Lu. 6 : 13) 
or the dative (Mt. 11:16). If ὁ θεός be accepted in Ro. 8 : 28 
(πάντα συνεργεῖ ὁ θεός), Which is more than doubtful, then συνεργεῖ 
would be transitive (cf. instr. in Jas. 2:22). For ὑπέρ observe 
ὑπερεκτείνομεν ἑαυτοὺς (2 Cor. 10:14) and ἡ ὑπερέχουσα πάντα νοῦν 
(Ph. 4:7). With ὑπό we can mention ὑπομένω (1 Cor. 18 : 7, but 
see μένω itself), ὑπεπλεύσαμεν τὴν Κρήτην (Ac. 27:7) and νησίον δέ τι 
ὑποδραμόντες (Ac. 27:16). Thus it will be seen that in the N. T. 
the accusative with transitive verbs, both simple and compound, 
follows the increase in the use of the accusative in line with the 
current vernacular. 

Sometimes indeed the object of the verb. is not expressed, but 
really implied, and the verb is transitive. Thus προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς 
(Lu. 17: 3) implies τὸν νοῦν. Cf. also προσέχετε ἀπὸ τῶν ψευδοπροφη- 
τῶν (Mt. 7: 15) and ἐπέχων πῶς (Lu. 14 : 7); κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων (1 
Cor. 11:4). In ἐπιθήσεταί σοι (Ac. 18 : 10) χεῖρας must be supplied, 
and with διέτριβον (Ac. 15 : 35) χρόνον is needed. 

(h) Toe CoGnate Accusative. It may be either that of in- 
ner content, ἐχάρησαν χαράν (Mt. 2:10), objective result ἁμαρτά- 
νοντα ἁμαρτίαν (1 Jo. 5: 16), φυλάσσοντες φυλακάς (Lu. 2 : 8), or even 
a kindred word in idea but a different root, as δαρήσεται ὀλίγας 
(πληγάς, Lu. 12 : 48). Considerable freedom must thus be given 
the term “cognate” as to both form and idea. The real cognate 
accusative is a form of the Figura Etymologica as applied to either 
internal or external object. The quasi-cognate is due to analogy 
where the idea, not the form, is cognate.! The cognate is not very 

1 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 304. 


478 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


common in the papyri,! but in the Hebrew the idiom is very fre- 
quent.2 It is perfectly good Greek to have?® this “playing with 
paronymous terms,”’ as a passage from Plato’s Protagoras 326 D 
illustrates, ὑπογράψαντες γραμμὰς τῇ γραφίδι οὕτω τὸ γραμματεῖον. Cf. 
τίς ποιμαίνει ποίμνην (1 Cor.9:7). So also in Lu. 8: 5, ἐξῆλθεν 6 
σπείρων τοῦ σπεῖραι Tov σπόρον. Gildersleeve (Am. Jour. of Philol., 
xxxlil, 4, p. 488) objects properly to Cauer’s crediting, in his 
Grammatica Militans, ‘‘the division of the accusative into the 
object affected and the object effected” to Kern, since Gilder- 
sleeve himself was using it as far back as 1867. In modern English 
this repetition of the same root is condemned, but it was not so 
in Greek. Conybeare and Stock‘ observe that the Hebrew and 
the Greek coincide on this point, and hence the excess of such 
accusatives in the LXX in various applications. And the N. T., 
here unlike the papyri, shows an abundance of the cognate ac- 
cusatives. 

The accusative of the inner content may be illustrated by τὴν 
δικαίαν κρίσιν κρίνετε (JO. 7: 24), τὸν φόβον αὐτῶν μὴ φοβηθῆτε (1 Pet. 
8. :14), αὔξει τὴν αὔξησιν τοῦ θεοῦ (Col. 2 : 19), ἵνα στρατεύῃ τὴν καλὴν 
στρατείαν (1 Tim. 1:18), ἀγωνίζου τὸν καλὸν ἀγῶνα (1 Tim. 6 : 12), 
ὡμολόγησας τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν (1}.), ἐθαύμασα ἰδὼν αὐτὴν θαῦμα μέγα 
(Rev. 17:6). Cf. Rev. 16:9. In Mk. 10: 38, τὸ βάπτισμα 6 ἐγὼ 
βαπτίζομαι, and Jo. 17: 26, ἡ ἀγάπη ἣν ἠγάπησάς με (cf. Eph. 2: 4), 
the relative shows this use of the accusative. In Jo. 17 : 26 and 
Eph. 2:4 (ἣν ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς) the cognate accusative of the inner 
. content is used along with the accusative of the person also. 
Indeed in Eph. 4 : 1, τῆς κλήσεως ἧς ἐκλήθητε, the relative has been 
attracted from the cognate accusative. The modern Greek keeps 
this use of the accusative. ¢ 

Some neuter adjectives are used to express this accusative, but 
far less frequently than in the ancient Greek.6 Thus, πεποιθὼς 
αὐτὸ τοῦτο (Ph. 1: 6), πάντα ἰσχύω (Ph. 4:18), νηστεύουσιν πυκνά (Lu. 
5:33), πάντα ἔγκρατεύεται (1 Cor. 9 : 25), perhaps even τρίτον τοῦτο 
ἔρχομαι (2 Cor. 13:1), μηδὲν διακρινόμενος (Jas. 1:6), οὐδὲν ὑστέ- 
ρησα (2 Cor. 12:11). Cf. the interrogative τί ὑστερῶ (Mt. 19: 20), 


1 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 436. But note ζημείαν enuwodpnr, B.U. 146 
(ii/ill), προσκυνεῖν τὸ προσκύνημα Letr. 70, 79, 92 (i/B.c.). 

2 C. and §., Sel. from the Sept., p. 56. 

tbsp agen as 

5 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 76, finds no instance of such a construction with 
ἀγαπῶ in ane. Gk. 

ὁ Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 91. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 329. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 479 


the relative ὃ γὰρ ἀπέθανεν and ὃ δὲ ζῇ (Ro. 6:10). Cf. also ὃ νῦν 
ζῶ ἐν σαρκί (Gal. 2 : 20) which may be equal to ‘in that,’ adverbial 
accusative! In 2 Cor. 12:13 the accusative relative follows the 
nominative interrogative τί ἐστιν ὃ ἡσσώθητε. This neuter accusa- 
tive of the adjective easily glides into the purely adverbial accu- 
sative, like πάντα πᾶσιν ἀρέσκω (1 Cor. 10 : 89), πάντα μου μέμνησθε 
ΠΟ ΟΥ̓ ΤΠ. 

As a further example of the more objective result one may note 
ἠχμαλώτευσεν αἰχμαλωσίαν (ph. 4:8, LXX), but Winer? rightly 
shows that this type is chiefly represented in the N. T. by the rela- 
tive. So μαρτυρία ἣν μαρτυρεῖ (Jo. 5 : 32), διαθήκη ἣν διαθήσομαι (Heb. 
8:10), βλασφημίαι ὅσα ἐὰν βλασφημήσωσιν (Mk. 3 : 28), ἐπαγγελία ἣν 
ἐπηγγείλατο (1 Jo. 2 : 25). 

The cognate accusative of the outward object (result also) calls 
for little discussion. Besides φυλάσσοντες φυλακάς (Lu. 2:8) ob- 
serve κοδόμησεν τὴν οἰκίαν (Mt. 7: 24), δήσατε δεσμάς (Mt. 13 : 30, 
but NBC have εἰς). 

The analogous cognate accusative is seen in such constructions 
as μὴ φοβούμεναι μηδεμίαν πτόησιν (1 Pet. ὃ : 0), βιῶσαι χρόνον (1 Pet. 
4 : 2), δαρήσεται πολλάς (ὀλίγας) in Lu. 12:47 (48), ἦλθον ἡμέρας 
ὁδόν (Lu. 2:44), ἐπορεύετο τὴν ὁδὸν αὐτοῦ (Ac. 8:39), and the rela- 
tive also as in ὅρκον ὃν ὥμοσεν (Lu. 1:73). Cf. the instrumental 
ὅρκῳ ὥμοσεν (Ac. 2:30), ete. 

(ἡ) DousLE AccusaTIvE. Some verbs may have two accu- 
satives. Indeed, if one count space and time, three accusa- 
tives are possible? In Mk. 10:18 (τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν;) we have 
three accusatives, one being predicate. In the Sanskrit it is very 
common to have two accusatives with one verb.t| When one 
recalls that the accusative is the old and normal case with transi- 
tive verbs, it is not surprising that some verbs use two accusatives, 
just as many transitive verbs have an accusative and a dative, 
an accusative and an ablative, an accusative and an intrumental, 
an accusative and a genitive. This double accusative is common 
in Homer® and a ‘multiplicity of accusatives is a characteristic 
of Pindar’s style.’’® It is a common idiom in the papyri also.’ It 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 91. 8 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 82. 

2 W.-Th., p. 225. 4 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 90. 

5 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 97. 

6 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 306. 

7 Volker, Pap. Gr. Synt. Spec., p. 13 f.; Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 436. 
He cites με ἐτείσατο ὕβριν τὴν ἀνωτάτην, B.U. 242 (ii/a.p.). For the Attic inscr. 
see Meisterh., p. 204. 


480 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 

, 
is not unknown in Latin (cf. doceo) and English (teach). It is 
very common in modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 36), going 
beyond the ancient idiom. Middleton! holds that the double ac- 
cusative is due to analogy, since, in a number of examples, alterna- 
tive constructions occur like accusative and ablative with αἰτέω 
(Ac. 3:2) and ἀφαιρέομαι (Lu. 16:3). Cf. two accusatives with 
ὠνείδιζον in Mt, 27 : 44. 

Perhaps the simplest kind of a double accusative is what is called 
the predicate accusative, really a sort of apposition. Thus οὐκέτι 
ὑμᾶς λέγω δούλους (Jo. 15:15). This appositional feature is seen 
also in the passive of those verbs where a double nominative oc- 
curs. For other examples with verbs of saying see λέγω (Mk. 10: 
18) and εἶπον in Jo. 10 : 385 (ἐκείνους εἶπε θεούς), etc. Similar to this 
is καλέω (καλέσεις TO ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιωάνην, Lu. 1 : 13; cf. Ἰησοῦν verse 
31; ἐκάλουν αὐτὸ --- Ζαχαρίαν, 1: 59). We happen to have the pas- 
sive of this very construction in Lu. 2:21 (ἐκλήθη τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ 
Ἰησοῦς). Cf. further Mt. 22:48. Observe also ὃν καὶ ὠνόμασεν 
Πέτρον (Lu. 6:14). ‘Ouodroyew appears with the double accusative 
in Jo. 9 : 22; 1 Jo, 4 : 2; 2 Jo. 7 and curiously nowhere else outside 
of John’s writings. Ἡγέομαι likewise has two accusatives as in 
ταῦτα ἥγημαι: ζημίαν (Ph. 3:7). See 2 Pet. 3:15; Heb. 11: 26. 
Blass? observes that νομίζω and ὑπολαμβάνω do not have the dou- 
ble accusative in the N. T. Ποιοῦμαι in the same sense does occur, 
as ποιοῦμαι THY ψυχὴν τιμίαν (Ac. 20 : 24), and very frequently in the 
active, as ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν Θεόν (Jo. 10:33). Cf. further for ποιέω 
Mt. 4 10 Ἴ ας: 19 246 Jor a RAT Otel bs 10 nee 
Rev. 21:5. Closely allied to this use of ποιέω is ἔχω (εἶχον ᾿Ιωάνην 
ὑπηρέτην, Ac. 13: 5) and note Heb. 12:9; Ph. 2:29. "Eye με παρῃ- 
τημένον (Lu. 14 : 18) is to be observed also. Cf. also σεαυτὸν παρεχό- 
μενος τύπον (Tit. 2:7). Λαμβάνω is so used in Jas. 5:10, ὑπόδειγμα 
λάβετε — τοὺς προφήτας. Τίθημι may be exemplified by ὑμᾶς τὸ 
πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους (Ac. 20 : 28). Cf. Heb. 1:2 (ἔθη- 
κεν) and Ro. 8: 25, ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον. Καθίστημι shows 
several examples like τίς με κατέστησεν κριτήν (Lu. 12 : 14). ΟΥ̓. 
also Ac. 7:10; Heb. 7: 28. In Gal. 2:18 we have παραβάτην ἐμαυ- 
τὸν συνιστάνω. ᾿Αποδείκνυμι Shows an example in 1 Cor. 4:9 and 
προορίζω in Ro. 8:29. For further verbs with two accusatives, not 
to weary one, see περιάγω (1 Cor. 9 : 5), ἱκανόω (2 Cor. 3 : 6), ἐκλέγο- 
μαι (Jas. 2: 5), ὑψόω (Ac. δ΄: 31). 

This second accusative may be either ΝΣ adjective or 
participle. As specimens of the adjective take ὁ ποιήσας με ὑγιῆ 

1 Anal. in Synt., p. 25. 2. Gr. of N, TOG. sp; 92: 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 481 


(Jo. 5:11), τοὺς τοιούτους ἐντίμους ἔχετε (Ph. 2:29). In 1 Cor.4:9 
indeed the adjective makes three accusatives and with ws four, 6 
θεὸς ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀποστόλους ἐσχάτους ἀπέδειξεν ὡς ἐπιθανατίους (so W. H.). 
As an example of the participle see κατέστησεν αὐτὸν ἡγούμενον (Ac. 
7:10). Cf. 2 Tim. 2:8. Sometimes ὡς occurs with the second 
accusative, as In ὡς προφήτην αὐτὸν εἶχον (Mt. 14:5). Cf. 21:26. 
In 2 Th. 3:15 note μὴ ὡς ἐχθρὸν ἡγεῖσθε, ἀλλὰ νουθετεῖτε ws ἀδελ- 
gov. In 1 Cor. 4:1 observe also ἡμᾶς λογιζέσθω ἄνθρωπος ὡς ὑπη- 
ρέτας Χριστοῦ. In 2 Cor. 10 : 2 we have ὡς with the participle, τοὺς 
λογιζομένους ἡμᾶς ὡς κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦντας. In 2 Cor. 6:4 ὡς 
θεοῦ διάκονοι is not exactly what ὡς διακόνους would be. Cf. ὡς with 
the predicate nominative in Ro. ὃ : 36 (LXX). 

Sometimes εἶναι 1s used as the copula before such a predicate 
accusative where the sense is not greatly altered by its absence or 
‘presence. As a matter of fact with εἶναι we have indirect dis- 
course with the accusative and infinitive. So ὑποκρινομένους ἑαυτοὺς 
δικαίους εἶναι (Lu. 20 : 20), where D does not have εἶναι. Cf. συν- 
εστήσατε ἑαυτοὺς ἁγνοὺς εἶναι (2 Cor. 7:11), λογίζεσθε ἑαυτοὺς εἶναι 
νεκρούς (Ro. 6 : 11), but ADEFG do not have εἶναι. In Ph. 3:7 
we do not have εἶναι, while in verse 8 we do after ἡγοῦμαι. 

The predicate accusative with eis used to be explained as an un- 
doubted Hebraism.! But Moulton? is only willing to admit it is 
a secondary Hebraism since the papyri show a few examples like 
ἔσχον παρ᾽ ὑμῶν εἰς δά(νειον) σπέρματα, K.P. 46 (ii/A.D.), ‘a recurrent 
formula,” a probable vernacular “extension of εἰς expressing des- 
tination.”” Moulton pertinently remarks that “as a loan” (ὡς or 
just the accusative in apposition) and “for a loan”’ (eis) ‘do not 
differ except in grammar.”’ But certainly the great frequency of 
ets in the LX X as compared with even the vernacular κοινή is due 
to the Hebrew Ὁ which it so often translates.2 Cf. δώσετέ μοι τὴν 
παῖδα ταύτην eis γυναῖκα (Gen. 34:12). Cf. the similar use of εἰς and 
the accusative instead of the predicate nominative (λογίζομαι eis 
Ro. 2 : 26, ete.). Winer* shows parallels for this predicate accu- 
sative from the late Greek writers. The N. T: exhibits this ac- 
cusative in els προφήτην αὐτὸν εἶχον (Mt. 21 : 46), ἀνεθρέψατο αὐτὸν 


1 Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 332, 378, who says that it is absent in mod. 
Gk. But mod. Gk. does use γιά instead of pred. acc., as ἔχω τοὺς βράχους γιὰ 
κρέββατι (Thumb, Handb., p. 36). Cf. also W.-Th., p. 228; Blass, Gr. of N. T. 
Gk., p. 93. ΠΏ ΤΟΙ Piad2i 

50 and S., Sel. from the Sept., p. 811, Cf. also W.-Th., p. 228. 

4 Ib. In the mod. Gk. the acc. of the thing to some extent takes the place 
of the dat. or abl. (Thumb, Handb., p. 37). 


482 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ἑαυτῇ els υἱόν (Ac. 7 : 21), ἐλάβετε τὸν νόμον εἰς διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων (Ac. 
7: 58), ἤγειρεν τὸν Δανεὶδ αὐτοῖς εἰς βασιλέα (Ac. 18 : 22), Τέθεικά σε 
εἰς φῶς ἐθνῶν (Ac. 18 :47, LXX). When all is said, one must ad- 
mit some Hebrew influence here because of its frequency. Ph. 
4:16 is not a case in point. See further under εἰς. 

But there is another kind of double accusative besides the pred- 
icate accusative. It is usually described as the accusatiwe of the 
person and of the thing. This in a general way is true of this 
group of double accusatives. Some of these were also cognate 
accusatives, as in κατακλίνατε αὐτοὺς κλισίας (Lu. 9 : 14) and, accord- 
ing to some MSS., δήσατε αὐτὰ δεσμάς (Mt. 13 : 30), ἣν ἠγάπησάς με 
(Jo. 17 : 26; οἵ. also Eph. 2 : 4), both of the outer and the inner ob- 
ject. Cf. the passive ὃ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι (Mk. 10 : 88) which really 
implies two accusatives in the active. Further examples of this 
cognate accusative of the inner object with the negative pronoun 
may be seen in οὐδέν με ἠδικήσατε (Gal. 4 : 12; cf. 5:2), μηδὲν βλά- 
ψαν (Lu. 4:35). See also Ac. 25:10. In Mt. 27: 44 the second 
accusative is likewise a pronoun, τὸ αὐτὸ ὠνείδιζον αὐτόν, while in 
Mk. 6 : 34 it is an adjective, διδάσκειν αὐτοὺς πολλά. 

Indeed διδάσκω is just one of the verbs that can easily have two 
accusatives (asking and teaching). Cf. also ὑμᾶς διδάξει πάντα (Jo. 
14:26. In Ac. 21:21 we have a normal example, ἀποστασίαν δι- 
δάσκεις ἀπὸ Μωυσέως τοὺς --- Ιουδαίους. In Heb. 5 : 12 we note three 
accusatives, but one is the accusative of general reference with 
the infinitive, τοῦ διδάσκειν ὑμᾶς τινὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα. Cf. Mt. 15:9 
where one accusative is predicate. In Rev. 2 : 14 ἐδίδασκεν τῷ Ba- 
hax we have the dative, a construction entirely possible in the ab- 
stract,! but elsewhere absent in the concrete. The number of 
verbs like διδάσκω which may have two accusatives is not consider- 
able. They include verbs like αἰτέω in Mt. 7:9, ὃν αἰτήσει ὁ vids 
αὐτοῦ ἄρτον, but not Mt. 6:8 where ὑμᾶς is merely accusative of 
general reference with the infinitive, though we do meet it with 
αἰτέω in Mk. 6:22 f.; Jo. 16:23; 1 Pet. 3:15. But instead of an 
accusative of the person we may have the ablative with ἀπό as in 
Mt. 20:20 BD (against παρά), αἰτοῦσά τι ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, and in 1 Jo. 5: 
15, or the ablative with παρά as in Jo. 4 : 9, παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ πεῖν αἰτεῖς, and 
the middle ἠτήσατο in Ac. 9:2. ᾿Ερωτάω likewise has two accu- 
satives in Mt. 21:24 (ἐρωτήσω ὑμᾶς κἀγὼ λόγον ἕνα); Mk. 4: 10; 
Jo. 16:23. ᾿Αναμιμνήσκω in both active and middle is used only 
with the accusative in the N. T. (μιμνήσκομαι only with the geni- 
tive save adverbial accusative in 1 Cor. 11:2), and two accusa- 

1 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 80. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 483 


tives occur in 1 Cor. 4 : 17, ds ὑμᾶς ἀναμνήσει τὰς ὁδούς μου, and in 2 
Tim. 1 : 6 (ce ἀναζωπυρεῖν, both in the accusative). With ὑπομιμνή- 
oxw the genitive occurs once in the passive (Lu. 22 : 61), the accu- 
sative elsewhere, and two accusatives in Jo. 14 : 26, ὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς 
πάντα, and in Tit. 3:1 (αὐτοὺς ὑποτάσσεσθαι). In 1 Cor. 14 : 6 ob- 
serve Ti ὑμᾶς ὠφελήσω. In 2 Pet. 1:12 περὶ τούτων occurs rather 
than a second accusative. Evayyedifoua usually has accusative 
of the thing and dative of the person, as in Eph. 2:17; 3 :8, ete. 
But in Ac. 18 : 32 the accusative of person! and thing is found, and 
the same thing is true in Ac. 14:15 (ὑμᾶς --- ἐπιστρέφειν), taking 
object-sentence as ‘‘thing.”” Indeed in Gal. 1 : 9 (εἴ τις ὑμᾶς εὐαγ- 
γελίζεται map’ ὃ παρελάβετε) the same thing exists, for while the 
antecedent of 6 would be παρὰ τοῦτο, τι is really implied also, τι 
παρὰ τοῦτο ὅ. 

Another group of verbs in the ancient Greek with two accusa- 
tives is that of depriving, etc. Here indeed the ablative may take 
the place of one accusative, as in 1 Tim. 6 : 5 with the passive of 
ἀποστερέω the ablative is retained (τῆς ἀληθείας). But in the N. T. 
neither ἀποστερέω, Nor ddarpéw, hor κρύπτω has two .accusatives. 
Either the ablative alone occurs or with ἀπό (Lu. 16:3; Lu. 19: 
42; Rev. 6:16). With φυλάσσεσθαι (Ac. 21 : 25) αὐτούς is the ac- 
cusative of general reference (so-called “subject’”’) of the infini- 
tive. 

But verbs of clothing or unclothing, anointing, etc., do have 
two accusatives, though not always. Thus ἐξέδυσαν αὐτὸν τὴν 
xAaptda (Mt. 27: 31; cf. Mk. 15:17; Lu. 15: 22), ἐνέδυσαν at- 
. τὸν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ (Mt. 27:31; cf. Mk. 15:22). But ἀμφιέννυμι 
does not have two accusatives nor περιτίθημι (Mt. 27:28). In 
Lu. 23:11 some MSS. give two accusatives with περιβαλών, 
but NBLT omit αὐτόν. In Jo. 19:2 the text is beyond dispute 
ἱμάτιον πορφυροῦν περιέβαλον αὐτόν. Cf. περιβαλεῖται ἐν (Rev. 3: δ). 
Moreover χρίω has two accusatives in Heb. 1 :9 (ἔχρισέν σε ὁ θεὸς 
ἔλαιον), ἃ quotation from the LXX. In Rev. 3:18 κολλούριον is 
not the object of éyxpica, but of ἀγοράσαι. ᾿Αλείφω is not used 
with two accusatives, but has the thing in the instrumental case 
(Mk. 6:13). Πληρόω does not indeed have two accusatives in the 
N. T., but the passive with accusative in Ph. 1:11 and Col. 1:9 
really involves the idiom. 

The following causative verbs have two accusatives. ‘Opkitw 
σε τὸν θεόν (Mk. 5 : 7) is a case in point (cf. ἐξορκέω in Herod.). See 

1 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 78 f., argues unsuccessfully against the idea 
that εὐαγγελίζομαι has two accs. 


484 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


also Ac. 19:13 and one example of ἐνορκίζξω in 1 Th. 5: 27. 
The idea is really to ‘‘cause to swear by.”” In Jas. 5: 12 (ὀμνύετε 
μήτε τὸν οὐρανὸν μήτε THY γῆν μήτε ἄλλον τινὰ ὅρκον) we have two con- 
structions, one “swear by,” the other the cognate accusative. So 
διαμαρτύρομαι in 2 Tim. 4:1 f. Cf. P.O. 79 (ii/A.D.) ὀμνύω Αὐτοκράτορα 
Καίσαρα Map|xoly Αὐρήλιον --- ἀληθῆ εἶν[αι] τὰ προ--- Llorifw is a good 
example of the causative sense. Thus ὃς ἂν ποτίσῃ ὑμᾶς ποτήριον 
ὕδατος (Mk. 9:41). Cf. Mt. 10:42; 1 Cor. 3:2. In Ro. 12: 20 
ψωμίζω has the accusative of the person, in 1 Cor. 18:3 the ac- 
cusative of the thing (cf. Jer. 28 : 15 for double accusative with 
both these verbs). In Lu. 11: 46 we have φορτίζετε τοὺς ἀνθρώ- 
mous φορτία δυσβάστακτα. Cf. ἠλάττωσας αὐτὸν βραχύ τι in Heb. 2:7 
(LXX). 

Finally some words of doing good or ill have two accusatives. 
Thus μηδὲν βλάψαν αὐτόν (Lu. 4 : 835) where the pronoun is really a 
cognate accusative, as is the case with ὑμᾶς οὐδὲν ὠφελήσει (Gal. 5: 
2). Cf. Ac. 25:10 ᾿Ιουδαίους οὐδὲν ἠδίκηκα. In Mt. 27: 22 we read 
τί οὖν ποιήσω ᾿Ιησοῦν. Cf. also Mk. 15:12, though D has τῷ βασιλεῖ 
(Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 91). Elsewhere in the N. T. we meet 
the dative of the person as in Mt. 21:40; Ac. 9:18. See περὶ ὧν 
αὐτὴν πεποιήκασιν, P. Grenf. ii, 73 (late ili/a.D.), where ὧν is attracted 
from 4=‘of what they have done to her.’ Cf. μηδὲν πράξῃς σεαυτῷ 
κακόν (Ac. 16:28). In Mk. 7:12 the dative of the person is in 
keeping with ancient Greek usage. In Mt. 17:12 ἐν αὐτῷ may 
be more exactly ‘in his case’ (ND do not have év), but note εἰς 
ὑμᾶς in Jo. 15:21 and the likeness of this to the modern Greek 
use of εἰς with accusative as the usual dative. Blass (2b., p. 92) 
compares also the use of ἐν ἐμοί (Mk. 14 : 6) and εἰς ἐμέ (Mt. 26: 
10) with ἐργάζομαι and observes that ἐργάζομαι in Attic had some- 
times two accusatives. One may compare again the expression τί 
ἄρα ὁ Ilérpos ἔγένετο (Ac. 12:18). Λέγω and εἶπον indeed have two 
accusatives in the N. T., but in Jo. 1:15 the margin (W. H., 
R. V.) really has this idiom. Cf. also Ac. 23: 5. 

(7) Witn Passive Verss. Indeed the accusative may be 
found with verbs in the passive voice. Draeger! calls the accusa- 
tive with passive verbs in Latin ‘‘ein Gricismus.”’ This accusa- 
tive may be of several kinds. See cognate accusative in Mt. 2: 
10, ἐχάρησαν χαράν. It occurs with the so-called passive deponents 
like ἀπεκρίθην (οὐδὲν ἀπεκρίθη, Mk. 15:5). Cf. οὐδὲν ἀπεκρίνατο (Mt. 
27:12) and ἀπεκρίθη λόγον (Mt. 15:23). As further instances 
note ἀπεστρἀφησάν με (2 Tim. 1:15), ἐντραπήσονται τὸν υἱόν μου (Mt. 

1 Hist. Synt., p. 362. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 485 


21:37), ἐπαισχυνθῇ we (Mk. 8 : 38), φοβηθῆτε αὐτούς (Mt. 10 : 26). 
Cf. Mt. 14:4; 2 Tim 1:15. To all intents and purposes these 
“deponent”’ forms are not regarded as passives. This use of 
the passive is common in the κοινή. Cf. Volker, Synt. Spec., p. 15. 

But the true passive of many verbs retains the accusative of the 
thing. This is true of verbs that have two accusatives in the ac- 
tive. So ἦν κατηχημένος τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ Κυρίου (Ac. 18 : 25), ἃς ἐδιδάχ- 
θητε (2 Th. 2:15), οὐκ ἐνδεδυμένον ἔνδυμα γάμου (Mt. 22:11 and 
ef. Mk. 1:6; Rev. 1: 18; 15: 6; 19: 14), ἐνεδιδύσκετο πορφύραν 
(Lu. 16 : 19), ἐκαυματίσθησαν καῦμα μέγα (Rev. 10 : 9), δαρήσεται πολ- 
has (πληγάς, Lu. 12 : 47, ὀλίγας, 48), τὸ βάπτισμα ὃ βαπτίζομαι βαπ- 
τισθῆναι (ΜΚ. 10 : 88, two examples), ἕν πνεῦμα ἐποτίσθημεν (1 Cor. 
12 : 13), πεπείσμεθα τὰ κρείσσονα (Heb. 6:9), πεπληρωμένοι καρπὸν 
δικαιοσύνης (Ph. 1:11; Col. 1:9 ἵνα πληρωθῆτε τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν and 
οἵ. Ex. 31 : 3, ἐνέπλησα αὐτὸν πνεῦμα σοφίας) and compare 2 Tim. 1 : 5 
for genitive (ἵνα χαρᾶς πληρωθῶ), ζημιωθῆναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ (ΜΚ. 8: 
36). Cf. also Mt. 16 : 26; Ph.3:8; Heb. 10 : 22. See ὃ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐμοῦ 
ὠφεληθῇς (Mt. 18 : δ); τί ὠφεληθήσεται (Mt. 16 : 26); βραχύ τι παρ᾽ 
ἀγγέλους ἠλαττωμένον (Heb. 2 : 9) with active (two accs.) in Heb. 
2:7. Once more observe ἀδικούμενοι μισθὸν ἀδικίας (2 Pet. 2 : 18). 
The predicate accusative, it should be said, becomes the nomina- 
tive in the passive, as in αὐτοὶ viol θεοῦ κληθήσονται (Mt. 5:9). Cf. 
Pedy) 2 10%/2) Time 1218. 

Some verbs which have only one accusatiwe in the active or 
middle yet retain the accusative of the thing in the passive with 
the person in the nominative. This is a freedom not possessed by 
_ the Latin. The person in the active was generally in the dative. 
Thus Paul a number of times uses πιστεύομαι (πιστευθῆναι τὸ evay- 
γέλιον 1 Th. 2:4; ἐπιστεύθη τὸ μαρτύριον 2 Th. 1:10; cf. also 1 
Cor. 9:17; Gal. 2:7; Ro. 3.:2; 1 Tim.1:11). Then again περι: 
βάλλομαι is frequently so employed, as περιβεβλημένος σινδόνα (Mk. 
14:51; cf. 16 : 5; and especially in Rev., as 7:9, 18; 10:1; 11:3; 
12:1; 17:4; 18:16; 19:18). This is not the middle as Blass! 
has it, though the future middle does occur in Rev. 3 : 5 with ἐν, 
and the aorist middle with the accusative in Rev. 19:8. In Rev. 
4:4 we have περιβεβλημένους ἱματίοις (loc.), and margin (W. H.) ἐν 
iu. Once more περίκειμαι is used as the passive of περιτίθημι with 
the accusative of the thing, though the verb itself means to ‘lie 
around’ instead of ‘be encompassed with.’ So τὴν ἅλυσιν περί- 
κειμαι (Ac. 28 : 20). Cf. also Heb. 5:2, but in Lu. 17 : 2 we have 
περί repeated. 

1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 93. 


486 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


There are once more still looser accusatives with passive verbs, 
partly by analogy and partly merely an extension of the principle 
illustrated already. Thus κατηχούμενος τὸν λόγον (Gal. 6 : 6) does 
not really differ from ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε above. In δεδεμένος τοὺς πό- 
das καὶ τὰς χεῖρας (Jo. 11:44) we see a close parallel to περιβεβλη- 
μένος above. Note active in Mt. 22:18. In διεφθαρμένων τὸν νοῦν 
(1 Tim. 6:5), ῤῥεραντισμένοι τὰς καρδίας (Heb. 10 : 22), λελουσμένοι 
τὸ σῶμα (10:23) the accusative seems to be rather remote and 
to come close to the accusative of general reference, but not 
quite, for the force of the verb is still felt. This is still true of 
τὴν αὐτὴν εἰκόνα μεταμορφούμεθα (2 Cor. 8 : 18) and perhaps even of 
τὴν αὐτὴν ἀντιμισθίαν πλατύνθητε (2 Cor. 6:13). In Ac. 21:3 ἀν- 
αφάναντες, not ἀναφανέντες, is the correct text, as Blass! observes. 

The impersonal verbal in —7éov occurs only once in the N. T. 
(Lu. 5:38) and as in the ancient Greek it is used with the ac- 
cusative, οἶνον νέον eis ἀσκοὺς καινοὺς βλητέον. This verbal is more 
usually transitive than the personal form in —7éos, which is not 
found in the N. T. 

(k) Toe ApverspiaAL Accusative. It is not very common in 
the N. T. except in the case of pure adverbs. The adverbial accusa- 
tive is really nothing more than a loose use of the accusative with 
intransitive verbs, with substantives or adjectives. It is rare in 
Homer? and increases steadily till it becomes very common, though 
perhaps never quite so abundant as in the Sanskrit, where a veri- 
table host of such accusatives occur.’ It is a perfectly normal 
development of the case, for extension is its root-idea. This ac- 
cusative is sometimes called the accusative of general reference. — 
As an example of such an accusative with an intransitive verb 
note καθίσταται τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν (Heb. 5:1). See also ἀνέπεσαν οἱ 
ἄνδρες τὸν ἀριθμὸν ὡς πεντακισχίλιοι (Jo. 6 : 10),4 τὸν τρόπον ἐκπορ- 
νεύσασαι (Jude 7), ὃν τρόπον ὄρνις ἐπισυνάγει (Mt. 28 : 37) and 2 
Tim. 8 : ὃ (ὃν τρόπον). Cf. ἀνείχεσθέ μου μικρόν τι (2 Cor. 11:1). In 
Ro. 1ὅ : 17 the whole verbal phrase is concerned with τὰ πρὸς θεόν, 
but see Ro. 12:18, τὸ ἐξ ὑμῶν μετὰ πάντων ἀνθρώπων εἰρηνεύοντες, 
where τὸ ἐξ ὑμῶν is ace. In: Ro. 1:15 τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμέ may be nom. 
In Heb. 2:17 this adv. acc. occurs with the adj. as in πιστὸς 
ἀρχιερεὺς τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. So also with a subst. as in ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ 
κατὰ σάρκα (Ro. 9 : ὅ). The Text. Recept. in Ac. 18 : 8 had σκηνο- 
ποιὸς τὴν τέχνην, but W. H. read σκηνοποιοὶ τῇ τέχνῃ. Indeed the 

ΤΟΥ ΟΝ ΠΝ ἸΌΝ 2 Giles, Man., etc., p. 309. 


8 Whitney, Sans. Gr., pp. 91, 93. 
4 Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 75. So 2 Mace. 8 : 16. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 487 


instrumental is usual in the N. T. in such instances,! as βραδεῖς τῇ 
καρδίᾳ (Lu. 24 : 25), Συροφοινίκισσα τῷ γένει (Mk. 7: 26), Κύπριος τῷ 
γένει (Ac. 4:36), παντὶ τρόπῳ (Ph. 1:18), ταῖς ψυχαῖς ἐκλυόμενοι 
(Heb. 12:3). But, on the other hand, observe τοὔνομα ᾿Ιωσήφ (Mt. 
27: 57), but elsewhere in the N. T. we have ὀνόματι (Ac. 18 : 2). 
In Ro. 16:19 some MSS. have τὸ ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν. The phrase τὸ καθ᾽ εἷς 
(Ro. 12 : 5) is accusative, even though εἷς itself is nominative in 
form. In 1 Cor. 11:18 see also μέρος τι πιστεύω. Perhaps thus is 
to be explained the accusative with the interjection in Rev. 8 : 13 
οὐαὶ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας. Cf. οὐαί and nominative (or vocative) in Is. 
1:4. There is only one instance of an accusative with an adverb 
of swearing in the N. T. and that is in 1 Cor. 15:31, νὴ τὴν ὑμε- 
τέραν καύχησιν. In Mk. 6:39 συμπόσια συμπόσια may be looked 
at as nominative (cf. πρασιαί in verse 40) or accusative (cf. Lu. 9: 
14). Brugmann? considers καὶ τοῦτο (1 Cor. 6:6, 8) nominative 
rather than accusative, but that seems hardly possible with αὐτὸ 
τοῦτο (2 Pet. 1:5), and καὶ τοῦτο may be accusative also (Ph. 1: 
29, etc.). Cf. also τοῦτο μέν --- τοῦτο δέ (Heb. 10:33). In Ac. 15: 
11; 27:25 we have καθ᾽ ὃν τρόπον. In Ph. 4:10 (ἀνεθάλετε τὸ ὑπὲρ 
ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν) the infinitive is probably the accusative of general 
reference. Cf. τὸν πόδαν πονεῖς ἀπὸ σκολάπου, B.U. 380 (ili/A.D.). 

There are indeed other expressions that come more closely to 
the pure adverb. Such, for instance, are τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν (Lu. 11:3; 
19:47; Ac. 17:11), τὴν ἀρχήν (Jo. 8:25), τὸ λοιπόν (Mk. 14:41; 
Ph. 3:1; Heb. 10:13, etc.), τὸ πρότερον (Jo. 6: 62, etc.), τὸ πρῶτον. 
(Jo. 10:40; 12:16); τὸ πλεῖστον (1 Cor. 14:27), τὰ πολλά (Ro. 
15:22, MSS. πολλάκις), τὰ νῦν (Ac. 17:30), τὸ viv ἔχον (Ac. 24: 25), 
Τὸ τέλος (1 Pet. 3:8). In the case of τὸ λοιπόν (1 Cor. 7 : 29) 
it may be either accusative or nominative. In 2 Cor. 6:13 τὴν 
ἀντιμισθίαν is considered adverbial accusative by some, as is πάντα 
with ἀρέσκω (1 Cor. 10:33) and with μέμνησθε (11:2). Observe 
also τὸ αὐτό (Ph. 2:18; Mt. 27:44). Cf. οὐδὲν χρείαν ἔχω (Rev. 
3:17), and the common use of τί in the sense of ‘why’ as in Mt. 
17:10 (διὰ τί in verse 19). This phase of the adverbial accusa- 
tive is common in the papyri.® 

But the most numerous group of adverbial accusatives is found 
in the adverbs themselves. The accusative is not the only case 
used for adverbs, but it is a very common one. In Homer‘ in- 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 117. Cf. Landgraf, Der Accus. der Beziehung 
nach Adj., p. 376, Archiv fiir lat. Lex. und Gr., vol. X. 

2 Griech. Gr., p. 378. 3 Volker, Pap. Gr. Synt. Spec., pp. 10-13. 

4 Giles, Man., etc., p. 309. 


488 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


deed adverbial accusatives of substantives are almost absent. 
But the N. T. shows a few in harmony with the development of 
the language. Thus ἀκμήν (Mt. 15:16), δωρεάν (Mt. 10: 8), χάριν 
as a preposition (Eph. 3:1, etc.). But adjectives in the accusa- 
tive were numerous in Homer! both in the singular and the plural. 
They occur in the positive, comparative and occasionally the su- 
perlative. As examples of the positive singular may be taken πολύ 
(2 Cor. 8 : 22), ὀλίγον (Mk. 6:31), μέσον (Ph. 2:15), ταχὺ (Mt. 
5:25), Nourdy (1 Cor. 1:16, etc. Cf. B.U., iv, 1079, 6). Indeed 
the participle τυχόν (1 Cor. 16:6) is used as an adv. acc. (see 
Ace. Absolute). As an example of the plural positive note πολλά 
in Ro. 16:6, though this may be construed as cognate acc. with 
ἐκοπίασεν. Cf. Jas. 3:2; 1 Cor.16:12,19. For the comparative 
singular note μᾶλλον κρεῖσσον (Ph. 1 : 23), σπουδαιότερον (2 Cor. 8: 
22), δεύτερον (1 Cor. 12 : 28), περισσότερον (Mk. 7:36), βέλτιον (2 
Tim. 1 : 18), ἔλαττον (1 Tim. 5 : 9), ὕστερον (Mt. 22 : 27), τάχειον (Jo. 
13:27), ete. Cf. πολὺ σπουδαιότερον (2 Cor. 8:22) with πολλῷ μᾶλ- 
λον (Ph. 1: 23), the instrumental and usual idiom in the N. T. 
In the superlative it is usually the plural form like ἥδιστα (2 Cor. 
12:9), μάλιστα (Ac. 20 : 38); τάχιστα (Ac. 17:15), etc. But note 
πρῶτον (1 Cor. 12:28), τρίτον (ib.). The later Greek continued to 
exhibit a wealth of adverbs in the accusative.? 

_ (ἢ Tue Accusative By Antiprosis.? It is not in reality a 
special use of the accusative, but merely a shifting of the noun or 
pronoun out of its usual order and into the government of the 
other preceding clause, and thus it becomes accusative whereas it 
would otherwise be nominative. Soin Mk. 1 : 24, οἶδα σε ris εἶ (cf. 
Lu. 4:34), Lu. 19 : 8, ἰδεῖν Ἰησοῦν ris ἐστιν. But in Mt. 15:14 we 
have a kind of prolepsis (not the technical sort) without any 
change of case, τυφλὸς τυφλὸν ἐὰν ὁδηγῇ. In the case of μή τινα ὧν 
ἀπέσταλκα πρὸς ὑμᾶς, du’ αὐτοῦ ἐπλεονέκτησα ὑμᾶς; (2 Cor. 12 : 17) the 
τινα is left to one side and anacoluthon takes place and the sen- 
tence is concluded by δι᾽ αὐτοῦ. 

(m) THe Accusative By INVERSE ATrrRaAcTION. Thus 6p- 
κον ὃν ὥμοσεν (Lu. 1:73), τὸν ἄρτον ὃν κλῶμεν (1 Cor. 10:16). Cf. 
τὸ ποτήριον (1 Cor. 10:15). In Mk. 3:16 but for the parenthesis 
(καὶ ἐπέθηκεν ὄνομα Σίμων.) Πέτρον we should seem to have the dative 
and the accusative in apposition. 


* Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 93. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 348 f.; Delbriick, 
Vergl. Synt., III, p. 625 f. 

2 Jann.; Hist: Gk. Gr.) p. 331: 

3 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 85. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 489 


(n) ΤῊΝ ACCUSATIVE WITH THE INFINITIVE. The grammars 
generally speak of the accusative as the subject of the infinitive. 
I confess that to me this seems a grammatical misnomer. The in- 
finitive clause in indirect discourse does correspond to a finite 
clause in English, and a clause with ὅτι and the indicative may 
often be used as well as the infinitive clause. But it is not tech- 
nically scientific to read back into the Greek infinitive clause the 
syntax of English nor even of the ὅτι clause in Greek. Besides, 
not only is the infinitive a verbal substantive! and in a case like 
the verbal adjective (the participle), but being non-finite (in-fini- 
tive) like the participle (partaking of both verb and noun), it can 
have no subject in the grammatical sense. No one thinks of call- 
ing the accusative the ‘“subject”’ of the participle. Take ἕως ἂν 
ἴδωσιν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον (Mt. 16:28). Here the ac- 
cusative is the object οἱ ἴδωσιν and the participle is descriptive of 
υἱόν. Now with the infinitive in indirect discourse it is as a rule 
the infinitive, not the substantive, that is the object of the verb. 
No further case is needed with the infinitive, if the pronoun or 
substantive be the same as the subject of the principal verb. 
Thus εἴ τις ἀσχημονεῖν --- νομίζει (1 Cor. 7:36). If such a word is 
used, it may be in the nominative in apposition with the subject 
of the verb, as φάσκοντες εἶναι σοφοί (Ro. 1 : 22), or the accusative 
may be used. This accusative may be with a verb that can have 
two accusatives, as in éyw ἐμαυτὸν οὐ λογίζομαι κατειληφέναι (Ph. 
3:13) or the accusative of general reference as in πέποιθάς τε σεαυ- 
Tov ὁδηγὸν εἶναι τυφλῶν (Ro. 2:19). This latter usage is the ex- 
planation of the accusative with the infinitive in the instances 
where the word used with the infinitive is other than the subject 
of the principal verb. Typical examples are seen in οἱ λέγουσιν 
αὐτὸν ζῆν (Lu. 24:28), νομίζοντες αὐτὸν τεθνηκέναι (Ac. 14 : 19), βού- 
λομαι προσεύχεσθαι τοὺς ἄνδρας (1 Tim. 2:8). In these examples the 
infinitive is the object of the verb and the affirmation is made as 
far forth as the word in the accusative. They affirm living as to 
him; considering having died or death as to him; and wish pray- 
ing as to the men. This is the psychology of this accusative with 
the infinitive. The fact that later grammarians call it the ‘sub- 
ject” of the infinitive cuts no figure in the matter of the origin of 
the usage. Clyde? has interpreted the matter correctly. He sees 
that ‘‘grammarians framed this rule in ignorance of the etymology 

1 For inf. as subject and as object. see ch. on Verbal Nouns. 


2 Gk. Synt., p. 139 f. Cf. also Donaldson’s Gk. Gr., ὃ 584, and Green’s 
Handb. to N. T. Gk. Gr., p. 232. 


490 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


of infinitives,”’ and that ‘‘since the infinitive was originally a case, 
the accusative could not originally have been its subject.” This 
descriptive accusative or accusative of definition (general refer- 
ence) has a very wide range in Greek, as seen above, and is the 
true historical explanation of the accusative with the infinitive 
(other than the accusative which may be the object of the infini- 
tive itself). When the accusative is used with the infinitive, it in- 
dicates the agent who has to do with the action by the accusative, 
since the infinitive can have no subject in the technical sense. 
This use of the accusative with the infinitive is common also when 
the infinitive is in a prepositional clause like ἐν τῷ εἰσαγαγεῖν τοὺς 
γονεῖς TO παιδίον ᾿Ιησοῦν (Lu. 2:27). Here the matter becomes 
clearer for the reason that the article τῷ cannot be slurred over 
and it becomes imperative to explain one of the accusatives as 
that of general reference. The context makes it clear that τὸ παι- 
diov is the object of εἰσαγαγεῖν, while τοὺς γονεῖς is the accusative of 
general reference. Many examples of this sort occur. Cf. Mt. 
13:4. In Mt. 26 : 32, μετὰ τὸ ἐγερθῆναί we, note the accusative μὲ 
rather than nothing or αὐτός or ἐμαυτόν. Cf. also Ac. 23:15. The 
article may be so used without a preposition, and either the nomi- 
native appear, as δέομαι τὸ μὴ παρὼν θαρρῆσαι (2 Cor. 10: 2), or the 
accusative, as τῷ μὴ εὑρεῖν we Τίτον (2 Cor. 2:13). Then again the 
accusative may be used with the infinitive in such constructions 
as καλόν ἐστιν ἡμᾶς ὧδε εἶναι (Mt. 17:4). Note here the infinitive 
as subject, as the infinitive as object occurs in 2 Cor. 10:2. There 
is one example of three accusatives with the infinitive in Heb. 
5 : 12 (πάλιν χρείαν ἔχετε τοῦ διδάσκειν ὑμᾶς τινὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα). Here 
we have a verb that is used with two accusatives, and τινὰ is the 
accusative of general reference. Cf. the three accusatives in Lu. 
11:11. This subject will call for further discussion in the chap- 
ters on Indirect Discourse and Verbal Nouns. There was a con- 
stant tendency in the later Greek to exchange this use of the 
infinitive and accusative for the ὅτι clause.! 

(0) Tue Accusative ABsoLtuTE. The absolute use of the ac- 
cusative is rare in the N. T. as compared with the earlier 
Greek.? Usually the genitive occurs with the participle and sub- 
stantive when used absolutely. In 1 Cor. 16 : 6 τυχόν is really the 
accusative absolute though used as an adverb. The most certain 
example in the N. T. is in Ac. 26:3 γνώστην ὄντα ce. In 1 Tim. 
2:6 τὸ μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις is in the accusative without any 

1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 484 f. 
* It is rare also in the pap. Vélker, Pap. Gr. Synt. Spec., p. 18. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΩΣΕΙΣ) 491 


immediate connection unless it is in apposition with the preceding 
clause! (Ellicott in loco) or is loosely united with dots. As to τὸ 
ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου (Ro. 8: 3) we have either the nominativus pen- 
dens, the accusative in apposition with the object of the sentence, 
the accusative of general reference or an instance of anacoluthon.? 
In Lu. 24: 47 the Text. Recept. reads ἀρξάμενον, which would be 
anacoluthon, but W. H. rightly have -vo. Twice ἐξόν occurs in 
the N. T., once with ἣν (Mt. 12:4) and once alone, ἃ οὐκ ἐξόν (2 
Cor. 12 : 4), but in both instances in the nominative. In Ph. 1:7 
ὑμᾶς ὄντας the ὑμᾶς is repeated and is not accusative absolute. A 
subordinate sentence may also be in the accusative of general ref- 
erence. Thus τὸ εἰ δύνῃ (Mk. 9 : 23), τὸ τίς ἂν εἴη μείζων αὐτῶν (Lu. 
9: 40). See further chapter on Verbal Nouns. 

(p) THe AccUSATIVE WITH PrReEPosITIONS. Only a general 
remark is needed here, since each preposition will be discussed 
later in detail. In general one may note that the accusative is 
the most frequent case with prepositions.? Indeed in modern 
Greek these all have the accusative. Πρός in the N. T. has geni- 
tive 1, locative 6, accusative 679 times.4 Here the preposition, 
like all prepositions, is merely an adverb that is used to express 
more exactly the idea of the case. The preposition does not tech- 
nically govern a case. The accusative with the preposition has, 
of course, its usual force, extension. The following prepositions 
occur in the N. T. with the accusative, one example being given 
in each instance. ’Ava μέσον (Mk. 7:31), διὰ τὸν φόβον (Jo. 7: 13), 
els τὴν πόλιν (Mt. 26:18), ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν (Mt. 15:35), κατὰ τὸν νόμον 
(Lu. 2 : 22), μετὰ ἡμέρας τρεῖς (Lu. 2 : 46), παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν (Mt. 20 : 80), 
περὶ αὐτόν (Mt. 8:18), πρὸς αὐτόν (Mt. 8 : δ), ὑπὲρ δοῦλον (Phil. 
16), ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον (Mt. 5:15). Of these εἰς is, of course, by far 
the most frequent and has only the accusative. Διά, μετά, περί, 
ὑπέρ, ὑπό have the genitive-ablative more than the accusative, 
while ἐπί, κατά, πρός have the accusative more often. For exact 
figures see Moulton, Prol., pp. 105-107. In the chapter on Prepo- 
sitions there will be further discussion of the matter. 

VIII. The Genitive (True) Case (ἡ γενικὴ πτῶσις). 

(a) Two Cases witH ONE Form. It is now generally ac- 
cepted by the comparative grammars that in Greek two cases 
appear under the form of the genitive: the genitive proper and the 


1 Yor acc. in apposition with sentence in pap. see Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, 
p. 152, τὸ μὴ dv, T.P. 1 (ii/B.c.). 

2 Green, Handb., etc., p. 234. 

ὃ Giles, Man., etc., p. 311. 4 Moulton, Prol., p. 106. 


492 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ablative.1 It is a syncretistic form. The matter has already had 
some discussion in this grammar under Declensions and calls for 
little remark here. Moulton 15 not too hard on Winer when he 
calls it “δὴ utterly obsolete procedure” to speak of the genitive 
as “unquestionably the whence-case.’’? Winer is followed by 
Green.’ Now the ablative is the whence-case, but the genitive is 
a different case. Delbriick* gives an interesting sketch of the fate 
of the ablative case in the Indo-Germanic languages. In the 
Sanskrit singular the two cases (gen. and abl.) have the same 
form, except I.-G. —o (Sans. —a) stems (Sans. gen. —asya, abl. —ad). 
In the Balto-Slavic tongues ablative and genitive have the same 
endings. In the Italic languages, ablative, locative, instrumental 
(and partly dative) have the same form. Indeed in the Thessa- 
lian dialect as in the Latin some forms of the genitive and locative 
coincide (like domi). Dionysius Thrax® had the idea that both 
cases flourished under one form in Greek, for he describes this case 
as ἡ γενικὴ κτητικὴ Kal πατρική. Thompson® indeed recognises the 
two cases, but thinks it is not possible to group the uses of the 
form under these two divisions because some suit either case. 
There is a “debatable land” as Giles’ observes, but this applies to 
only a very small part of the examples and is very natural indeed. 
As a matter of fact it is not possible to give a really scientific ex- 
planation of the usage in Greek from any other standpoint. The 
ablative will therefore be treated as a separate case and the true 
genitive discussed now. 

(b) Name Incorrect. The genitive case has the wrong name. 
The Latin genitivus is a translation of γεννητική (more like the ab- 
lative in idea). It is ἡ γενικὴ πτῶσις. The name γενική comes from 
γένος (genus), ‘kind,’ and corresponds to the Latin generalis.8 Pris- 
cian? so calls it (generalts casus). It is a pity that one still has 
to call it “genitive.” 


1 Delbriick, Grundl. der griech. Synt., IV, p. 37; Giles, Man., p. 319. Cf. 
Hadley, Ess. Philol., etc., p. 46 f. 

2 W.-Th., p. 184; Moulton, Prol., p. 72. But W.-Sch., p. 259, does not 
make this‘error. 


3 Handb., etc., p. 207. 4 Vergl. Synt., I, p. 200. 
5 Bekker, Anec. Graeca, 1816, Vol. II, p. 636. 
6 Gk. Synt., 1883, p. 59. 7 Man., Ὁ. 313. 


8 Cf. Max Miller, Lect., I, pp. 103-105; Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 70. 

9 Lib. V, de Casu. See Meister, Der synt. Gebrauch des Genit. in den 
kretischen Dial.-Inschr. Indoger. Forsch., XVIII, pp. 133-204. Cf. also 
Ruttgers, De accus., gen., dat. usu in inscr. archaicis cretensibus. Diss. Bonn, 
47 p. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 493 


(ὦ THe SpeciryinG Οὐδ. It is this and no other. The idea 
of the genitive case is at bottom simple. The genitive shows 
διαίρεσιν and something εἰδικόν. It is the case of genus (γένος) 
or kind. For a very full discussion of the genitive see Del- 
briick, Vergl. Synt., III, pp. 307-360. The genitive does indeed 
resemble the adjective, but it is not adjectival in origin,! 
though the source of the genitive ending is unknown. The ad- 
jectival possessive pronoun (like ἐμός) is a mere variation of the 
genitive case (ἐμοῦ) and the two may be in apposition with one 
another, as τῇ ἐμῇ χειρὶ Παύλου (2 Th. 3:17). But the function 
of the case is largely adjectival as in ἡμέρα παρασκευῆς (Lu. 23: 
54), though the adjective and the genitive are not exactly parallel, 
for with two substantives each idea stands out with more sharp- 
ness, as In ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς (Ro. 6:4) and ἐπὶ πλούτου ἀδηλότητι (1 
Tim. 6:17). It is the specifying case, then, the case of appurte- 
nance.’ In the Sanskrit Whitney‘ finds the genitive adjectival in 
idea and defining the noun more nearly. So also Kiihner-Gerth® 
who find it qualitative with nouns or verbs. But Delbriick,® 
followed by Brugmann,’ makes the verb the starting-point for ex- 
plaining the genitive. One hesitates to part company with Del- 
brick and Brugmann, but the older view that it was first used 
with nouns seems here to have the best of it. It may be remarked 
that the genitive is the most persistent of all the cases in retaining 
its forms, as is seen in the English s. Indeed in the modern Greek 
the form shares with the accusative the result of the loss of the 
dative, so that we often meet a construction like αὐτοῦ τὸ εἶπα (‘I 
told him so’). One other remark is called for concerning the 
meaning of the genitive in Greek. It is that the case does not of 
itself mean all that one finds in translation. The case adheres to 
its technical root-idea. The resultant idea will naturally vary 
greatly according as the root-conception of the case is applied to 
different words and different contexts. But the varying element 
is not the case, but the words and the context. The error must 
not be made of mistaking the translation of the resultant whole 


1 Giles, Man., etc., p. 311. 3 Hadley, Ess. Philol. and Crit., p. 48. 

2 Cf. W.-Th., p. 236. 4 Sans. Gr., p. 98 f. 

5 Tl. I, p. 331. Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., Ὁ. 102. 

6 Vergl. Synt., I, pp. 185 f., 307-380. 

7 Griech. Gr., p. 385. 

8 Giles, Man., etc., p. 315. Cf. Donaldson, Gk. Gr., pp. 464 ff. 

9 In late Gk. the true gen. survives while the abl. fades further away. 
Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 333. 


494 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


for the case itself. Thus in Mt. 1 : 12 we have μετοικεσίαν Βαβυλῶ- 
vos. It is translated ‘removal to Babylon.’ Now the genitive 
does not mean ‘to,’ but that is the correct translation of the 
total idea obtained by knowledge of the O. T. What the geni- 
tive says is that it is a ‘Babylon-removal.’ That is all. So in 
Mt. 12:31, ἡ τοῦ πνεύματος βλασφημία, it is the ‘Spirit-blasphemy.’ 
From the context we know -that it is blasphemy against the 
Spirit, though the genitive does not mean ‘against.’ When a 
case has so many possible combinations in detail it is difficult to 
make a satisfactory grouping of the various resultant usages. A 
very simple and obvious one is here followed. But one must 
always bear in mind that these divisions are merely our modern 
conveniences and were not needed by the Greeks themselves. 
At every stage one needs to recall the root-idea of the case (genus 
or kind) and find in that and the environment and history the 
explanation. 

(ὦ) Tue Locat Uss. This is normally the first to begin with. 
In Greek literature it appears mainly in poetry! and in adverbs of 
place like αὐτοῦ, οὗ, ποῦ, ὅπου, ὅμου, πανταχοῦ. But it is possible that 
these are locatives like ἄλλοθι in a shortened form.? But on the 
other hand in Homer the genitive undoubtedly? appears in local 
relations with the archaic genitive in —o.o, though even in Homer 
the examples are chiefly stereotyped ones. There are in the N. T. 
only these examples in Luke and Acts. In Lu. 5:19 μὴ εὑρόντες 
ποίας εἰσενέγκωσιν αὐτόν and 19 : 4 ἐκείνης ἤμελλεν διέρχεσθαι we have 
two undoubted examples. Blass* indeed calls these ‘‘incorrect”’ 
on the ground that ‘classical Greek”? would not have used the 
genitive thus. But it is sufficient reply to say that Luke was not 
writing classical Greek. Certainly Xenophon might have used 
ποίᾳ, ἐκείνῃ (aS D has in Lu. 19:4). Moulton? finds often in the 
papyri νότου, λιβός, though in Rey. 21:13 we have the ablative® 
ἀπὸ νότου. In Ac. 19:26 we have a very striking example that 
the commentaries have failed to notice as Moulton’ observes. It 
is οὐ μόνον ᾿Εφέσου ἀλλὰ σχεδὸν πάσης τῆς ᾿Ασίας ὁ Παῦλος πείσας μετέ- 
στησεν ἱκανὸν ὄχλον. Moulton on the whole agrees with Hackett 
that the genitive here is dependent on ὄχλον. In Homer one has 
a parallel like οὐκ "Apyeos ἦεν, but Moulton finds none in the ver- 
nacular κοινή. Still,’ since Luke did use ἐκείνης and ποίας, it does 


1 Farrar, Gk. Synt.; p. 73. Cf. ΓΟ I, p. 384. 

2 Delbriick, Vergl. Gr., I, p. 359. 5 Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 437. 
3 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 104. § Moulton, Prol., p. 73. 
4 


(ΟΥ̓ ΤΟΙΟΝ A) site Ὁ  Ἰ09: 7 Ib. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΩΣΕΙΣ) 495 


not seem difficult to believe that he was ready to employ the geni- 
tive of place in Acts. 

There is another passage in Luke also (Lu. 16 : 24) where the 
genitive of place occurs, ἵνα βάψῃ τὸ ἄκρον τοῦ δακτύλου αὐτοῦ ὕδατος. 
Here ὕδατος emphasizes the kind of material which the speaker 
clearly has in mind. WN has ὕδατι. One may note in this connec- 
tion the Homeric idiom λούεσθαι ποταμοῖο, ‘to bathe in the river.’ 
Cf. also the classic ποῦ γῆς. Somewhat similar also is ἡ διασπορὰ 
τῶν Ἑλλήνων (Jo. 7:35) and ὁδὸς ἐθνῶν (Mt. 10:5), which are ob- 
jective genitives but of place also. Cf. ἐν Ταρσῷ τῆς Κιλικίας (Acts 
22:3) which is described by Blass-Debrunner, p. 101, as parti- 
tive genitive. 

(ec) Tue Tremporat Use. It is common enough. This is a 
very old use of the genitive.!. This is the true genitive.2 The 
accusative when used of time expresses duration over the period, 
the locative regards the period as a point even if it is of some 
length (cf. καιροῖς ἰδίοις, 1 Tim.6: 15), while the genitive implies noth- 
ing® as to duration. In Mt. 24 : 20 this distinction can be seen 
in χειμῶνος καὶ σαββάτῳ, one the case of genus, the other a point of 
time. Brugmann‘ indeed regards the genitive of time as a devel- 
opment of the partitive genitive, but this seems hardly necessary. 
Moulton,’ on the other hand, connects it with the genitive of pos- 
session and finds it very frequently in’the papyri, like ἔτους B, 
‘in the second year.’ So τοῦ ὄντος μηνός, F.P. 124 (ii/a.p.). On 
the difference between the genitive and the accusative of time 
see ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός (Lu. 18:7) and νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν (Lu. 2 : 37), 
the genitive the time within which (kind of time), the accusative 
the time during which (all through). Cf. also νυκτὸς τὸ πρῶτον 
(Jo. 19 : 39). See also τοῦ λοιποῦ (Gal. 6:17) and τὸ λοιπόν (Heb. 
10:13). Once more observe μεσονύκτιον ἢ ἀλεκτοροφωνίας (Mk. 18 : 
35) where some MSS. have μεσονυκτίου. The accusative here is 
more like the adverb ὀψέ just preceding. Further examples of 
the genitive may be seen in μέσης νυκτός (Mt. 25 : 6), ὄρθρου βαθέος 
(Lu. 24:1). For adverbs in expressions of time, see vil, (/). 

(f) Wirn Supstantives. This is the chief use of the case. 
The accusative indeed is chiefly connected with the verb, while 
the genitive is mainly related to substantives.® 

1. The Possessive’ Genitive. In simple point of fact it is not 


1 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 356. Cf. Sans., Whitney’s Sans. Gr., p. 100. 
2 Delbriick, Grundl., etc., IV, p. 45. ὃ Prol., p. 73. 

3 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 105. 6 Giles, Man., etc., p. 311. 

4 Griech. Gr., p. 389. 7 Delbrick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 344. 


496 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


necessary to see any particular inner connection between the 
many uses of the genitive with substantives other than the com- 
mon root-idea of the case. For convenience it suits us to group 
these usages, but one must think that the Greeks themselves 
looked at the whole matter much more simply. After all it is the 
context that varies rather than the genitive. The resultant idea 
is therefore a matter of exegesis rather than due to any particular 
label to be attached.2 The most obvious illustrations like πατάξας 
τὸν δοῦλον τοῦ ἀρχιερξως ἀφεῖλεν αὐτοῦ τὸ ὠτίον (Mt. 26 : 51) call for 
little remark. It is the high-priest’s servant, not another’s, and 
it is the servant’s ear, not another’s. The possessive pronouns, 
especially ἐμός in John’s Gospel, were used to some extent in the 
N. T., but usually the genitive of the personal pronoun is found. 
In Jo. 7:16 they occur side by side. Cf. τῇ ἐμῇ χειρὶ Παύλου 
(Gor 16821); 

2. Attribute Genitive. Like an adjective the genitive may 
be either attributive or predicate. This is sometimes called the 
genitive of quality. But the name helps little, as all genitives 
have this idea. The sense of attribute is indeed the usual 
one with the genitive, as Παῦλος δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Ro. 
1:1). Thus observe the descriptive genitive in Mt. 18:9 eis 
τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός, Ro. 6:6 τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας, τὸ σῶμα THs 
ταπεινώσεως (and τῆς δόξης, Ph. 8 : 21), τὸ σῶμα τῆς σαρκός (Col. 1: 
22), βάπτισμα μετανοίας (Mk. 1 : 4), ἡμέρας ὁδόν (Lu. 2 : 44), ὁ οἰκονό- 
μος τῆς ἀδικίας (Lu. 16:8). And even expressions like viol φωτός 
(1 Th. 5: 5) are shown by the inscriptions and coins (Deissmann, 
Bib. Stud., p. 165) to be not mere Hebraisms, though far more fre- 
quent in the LXX than in the N. T. because of the Hebrew. 
Other examples are λόγοις τῆς χάριτος (Lu. 4 : 22), σκεῦος ἐκλογῆς 
(Ac. 9:15), σκεύη ὀργῆς (Ro. 9 : 22), κριτὴς τῆς ἀδικίας (Lu. 18 : 6), 
πάθη ἀτιμίας (Ro. 1:26), vids τῆς ἀγάπης (Col. 1:13), νόμον τῆς 
ἐλευθερίας and ἀκροατὴς ἐπιλησμονῆς (Jas. 1 : 25), ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης 
(Heb. 1 : 8), καρδία ἀπιστίας (Heb. 8 : 12), ῥίζα πικρίας (Heb. 12 : 15), 
ἡ πληγὴ τοῦ θανάτου (Rev. 183 : 3), where the descriptive attribu- 
tive genitive expresses quality like an adjective indeed, but with 
more sharpness. and distinctness. Cf. again ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς (Ro. 
6 : 4) and ἐπὶ πλούτου ἀδηλότητι (1 Tim. 6:17). In Heb. 1:3, τῷ 
ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, the second genitive is technically de- 


1 Giles, Man., δος p. 312. 

5 Moulton, Prol., p. 72. Blass, also (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 95) thinks that 
the exact shade of the gen. idea is often a matter of theological, not gram- 
matical interpretation. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 497 


pendent on δυνάμεως. Cf. 2 Th. 1:7. I doubt the wisdom of 
Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 237) in saying that in τὰ ῥήματα τῆς ζωῆς 
ταύτης (Ac. 5:20) the demonstrative goes in sense with ῥήματα. 
The same objection applies to ὁ λόγος τῆς σωτηρίας ταύτης (Ac. 13: 
26) and ἐκ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ θανάτου τούτου (Ro. 7 : 24). Besides υἱοὶ 
φωτός above observe a similar idiom in τέκνα φωτός (Eph. 5:8), 
τέκνα ὀργῆς (Eph. 2 : 8), τέκνα ὑπακοῆς (1 Pet. 1 : 14), τέκνα κατάρας 
(2 Pet. 2:14), υἱοὶ ἀπειθίας (Eph. 2 : 2), ὁ vids τῆς ἀπωλείας (2 Th. 
2:3). Cf. also of viol τοῦ νυμφῶνος (Mt. 9:15); ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀγάπης 
αὐτοῦ (Col. 1:18), ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας (2 Th. 2: 8). 

One may instance further the use οἱ ἡμέρα ὀργῆς (Ro. 2:5), 
ἡμέρα σωτηρίας (2 Cor. 6:2 quot. from O. T.), ἡμέρα ἐπισκοπῆς (1 
Pet. 2:12), ἡμέρα ἀναδείξεως (Lu. 1 : 80) where the LX X may be 
appealed to for abundant illustration. 

The genitive of place or country is descriptive also. Thus Na- 
ζαρὲτ τῆς Γαλιλαίας (Mk. 1:9), Ταρσῷ τῆς Κιλικίας (Ac. 22 : 8), ἥτις 
ἐστὶν πρώτη μερίδος τῆς Μακεδονίας πόλις (Ac. 16 : 12), etc. This geni- 
tive of quality or descriptive genitive is largely extended in the 
LXX by reason of translation (Thackeray, p. 28). 

3. The Predicate Genitive. While having the copula εἶναι, γί- 
νεσθαι, etc., in reality! it is to be explained as a genitive with sub- 
stantives. It is not the copula that affects the case of the genitive 
at all. It is just the possessive genitive in the predicate instead 
of being an attribute. Often the substantive or pronoun is re- 
peated in sense before the predicate genitive. Thus οὐκ ἔστιν ἀκα- 
ταστασίας ὁ θεός (1 Cor. 14:38). Cf. ἡμεῖς οὐκ ἐσμὲν ὑποστολῆς --- 
ἀλλὰ πίστεως (Heb. 10:39), πᾶσα παιδεία οὐ δοκεῖ χαρᾶς εἶναι (Heb. 
12:11). So ἦν yap ἐτῶν. δώδεκα. (Mk. 5:42). So Lu. 2:42. Cf. 
also ἐάν τινας εὕρῃ τῆς ὁδοῦ ὄντας (Ac. 9 : 2), and indeed ἐγένετο γνώ- 
uns (Ac. 20 : 3) is to be explained the same way. There is as 
much latitude in the predicate genitive as in the attributive 
possessive genitive. We have viol φωτός ἐστε καὶ viol ἡμέρας (1 Th. 
5:5) and οὐκ ἐσμὲν νυκτὸς οὐδὲ σκότους (1 Th. 5:6) and ἡμέρας ὄντες 
(verse 8).2. We may continue the illustrations like ἔγώ εἰμι Παύλου 
(1 Cor. 1:12), οὐκ ἐστὲ ἑαυτῶν (1 Cor. 6 : 19), τοῦ θεοῦ οὗ εἰμί (Ac. 
27:23), πάντα ὑμῶν ἐστίν (1 Cor. 3:21), οὐχ ὑμῶν ἐστίν γνῶναι 
(Ac. 1:7), ἵνα ἡμῶν γένηται ἡ κληρονομία (Lu. 20:14), τίνος αὐτῶν 
ἔσται γυνή (Mk. 12 : 23), τελείων ἐστὶν ἡ στερεὰ τροφή (Heb. ὅ : 14), 
Χριστοῦ εἶναι (2 Cor. 10 : 7), ὧν ἐστὶν Φύγελος καὶ Ἑρμογένης (2 Tim. 
1:15), ἵνα ἡ ὑπερβολὴ τῆς δυνάμεως ἢ τοῦ (2 Cor. 4 : 7), and finally, 

1 W.-Th., p. 195. Is no distinct type, Giles, Man., p. 317. 
2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 96. 


498 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


though by no means all that can be adduced, ὧν ἔστω οὐχ 6 — 
κόσμος (1 Pet. 3:3). These passages not only illustrate the va- 
riety of the predicate genitive, but show that this is essentially a 
substantival genitive (cf. predicate nominative) and not a verbal 
genitive. As an example of the objective genitive in the predi- 
cate take σκάνδαλον εἶ ἐμοῦ (Mt. 16:23). In the modern Greek 
the predicate genitive has been still further extended (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 35). 

4. Apposition or Definition. This is a very simple use of the 
case, but is not an extremely common idiom in the N. T., since the 
two substantives can easily be put in the same case. In the 
modern Greek mere apposition rules (Thumb, Handb., p. 38). 
But some interesting examples occur.! It is a well-known idiom 
in Homer and certainly needs no appeal to the Hebrew for justi- 
fication.2 Kiihner-Gerth? may also be consulted for other poetical 
examples. In the N. T. we note πόλεις Σοδόμων καὶ Γομόρρας (2 
Pet. 2:6) which Blass compares with Ἰλίου πόλιν of Homer and 
observes‘ that πόλεως Θυατείρων (Ac. 16:14) is merely the geni- 
tive of πόλις Θυάτειρα (cf. πόλει Ιόππῃ in Ac. 11:5). In 2 Cor. 
11:32 the adjective is used as τὴν πόλιν Δαμασκηνῶν, while in 
Rev. 18: 10 we have true apposition. One may note further τοῦ 
ναοῦ Tov σώματος αὐτοῦ (Jo. 2 : 21), τὸν ἀρραβῶνα τοῦ πνεύματος (2 Cor. 
5:5), σημεῖον περιτομῆς (Ro. 4:11, AC περιτομήν), τὸ σημεῖον τῆς 
ἰάσεως (Ac. 4 : 22), ἡ κοίμησις τοῦ ὕπνου (Jo. 11 : 18), θώρακα πίστεως 
καὶ ἀγάπης (1 Th. 5:8), τὸ ἔργον τῆς πίστεως (1 Th. 1:3), ἐν 
τῷ λόγῳ τῆς ἀληθείας τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (Col. 1:5), ἡ ἀνταπόδοσις τῆς 
κληρονομίας (Col. 8 : 24), ἐν ζύμῃ κακίας (1 Cor. 5:8), ἡ ὀσμὴ τῆς 
γνώσεως αὐτοῦ (2 Cor. 2 : 14), ἡ προσφορὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν (Ro. 18 : 16), τὸ 
μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ (ΕΡΗ. 2 : 14), ὁ θεμέλιος τῶν ἀποστόλων (Eph. 
2:20), θεμέλιος μετανοίας (Heb. 6:1), τὸ ἀπόκριμα τοῦ θανάτου (2 
Cor. 1 : 9), ὁ ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν --- κόσμος (1 Pet. 8 : 8), ὁ στέφανος τῆς 
ζωῆς (Rev. 2 : 10), ὁ στέφανος τῆς δόξης (1 Pet. ὅ : 4), ὁ τῆς δικαιοσύνης 
στέφανος (2 Tim. 4 : 8), ἑορτὴ τῶν ἀζύμων (Lu. 22 : 1), ἑορτὴ τοῦ πάσχα ᾿ 
(Jo. 18 : 1), ἡ οἰκία τοῦ σκήνους (2 Cor. 5:1), ἡ ἀπαρχὴ τοῦ πνεύματος 
(Ro. ὃ : 23), τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύματος (Ac. 2 : 39), νόμος πίστεως 
(Ro. 3:27). These are by no means all, but they illustrate at 
least the freedom of the N. T. in the use of the genitive of defini- 
tion or of apposition. It is, of course, possible, as Moulton (Prol., 
p. 74) suggests, that the vernacular has preserved the poetical 

1 Cf. Jann:, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 335. 


2 Moulton, Prol., p. 73 f. 3 TI, p. 264. 
4 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 98. Cf. also W.-Sch., p. 266 1. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 499 


idiom in this as in so many other matters. Poetry often expresses 
better than prose the language of the people. In Eph. 4 :9 εἰς τὰ 
KaTwrepa μέρη τῆς γῆς we probably have not this usage, but the 
ablative after the comparative. Cf. Ellicott in loco. In Jo. 21: 
8 τὸ δίκτυον τῶν ἰχθύων the genitive merely gives the content (cf. 
material and quantity as opposed to quality). Cf. also ἀλάβαστρον 
μύρου (Mk. 14:3) and κεράμιον ὕδατος (Mk. 14:18), ἀγέλη χοίρων 
(Mt. 8 : 30) and ἑκατὸν βάτους ἐλαίου (Lu. 16 : 6). 

5. The Subjective Genitive. It can be distinguished from the 
objective use only by the context. Sometimes the matter is not 
clear. This genitive is the common possessive genitive looked at 
from another angle. In itself the genitive is neither subjective 
nor objective, but lends itself readily to either point of view. The 
subjective genitive can indeed be applied to the merely possessive 
genitive noted above.t Take Ro. 1: 17 where δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ means 
the righteousness which God has and wishes to bestow on us. A 
typical example is found in 2 Cor. 5: 14, ἡ yap ἀγάπη τοῦ Χριστοῦ 
συνέχει ἡμᾶς. Here it is unquestionably the love that Christ has for 
sinners and so for Paul that is the constraining influence in his life. 
In Ro. ὃ : 39 the matter is explained indeed by the phrase ἀπὸ τῆς 
ἀγάπης τοῦ θεοῦ τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ. Abbott? is apparently right in 
finding only a couple of passages in the N. T. where ἀγάπη is used 
with the objective genitive (2 Th. 2:10, ἡ ay. τῆς ἀληθείας; Lu. 
11:42, παρέρχεσθε τὴν κρίσιν Kal τὴν ἀγάπην τοῦ θεοῦ). Jo. 5:42 τὴν 
ἀγάπην τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἔχετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς might be either subjective or ob- 
jective, but see Ro. ὅ : δ. In Ph. 4: 7 ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ θεοῦ is probably 
subjective and so ‘the peace that God has and gives,’ but the 
meaning is richer than any phrase, as Simcox® well observes. Cf. 
Col. 3:15. In Ro. 15:8, ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας θεοῦ, we seem to have the sub- 
jective genitive. Note also δικαιοσύνη πίστεως (Ro. 4 : 18), which is 
explained as subjective by Paul in the phrase ἡ δικαιοσύνη ἐκ πίστεως 
(Ro. 10:6). In 1 Tim. 4:1, διδασκαλίαις δαιμονίων, we have again 
the subjective genitive. Some passages are open to doubt, as 
εὐαγγέλιον τῆς χάριτος τοῦ θεοῦ (Ac. 20 : 24), εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας 
(Mt. 4 : 23). 

6. The Objective Genitive. It is quite frequent in the N. T.,* 
especially when it is vanishing in the later Greek.’ The adnominal 
genitive preserves a remnant of the old objective genitive in mod- 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 333. 

2 Joh. Gr., pp. 84 ff. Abbott gives a very just discussion of the matter. 
3 Lang. of the N. T., p. 87. 

4 Green, Handb., etc., p. 219. 5 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 334. 


500 A GRAMMAR CF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 34). Here again we must appeal 
to the root-idea of the genitive as the case of genus or kind. The 
resultant idea is due to the context and one must not suppose 
that the Greek genitive means all the different English preposi- 
tions used to translate the resultant idea. Thus in Mk. 11: 22 
ἔχετε πίστιν θεοῦ we rightly translate ‘have faith in God,’ though 
the genitive does not mean ‘in,’ but only the God kind of faith. 
Cf. Ro. 3:22. Take Mt. 12:31, ἡ δὲ τοῦ πνεύματος βλασφημία, 
where the context makes it clear that it is blasphemy ‘against’ 
the Holy Spirit. Another striking example is Ac. 4:9, ἐπὶ evep- 
γεσίᾳ ἀνθρώπου ἀσθενοῦς, where the good deed is done ‘to’ a sick 
man. In Jo. 7:13, διὰ τὸν φόβον τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων, it is fear ‘towards’ 
or ‘in reference to’ the Jews, while Jo. 17: 2, ἐξουσία πάσης σαρκός, 
means authority ‘over’ all flesh (cf. ἐξουσίαν πνευμάτων ἀκαθάρτων, 
Mt. 10:1, and τῆς ὑμῶν ἐξουσίας, 1 Cor. 9:12). In 1 Cor. 10:6, 
τύποι ἡμῶν, we have types ‘for’ us. In Jo. 18:29 we have accu- 
sation ‘against’ this man, κατηγορίαν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, etc. Each ex- 
ample calls for separate treatment. So τὸ σημεῖον ᾿Ιωνᾶ (Lu. 11: 
29) may be the sign shown in Jonah, while νόμος τοῦ ἀνδρός (Ro.. 
7:2) is the law ‘about’ the husband (cf. ὁ νόμος τοῦ λεπροῦ, Lev. 
14:2). In 1 Pet. 2:19, διὰ συνείδησιν θεοῦ, it is a good conscience 
‘toward’ God, while ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ (Lu. 6 : 12) we have 
prayer ‘to’ God. ‘O ζῆλος τοῦ οἴκου cov (Jo. 2:17) is zeal ‘con- 
cerning’ thy house. See Ro. 10:2; cf. also Heb. 11: 26, τὸν ὀνει- 
δισμὸν τοῦ Χριστοῦ. In Col. 2:18, θρησκείᾳ τῶν ἀγγέλων, It is worship 
‘paid to’ angels, while eis τὴν ὑπακουὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ (2 Cor. 10: 5) is 
obedience ‘to’ Christ. But see per contra ὑπακοὴ πίστεως (Ro. 1: 5) 
which is subjective genitive. In 1 Cor. 1:6, μαρτύριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 
we have again witness ‘concerning’ Christ. Cf. also ὁ λόγος ὁ 
τοῦ σταυροῦ (1 Cor. 1:18) and ἀκοαὶ πολέμων (Mt. 24: 6). So in 
1 Cor. 8:7 ἡ συνείδησις τοῦ εἰδώλου 15 Consciousness ‘about’ the 
idol, not the idol’s consciousness. See also the two objective uses 
of ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ (2 Th. 2:10; Lu. 11: 42) and possibly also 
Jo. 5:42; 2 Th.3:5; 1 Jo. 2:5. In Ro. 5:5 either will make 
good’ sense. The phrase φόβος θεοῦ (Ro. 3:18) is objective, 
and note also 2 Cor. 5:11 (τὸν φόβον τοῦ κυρίου). Eph. 5:21 
is objective. See also καθ’ ὑπομονὴν ἔργου ἀγαθοῦ (Ro..2:7), ‘in’ a 
good work, and els δικαίωσιν ζωῆς (Ro. 5:18), ‘to’ life. Cf. ἀνάστα- 
σιν ζωῆς --- κρίσεως (Jo. 5:29). Indeed one may go on and include 
those genitives of ‘looser relation” usually set off to themselves. 
They are really just the objective genitive. So as to ὁδὸς ἐθνῶν 
(Mt. 10: 5), way ‘to’ the Gentiles; ὁδὸν θαλάσσης (Mt. 4 : 15), way 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 501 


‘by’ the sea; τὴν διασπορὰν τῶν Ἑλλήνων (Jo. 7:35), dispersion 
‘among’ the Greeks; πρόβατα σφαγῆς (Ro. 8:36), ‘doomed to’ 
slaughter; θύρα τῶν προβάτων (Jo. 10:7), door ‘to’ the sheep; με- 
τοικεσία Βαβυλῶνος (Mt. 1: 11 -f.), and even ἀπολύτρωσις τῶν παραβά- 
σεων (Heb. 9:15), though this last may be regarded as an ablative. 
But βαπτισμῶν διδαχήν (Heb. 6 : 2) is objective genitive. Note also 
τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα (Jas. 1:17), a shadow ‘cast by’ turning, and 
πίστει ἀληθείας (2 Th. 2:18), faith in the truth. In Heb. 10 : 24, 
παροξυσμὸν ἀγάπης καὶ καλῶν ἔργων there is little cause for com- 
ment. The same remark applies to κίνδυνοι ποταμῶν, λῃστῶν (2 
Cor. 11:26). In Jo. 19:14 ἡ παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα probably al- 
ready means the day ‘before’ the Sabbath (Friday).! Cf. ἡ παρα- 
βολὴ τοῦ σπείροντος (Mt. 18:18). Cf. also the genitive of price, 
χοῖνιξ σίτου δηναρίου (Rev. 6:6), ‘for’ a penny; ἀντάλλαγμα τῆς 
ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ (Mt. 16:26), exchange ‘for’ his soul. Cf. Lu. 10: 
36. Enough has been said to show how carefully the genitive 
must be interpreted and what great latitude was used in connec- 
tion with it. Deissmann (St. Paul, pp. 140 1.) thinks that Paul’s 
use of the genitive is “very peculiar” and transcends all rules 
about subjective and objective. He even suggests ‘‘mystic geni- 
tive” for Paul. 

7. Genitwe of Relationship. For lack of a better name this 
use of the genitive is called “genitive of membership’’? or “οἵ re- 
lationship.’’* In reality it is merely the possessive genitive of a 
special application. The substantive is not used because the con- 
text makes it clear. Thus Μαρία ἡ ᾿Ιακώβου (Lu. 24:10) is James’ 
Mary; whether mother, wife, daughter or sister, the context must 
decide. In this instance it is James’ mother. Mk. 16:1 and 
Mk. 15 : 47 give us Μαρία ἡ Ἰωσῆτος, while in 15 : 40 we have both 
James and Joses. In Mt. 27:56 as in Mk. 15:40 we have the 
full construction with μήτηρ. But in Jo. 19:25 Μαρία ἡ τοῦ 
Κλωπᾶ it is the wife (γυνή) that is meant. So in Mt. 1:6 ἐκ τῆς τοῦ 
Οὐρίου. In Lu. 6:16 and Ac. 1:13 we have ’Iotvéas ‘IaxwBov, which 
probably means the brother (ἀδελφός) of Jude in view of Jude 1 
(ἀδελφὸς ᾿Ιακώβου) rather than son. But υἱός is the word usually 
to be supplied, as in ᾿Ιάκωβον τὸν τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου (Mt. 4: 21), τὸν ’Iot- 
dav Σίμωνος (Jo. 6:71), Σίμων Ἰωάνου (Jo. 21:15 ff.), Δανεὶδ τὸν 
τοῦ Ἰεσσαί (Ac. 13: 22). See also Ac. 20:4, Σώπατρος Πύρρου. Cf. 
Lu. 3:2 where vids is used, as υἱοί generally is for ‘sons of Zebe- 
dee’ (Mk. 10:35). In Jo. 21:2 we have of τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου so used. 


1 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 92. 
2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 95. ’ W.-Th., p. 190. 


502 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


But sometimes the article refers to the family in general as 
in ὑπὸ τῶν Χλόης (1 Cor. 1:11). Cf. of περὶ αὐτόν (Lu. 22 : 49). 
In Mk. 5:35, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀρχισυναγώγου, it is possible that οἶκος is 
to be supplied, since the man himself (verse 22) has already 
come.! In Ac. 2:27, 31, W. H. read εἰς ἅδην, while some MSS. 
have εἰς ἄδου (cf. Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 395) and the MSS. 
vary also in Ps. 16:10 (LXX). Cf. ἐν τῷ ἅδῃ in Lu. 16:28. It 
is more likely that in Lu. 2:49, é τοῖς τοῦ πατρός, we have the 
idea of ‘house’ rather than that of ‘business.’ Cf. εἰς τὰ ἴδια 
(Jo. 19:27) and eis ra ἴδια and of ἴδιοι in Jo. 1:11. See & τοῖς 
Ἰλαυδ(ίου), P.O. 523 (ii/A.p.), for ‘house’ of. It is a classic idiom. 
Cf. Lysias εἰς τὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ. These constructions are all in har- 
mony with the ancient Greek idiom.? In an example like τὸ τῆς 
ἀληθοῦς παροιμίας (2 Pet. 2 : 22) it is not the genitive that calls for 
remark so much as the article without any substantive. The 
discussion belongs to the chapter on the Article. 

8. Partitive Genitive. Here a part of the whole is given. See 
ἐν τούτων (Mt. 6:29), τὸ δέκατον τῆς πόλεως (Rev. 11:18), ἕως 
ἡμίσους τῆς βασιλείας (ΜΚ. 6:23), ἥμισυ καιροῦ (Rev. 12:14), τὰ 
ἡμίσιά μου τῶν ὑπαρχόντων (Lu. 19 : 8), τὸ περισσεῦον τῶν κλασμάτων 
(Mt. 18 : 87), τὸ τρίτον τῆς γῆς (Rev. 8:7). See further ἕν τῶν 
μελῶν σου (Mt. 5:29), τίνα τῶν προφητῶν (Acts 7:52), τοὺς πτωχοὺς 
τῶν ἁγίων (Rom. 15:26), οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων (Lu. 18:11), 
μυριάδες μυριάδων καὶ χιλιάδες χιλιάδων (Rev. 5:11), τὰ ἡμίσιά μου 
τῶν ὑπαρχόντων (Lu. 19:8) and the curious τὰ αὐτὰ τῶν παθημάτων 
(1 Pet. 5:9). For the blending of the partitive genitive with 
the ablative and ἐκ and for further discussion see Ix, (c). In the 
N. T. the partitive relation is usually more sharply defined by 
prepositions (Radermacher, N. 7. Gr., p. 102). Cf. Ac. 21:16, 
συνῆλθον τῶν μαθητῶν, where the partitive genitive is alone. 

9. The Position of the Gemtive. In general one may note 
that the genitive usually comes after the limiting substantive, as 
τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός (Mt. 5 : 22), but the genitive comes first if it 
is emphatic like Ἑλλήνων πολὺ πλῆθος (Ac. 14:1) or if there is 
sharp contrast like τὸν συστρατιώτην μου, ὑμῶν δὲ ἀπόστολον (Ph. 
2:25). In Eph. 6:9 both genitives precede, καὶ αὐτῶν καὶ ὑμῶν ὁ 
κύριος. If the article is used with both words we may have the 
usual order, as τὴν πανοπλίαν τοῦ θεοῦ (Eph. 6:11), or less often the 
classic idiom, as τὸν τῆς πίστεως ἀρχηγόν (Heb. 12:2). Sometimes 
indeed the article may be repeated, as ὁ λόγος ὁ τοῦ σταυροῦ (1 Cor. 


1 Green, Handb., etc., p. 213. 
2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk:, p. 95 f. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) | 503 


1:18).! Αὐτοῦ usually comes after the noun in the Synoptics, as 
τὴν ἅλωνα αὐτοῦ (Lu. 3:17), but John sometimes puts αὐτοῦ first? 
(1:27; 9:8; οἵ. cov in 9:10, cov of ὀφθαλμοί). Sometimes a word 
intervenes between the substantive and the genitive as in ἤμεθα 
τέκνα φύσει: ὀργῆς (Eph. 2:3). Cf. also Ph. 2:10; Ro. 9 : 21, ete. 
But note els ἀλεύρου σάτα τρία (Mt. 13 : 38). 

10. Concatenation of Genitwes. ‘Two or more genitives may 
be used together. This is, of course, common in the earlier Greek. 
Paul in particular is fond of piling up genitives. Take 1 Th. 
1:3 as a typical example, μνημονεύοντες ὑμῶν τοῦ ἔργου τῆς πίστεως 
καὶ τοῦ κόπου τῆς ἀγάπης καὶ τῆς ὑπομονῆς τῆς ἐλπίδος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν 
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Here we have practically all the points, viz., two 
simple genitives, two in apposition, three together, one of the per- 
son and the other of the thing. A very simple case is found in 
Ro. 8: 21, τὴν ἐλευθερίαν τῆς δόξης τῶν τέκνων τοῦ θεοῦ, and in verse 23 
τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν. Cf. also Jo. 6:1; 2 Cor. 4:4: 
Eph. 1:6; 4:13; Col. 1:13, etc. In Rev. 16:19 we have four 
genitives, τὸ ποτήριον τοῦ οἴνου τοῦ θυμοῦ τῆς ὀργῆς αὐτοῦ, and five 
occur in Rey. 19 : 15, counting the appositives, τὴν ληνὸν τοῦ οἴνου 
τοῦ θυμοῦ THs ὀργῆς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ παντοκράτορος. Blass® calls this “ἃ 
really burdensome accumulation of words,’”’ but surely the sense 
is clear enough. The governing genitive comes before the de- 
pendent genitive in regular order here. But in 2 Pet. 3:2 this 
smooth order is not observed, yet all five can be readily under- 
stood: ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν καὶ τῆς τῶν ἀποστόλων ὑμῶν ἐντολῆς 
τοῦ κυρίου. Cf. Ph. 2: 80 also. In 2 Cor. 3: 18, ἀπὸ κυρίου πνεύματος, 
it is not clear whether κυρίου is genitive or is the ablative in apposi- 
tion with πνεύματος. In Jas. 2:1 it is difficult to put into brief 
compass the Greek idiom, τὴν πίστιν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ 
τῆς δόξης. Here In. Xp. is in apposition with κυρίου. Κυρίου has 
ἡμῶν and is itself the objective genitive with πίστιν, while τῆς δόξης 
is probably in apposition with ’In. Xp. (see Mayor zn loco). 

(g) THe GENITIVE WITH ADJECTIVES. Giles‘ observes how natu- 
ral it is for adjectives to take the genitive, since many of them are 
developed from substantives in apposition. Adjectives of fulness 
can logically take either the genitive or the instrumental. Giles® 
explains how with the Latin plenus, by analogy to vacuus, the ab- 
lative is used and also because the ablative and instrumental forms 


1 Cf. Green, Handb., ete., p. 215. 

2 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 90. ΠΟ Oly N Gk: p.. 99. 
4 Man., etc., p. 316. Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 353 f. 
510. 


504 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


are the same in Latin. Indeed even in the case of the participle 
we have the genitive when the participle is regarded no longer as 
an adjective, but as a substantive, as τὰ ὑπάρχοντά μου (1 Cor. 13: 
3). Cf. Lu. 12 : 33; Lu. 2 : 27, τὸ εἰθισμένον τοῦ νόμου; and Ph. 3:8, 
τὸ ὑπερέχον τῆς γνώσεως. The adjective itself is so used in 1 Cor. 
10: 33, τὸ ἐμαυτοῦ σύμφορον. Cf. 1 Cor. 7:35. But different is συμ- 
μόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ (Ro. 8:29). Here we have the 
true adjective, but the genitive is due to the principle Just stated. 
In συνεργός, Ro. 16:21, we have the substantive also. The case 
with verbals in —ros may be considered genitive, but see the ab- 
lative also. Thus of ἀγαπητοὶ θεοῦ (Ro. 1:7), γεννητοὶ γυναικῶν (Lu. 
7 : 28), ἐκλεκτοὶ θεοῦ (Ro. 8 : 33), κλητοὶ Ἰησοῦ (Ro. 1:6). In διδακ- 
τοὶ θεοῦ (Jo. 6: 45), οὐκ ἐν διδακτοῖς ἀνθρωπίνης σοφίας λόγοις (1 Cor. 
2:13) one may question if we do not have the ablative. But in 
εὐλογημένοι τοῦ πατρός (Mt. 25 : 34) the genitive is likely the case. 
There is only one adjective in --ικός in the N. T. which has the 
genitive, κριτικὸς ἐνθυμήσεων (Heb. 4:12). "Αξιος is very common 
with the genitive in the N. T., as ἄξιον τῆς μετανοίας (Mt. 3:8). But 
ἀνάξιος probably has abl. because of a— privative, as ἀνάξιοί ἐστε 
κριτηρίων ἐλαχίστων (1 Cor. 6:2). Delbriick! confesses his inability 
to explain this genitive, though Blass? considers it genitive of price. 
The figure of weighing or scales seems to be involved in the word. 
In 1 Cor. 9 : 21 (ἔννομος Χριστοῦ) we have a very ‘“‘bold use”’ of the 
genitive’ due to the substantive idea involved (νόμος). But prob- 
ably in Heb. 3:12, καρδία πονηρὰ ἀπιστίας, the genitive is dependent 
on καρδία, not πονηρά. “Evoxos brings up an unusual genitive in Mt. 
26 : 66 ἔνοχος θανάτου, and Mk. 3 : 29 (correct text) ἔνοχός ἐστιν aiw- 
viov ἁμαρτήματος. Moulton‘ considers this genitive “‘aberrant”’ 
and still more ἔνοχος κρίσεως in Syrian class of MSS. in Mk. 3 : 29. 
In 1 Cor. 11 : 27, ἔνοχος ἔσται τοῦ σώματος, we have the usage of the 
pre-Syrian classes in Mk. 3 : 29 and not the idiom in Mt. 26 : 66. 
The usual construction appears also as in ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει (Mt. 
5: 211.) and even ἔνοχος εἰς τὴν γέενναν (ib.). In the instance 
of κοινωνός the construction is also interesting. In 2 Cor. 1:7 we 
have κοινωνοί ἐστε τῶν παθημάτων, but it is debatable if the adjec- 
tive has not here become a substantive as with κοινωνὸς ἐμός (2 Cor. 
8: 23; cf. συνεργός in same verse). Ko.vwvds has also the dative, as 
κοινωνοὶ τῷ Σίμωνι (Lu. 5:10). See συνκοινωνὸς αὐτοῦ (1 Cor. 9 : 23) 
and in Ph. 1:7 two genitives, συνκοινωνούς μου τῆς χάριτος. But in 
Rev. 1:9 we have ἐν with locative. Note also μεστοὶ ὑποκρίσεως 


1 Vergl. Synt., I, p. 254. PAID. 
: ΣΌΣ Nk, aa 00: 4 Cl. Rev., Apr., 1004, p. 152. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 505 


(Mt. 28 : 28) and πλήρης χάριτος (Jo. 1: 14).1 The case of μέτοχος 
in Heb. 3:1 (κλήσεως ἐπουρανίου μέτοχοι) is similar to that of κοινω- 
vos above, though more decidedly adjectival. Cf. μέσος ὑμῶν (Jo. 
1:26). In Jo. 8:55 W.H. read ὅμοιος ὑμῖν, though NCLX have 
ὑμῶν, a construction sometimes found in ancient Greek.? One 
may note also in 1 Pet. 5:9, τὰ αὐτὰ τῶν παθημάτων, which is per- 
haps to be understood as the same ‘“kinds”’ of sufferings, rather 
than the same sufferings. 

(h) THE GENITIVE WITH ADVERBS AND Prepositions. At 
bottom there is little difference between the adverb and the geni- 
tive and the preposition and the genitive. The preposition is an 
adverb that is used with a case for clearer expression. The adverb 
is still an adverb when used with a case and called a preposition. 
Some adverbs indeed are only used as prepositions, but this is in 
the later stages of the language. ’Aéiws, like the adjective ἄξιος, 
occurs with the genitive, as ἀξίως τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (Ph. 1: 27; cf. 
Ro. 16:2). The genitive is not persistent with some of the ad- 
verbs and prepositions in late Greek.’ It is more especially with 
adverbs of time that the genitive is found.*’ Thus ἅπαξ τοῦ ἐνιαυ- 
τοῦ (Heb. 9:7), dis τοῦ σαββάτου (Lu. 18 : 12), ἑπτάκις τῆς ἡμέρας 
(Lu. 17:4). Giles’ indeed observes that it is only the genitive 
of place that uses prepositions. Here only specimens without 
discussion can be given. Thus ἄντικρυς Χίου (Ac. 20:15), ἀπέναντι 
τοῦ τάφου (Mt. 27:61), ἀντὶ χάριτος (Jo. 1:16), ἄχρι καιροῦ (Lu. 
4 : 13), διὰ παραβολῆς (Lu. ὃ : 4), ἔγγύς σου (Ro. 10:8), ἔναντι τοῦ 
θεοῦ (Lu. 1 : 8), ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ (Lu. 1:6), ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ (Mt. 5:11), 
ἐντὸς ὑμῶν (Lu. 17: 21), ἐνώπιον κυρίου (Lu. 1 : 15), ἐπάνω ὄρους (Mt. 
δ: 14), ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (Rev. 6:10), ἔσω τῆς αὐλῆς (Mk. 18 : 16), ἕως 
ἡμῶν (Ac. 9 : 88), κατὰ τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ (Mt. 26: 59), κατέναντι ὑμῶν (ΜΚ. 
11:2), κατενώπιον τῆς δόξης (Ju. 24), κύκλῳ τοῦ θρόνου (Rev. 4 : 6), 
μέσον γενεᾶς σκολιᾶς (Ph. 2:15), μεθ’ ἡμῶν (Mt. 1: 23), μεταξὺ σοῦ 
(Mt. 18 : 15), μέχρι τῆς σήμερον (Mt. 11 : 23), παραπλήσιον θανάτου 
(Ph. 2 : 27), πλησίον τοῦ χωρίου (Jo. 4 : 5), περὶ τοῦ φωτός (Jo. 1:8), 
τούτου χάριν (Eph. 3:1). "Εμπροσθεν, ὄπισθεν, πρό, πρός, ὑπέρ, etc., 
all have the ablative. Cf. τὸ ἔσωθεν ὑμῶν (Lu. 11:39) where ἔσωθεν 
may be looked at more as a noun. ’Ev μέσῳ has almost the force 
of a preposition with the genitive (ὑμῶν, for instance, 1 Th. 2:7). 

(ἢ THe GENITIVE wITH VERBS. As already remarked, Del- 


1 Jann. (Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 338), after the analogy of the Lat. and the Gk. 
κενός, ἐνδεής, etc., considers it the abl. that we have with πλήρης. 

2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 106. 4 Giles, Man., p. 318. 

§ Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 337. 5 Ib., p. 319. 


506 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


briick! begins his discussion of the genitive with the verb. In Lu. 
5:19, ποίας εἰσενέγκωσιν, the genitive is not due to the verb and is a 
rather loose almost adverbial phrase. 

1. Very Common. In Greek the genitive with verbs cuts a 
larger figure than in Latin.? Broadus used to say that the genitive 
with verbs means ‘this and no other,’ while the accusative with 
verbs means ‘this and no more.’ Probably therefore the genitive 
with verbs is a variation from the accusative with verbs, the 
original and normal case with verbs. This point may be illus- 
trated by ἀκούετε αὐτοῦ (Mk. 9:7) and ἤκουσεν τὸν ἀσπασμόν (Lu. 1: 
41). Some verbs yield themselves naturally to the idea of the 
genitive, while others use the accusative. Others again use now 
one, now the other. The predicate genitive is passed by here, 
having been discussed under Substantives. 

2. Fading Distinction from Accusative. But it must not be 
assumed that it is wholly a matter of indifference whether the ac- 
cusative or the genitive is used with a verb, though the accusative 
in the later Greek constantly made inroads on the genitive. Even 
in the old Greek much freedom existed. In the modern Greek the 
genitive with verbs occurs only in some dialects (Thumb, Handb., 
p. 35). Cf. μνημονεύετε τῆς γυναικὸς Λώτ (Lu. 17:32), but μνημο- 
νεύετε τοὺς πέντε ἄρτους (Mt. 16:9). In πάντα μου μέμνησθε (1 Cor. 
11:2) both cases occur. This is all in accord with classical usage. 
So also ἐπιλαθέσθαι τοῦ ἔργου ὑμῶν (Heb. 6:10), but τὰ μὲν ὀπίσω 
ἐπιλανθανόμενος (Ph. 8 : 13); γεύσεταί μου τοῦ δείπνου (Lu. 14 : 24), 
but ἔγεύσατο τὸ ὑδωρ (Jo. 2 : 9); γέμουσιν ὀστέων (Mt. 28 : 27), but 
even γέμοντα ὀνόματα βλασφημίας (Rev. 17:3). But it is perfectly 
proper to appeal to the distinction in the cases in the apparent 
contradiction between ἀκούοντες μὲν τῆς φωνῆς (Ac. 9:7) and τὴν δὲ 
φωνὴν οὐκ ἤκουσαν (22:9). The accusative (case of extent) accents 
the intellectual apprehension of the sound, while the genitive (spe- 
cifying case) calls attention to the sound of the voice without 
accenting the sense. The word ἀκούω itself has two senses which 
fall in well with this case-distinction, one ‘to hear,’ the other ‘to 
understand.’ Cf. οὗ οὐκ ἤκουσαν (Ro. 10:14) and μὴ οὐκ ἤκουσαν 
(Ro. 10:18). And yet the genitive can be used where the sense 
is meant, though not stressed, as ἤκουσα φωνῆς (Ac. 22:7), but 
ἤκουσεν φωνήν (Ac. 9:4; and 26:14).2 But see further under 3. 


1 Vergl. Synt., I, p. 308. 2 Giles, Man., p. 315. 

3. Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., pp. 87 ff., has an extensive discussion of the 
gen. and acc. with ἀκούω, but seems to miss the point after all. They heard the 
sound but not the words. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 103, admits this classic 
distinction sometimes in the N. T. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΩΣΕΙΣ) 507 


3. Verbs of Sensation. One of the chief classes of verbs that 
may be used with the genitive is verbs of sensation. One seems 
compelled to make some division in the verbs used with the gen- 
itive for the sake of intelligible discussion. Yet as a matter of 
fact each class and each verb indeed relates itself to the root-idea 
of the genitive. That is the thing to keep in mind and not a mere 
artificial grouping of the verbs. Analogy was at work, of course, 
but the verbs after all were separate units and had independent 
development. These groupings of the grammarians are mere 
matters of convenience. And it is a delicate matter that varies 
somewhat with the writer, this use of the genitive. By sensation we 
refer to verbs that mean to hear, smell, taste, touch, though verbs 
of seeing have the accusative. The most common verb of hearing 
is ἀκούω, about which some remarks have already been made. It 
is not necessary to give an exhaustive list of the instances of ἀκούω. 
A typical one is ἤκουσεν συμφωνίας καὶ χορῶν (Lu. 15 : 25). The gen- 
itive is used either with things, as in this illustration, or with per- 
sons, as In αὐτοῦ ἀκούετε (Lu. 9 : 35). For accusative with persons 
see Eph. 4:21. Besides the use of the accusative with this verb, 
both with the classic distinction as above and without, there may 
also be the accusative and the ablative as in Ac. 1:4 ἣν ἠκούσατε 
μου. ‘Then again the verb itself is used in the sense of hear, to un- 
derstand, and even to obey (hearken). The sense of hearken is 
often in John’s Gospel with the genitive, as οὐκ ἤκουσαν αὐτῶν τὰ 
πρόβατα (Jo. 10:8). Cf. Rev. 3:20, ete. The apparent double 
genitive in the last passage τῆς φωνῆς μου is not to be attributed to 
the verb, for wou is merely possessive. Cf. Ac. 22:1. Blass! makes 
careful distinction between the usages in the various N. T. writers, 
but that is not to be pushed too far. In 2 Cor. 6:2 (LXX, Is. 49: 
8) we have ἐπήκουσά cov, but ὑπακούω uses the dative (Mt. ὃ : 27). 
But we have ἐπηκροῶντο αὐτῶν οἱ δέσμιοι (Ac. 16 : 25) in the sense of 
hearken. No verb of smelling is used with the genitive in the 
N. T., but ἐμπνέων ἀπειλῆς καὶ φόνου (Ac. 9 : 1) is certainly analogous, 
as Blass? observes, who refers to the LXX for parallels (Josh. 
10:40, πᾶν ἐμπνέον ζωῆς), for both genitive and accusative. Cf. 
Johannessohn, Der Gebr., Ὁ. 36. Thus οὐ μὴ γεύσηται θανάτου (Jo. 
8 : 52), but in Heb. 6:4 f. we have the genitive and accusative 
right together, a matter hardly accidental,® γευσαμένους τῆς δωρεᾶς, 
yevoapevous θεοῦ ῥῆμα. But Blass* considers the accusative here, 
as in Jo. 2:9, merely a colloquialism in harmony with the general 


ere Ol Na ea Grk., pa 105: 3 Moulton, Prol., p. 66. 
3 Ib: # Gr. of ΝΎ ΠΟΙ p. 101. 


508 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


tendency to retain the accusative (see 2 above). Other verbs of 
tasting are κορεσθέντες τροφῆς (Ac. 27: 38) and τούτους χορτάσαι ἄρτων 
(Mk. 8:4). Cf. also μετελάμβανον τροφῆς (Ac. 2:46) and προσελάβοντο 
τροφῆς (Ac. 27:36). Διψάω and πεινάω use only the accusative 
(Matt. 5:6). The verbs of touching can be briefly disposed of. 
Thus ἥψατο τῶν ἱματίων (Mk. 5:30) and often in the Gospels. So 
κἂν θηρίον θίγῃ τοῦ ὄρους (Heb. 12 : 20), but ψηλαφάω has only the 
accusative (Ac. 17: 27). Perhaps the other verbs of taking hold 
of and seizing may as well be mentioned, for it is less than a step 
from the idea of touch. Thus ἑνὸς ἀνθέξεται (Lu. 16 : 13); τὰ ἐχόμενα 
τῆς σωτηρίας (Heb. 6 : 9); ἀντελάβετο ᾿Ισραὴλ παιδὸς αὐτοῦ (Lu. 1 : 54) 
and οἱ τῆς εὐεργεσίας ἀντιλαμβανόμενοι (1 Tim. 6 : 2); ἐπελάβετο αὐτοῦ 
(Mt. 14:31), and ἐπιλαβόμενος τῆς χειρὸς τοῦ τυφλοῦ (Mk. 8: 23), 
where the part taken hold of is indicated; ἐκράτησεν τῆς χειρὸς 
αὐτῆς (Mt. 9 : 25), where the part is again in genitive, but the whole 
is in the accusative in κρατήσας τὸν ᾿Ιωάνην (Mt. 14 : 3); πιάσας at- 
τὸν τῆς χειρός (Ac. 8: 7), where the whole is in the accusative and 
the part in the genitive. Blass! notes that this last (πιάζω) is a 
“vulgar” word. But here, as usual, the N. T. is in harmony with 
the vernacular. The papyri? show ἔχομαι with the genitive as 
well as ἀντιλαμβάνομαι. So ἐχόμενός μου, P. Par. 51 (Β.α. 160). Besides 
Mk. 8 : 23 (above) the double genitive (whole and part) may be 
seen in Lu. 20: 20, ἵνα ἐπιλάβωνται αὐτοῦ λόγου (cf. also verse 26), 
though here αὐτοῦ is probably dependent on λόγου. 

4. Verbs of Emotion. These naturally have the genitive, ae 
as to desire, care for, neglect, have compassion, spare, bear with, 
aim after, obtain, remember, forget, enjoy, etc. ᾿Ἐπιθυμέω has 
the genitive in Ac. 20:33, ἀργυρίου ἢ χρυσίου ἢ ἱματισμοῦ οὐδενός, 
but the accusative ΑΙ in Mt. 5:28 (text uncertain, but 
LXX has accusative, Ex. 20:17). ’Opéyoua also has the genitive, 
as in Heb. 11: 16, κρείττονος ὀρέγονται. Cf. 1 Tim. 3:1, where both 
ὀρέγεται and ἐπιθυμεῖ are used with the genitive. Cf. also ὀμειρό- 
μενοι ὑμῶν (1 Th. 2:8). The verbs of concern are fairly numerous 
and uniform. Thus ἀνεχόμενοι ἀλλήλων (Col. 3:13) in the N. T. 
as in the older Greek. So μὴ ἀμέλει τοῦ ἐν σοὶ χαρίσματος (1 Tim. 
4:14), μὴ ὀλιγώρει παιδείας κυρίου (Heb. 12:5). But these three 
verbs may have the ablative. ᾿Δνέχομαι here is ‘hold oneself back 
from.’ Like the earlier Greek also is ἐπεμελήθη αὐτοῦ (Lu. 10 : 34) 
and μὴ τῶν βοῶν μέλει τῷ θεῷ; (1 Cor. 9:9). Blass* considers οὐδὲν 
τούτων τῷ Γαλλίωνι ἔμελεν (Ac. 18:17) the personal construction, 


» ΟΥ̓ ΟΝ ὙΠ Gks p.1ol. 
2 Moulton, Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901, p. 437. 3.Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 104. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 509 


as often in the classical Greek. But already in the Attic inscrip- 
tions (Meisterhans, p. 211) we have ἐπιμελέομαι with the dative. 
So, too, περί appears with the genitive in Jo. 10 : 18, ete. Consider 
further τῶν ἰδίων καὶ μάλιστα οἰκείων οὐ προνοεῖ (1 Tim. 5:8) and ἵνα 
φροντίζωσιν καλῶν ἔργων (Tit. 3:8). In Mt. 6:34 we have μερι- 
μνήσει αὑτῆς, though some MSS. read τὰ ἑαυτῆς. Once again take 
τοῦ ἰδίου οὐκ ἐφείσατο (Ro. 8:32). These all are in regular order. 
In Mt. 18 : 27 τοῦ δούλου is more likely dependent on ὁ κύριος rather 
than on σπλαγχνισθείς. Verbs of obtaining are illustrated by 
ἔλαχε TOD θυμιᾶσαι (Lu. 1 : 9), not mere “‘appearance,”’! though the 
accusative is elsewhere found in the N. T. as in Ac. 1:17 (ef. 
classic frequency of the accusative). On the other hand τυγχάνω 
always has the genitive in the N.T., as τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐκείνου τυχεῖν (Lu. 
20:35). But with ἐπιτυγχάνω we have ἐπέτυχον ἐπαγγελιῶν (Heb. 
11:33) and τοῦτο οὐκ ἐπέτυχεν (Ro. 11:7). Moulton (Cl. Rev., 
p. 437, Dec., 1901) notes genitive and accusative with ἐπιτυχόντες --- 
τῆς Ῥωμαίων πολιτείας καὶ ἐπιγαμίαν, B.U. 113 (1i/a.p.). In general 
the papyri confirm the N. T. use of these verbs. Verbs of remem- 
bering and forgetting call for little remark. Thus μνησθῆναι διαθήκης 
(Lu. 1 : 72), μνημονεύετε τοῦ λόγου (Jo. 15 : 20). Μιμνήσκομαι always 
has the genitive and.yrnuovebw usually. But ἀναμιμνήσκω (act., 
mid. and pass.) always has the accusative in the N. T. Cf. 
ἀνεμνήσθη τὸ ῥῆμα (Mk. 14 : 72), whereas ancient Greek usually had 
the genitive. With ὑπομιμνήσκω the usage is divided again, as the 
accusative is alone used in the active (Jo. 14 : 26), but the genitive 
in the passive (deponent), as ὑπεμνήσθη τοῦ ῥήματος (Lu. 22:61; 
ef. Mk. 14:72 above). ᾿Επιλανθάνομαι again has usually the gen- 
itive, as φιλοξενίας μὴ ἐπιλανθάνεσθε (Heb. 13 : 2), but the accusative 
once (Ph. 3:18) and & in Heb. 13:2 according to classic idiom. 
Cf. Oxy. P. IV, 744, 11 and 12 (i/A.p.). We once also have ἐκλέλησθε 
τῆς παρακλήσεως (Heb. 12:5). Of verbs of enjoying we have only 
éyw σου ὀναίμην (Phil. 20). ᾿Απολαύω does not occur in the N. T., 
and neither ἀγαλλιάω nor χαίρω is used with the genitive, but only 
absolutely, with the instrumental, or with prepositions. Αἰσθάνομαι 
appears only once (Lu. 9 : 45) and with accusative. 

5. Verbs of Sharing, Partaking and Filling. Indeed, verbs of 
sharing can be looked at as taking the partitive genitive. Thus 
with μετέχειν we have τραπέζης (1 Cor. 10 : 21), ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἄρτου 
(verse 17, clearly ablative) and χάριτι (verse 30, associative in- 
strumental by analogy of συνκοινωνέω). Cf. κεκοινώνηκεν αἵματος καὶ 
σαρκός (Heb. 2 : 14), though elsewhere in the Ν. T. the associative 

1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 102. 


510 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


instrumental occurs with persons. Μεταδίδωμι has only the ac- 
cusative and instrumental. As to μεταλαμβάνω and προσλαμβάνω 
it is more doubtful if it is not ablative rather than genitive. 
Cf. 1x, (f), 7, for discussion. -The partitive idea is divided be- 
tween the genitive and the ablative! In the N. T. prepositions 
are chiefly used and with the ablative. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., 
p. 102) finds in the partitive idea the explanation of the local and 
temporal use of the genitive, but not rightly. The true genitive is 
found with verbs of filling like ἐπλήσθη ἡ πόλις THs συγχύσεως (Ac. 19: 
29), πεπληρώκατε τὴν ᾿Ιερουσαλὴμ τῆς διδαχῆς ὑμῶν (Ac. 5: 28), γεμίσατε 
τὰς ὑδρίας ὕδατος (Jo. 2 : 7), περισσεύονται ἄρτων (Lu. 15 : 17), ἐνέπλη- 
σεν ἀγαθῶν (Lu. 1:53). In Latin words of filling (plenus, etc.) use 
the ablative or instrumental, as the Greek has the ablative with 
words of lacking (ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης (Ro. 3:23). By analogy 
therefore we find ἐκ and the ablative with πληρόω, as ἐπληρώθη ἐκ 
τῆς ὀσμῆς (Jo. 12:3) and yeuitw, as ἐγέμισεν αὐτὸν ἐκ τοῦ πυρός (Rev. 
8:5). For the instrumental with the passive see Ro. 1 : 29, ete. 
Indeed the accusative is seen in Ph. 1:11 and Rev. 17: 3 and some 
MSS. in Ac. 2 : 28. 

6. Verbs of Ruling. These probably have the true genitive, 
though verbs of excelling use the ablative. Thus in Mk. 10 : 42 
we have three such verbs in one sentence, of δοκοῦντες ἄρχειν τῶν 
ἐθνῶν κατακυριεύουσιν αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ μεγάλοι αὐτῶν κατεξουσιάζουσιν αὐτῶν. 
Other examples are ἀνθυπατεύοντος according to some MSS. in Ac. 
18 : 12, αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός (1 Tim. 2:12), βασιλεύει τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας (Mt. 
2:22 SB; elsewhere ἐπί), ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας (Lu. 2 : 2), κυ- 
ριεύομεν ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως (2 Cor. 1 : 24), καταδυναστεύουσιν ὑμῶν (Jas. 
2:6), τετρααρχοῦντος τῆς ᾿Ιτουραίας (Lu. 8 : 1). These verbs all 
have a distinct substantive-affinity like ‘be ruler of,’ ete. See fur- 
ther Lu. 22: 25 for κυριεύω and ἐξουσιάζω, Mt. 16:18 for κατισχύω. 

7. Verbs of Buying, Selling, Being Worthy of. It is not per- 
fectly clear what the origin of this usage is. The use of ἐκ 
δηναρίου with συμφωνήσας (Mt. 20:2) may be noted, but in 
verse 13 δηναρίου συνεφώνησας. Cf. also ἠγόρασαν ἐξ αὐτῶν (Mt. 
27:7) with πραθῆναι πολλοῦ (Mt. 26:9). ᾿Αγοράζω is used also 
with ἐν (Rev. 5:9). So again one may note ἐκτήσατο χωρίον ἐκ 
μισθοῦ τῆς ἀδικίας (Ac. 1:18. Cf. Lu. 16:9, ἐκ τοῦ pwaywvad) with 
μισθοῦ ἐξεχύθησαν (Ju. 11). Cf. διά with περιποιέομαι (Ac. 20: 28). 
These examples show that it was easy to go from the genitive to 
ἐξ and the ablative. Consider also ὠνήσατο τιμῆς ἀργυρίου (Ac. 7: 
16), ἀσσαρίου πωλεῖται (Mt. 10:29), τοσούτου ἀπέδοσθε (Ac. 5:8), ἠγο- 

1 Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 340. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 511 


ράσθητε τιμῆς (1 Cor. 6: 20). In Mk. 14:5, πραθῆναι ἔπάνω δηναρίων 
τριακοσίων, the adverb ἐπάνω has no effect on the case as is shown 
by ὥφθη ἐπάνω πεντακοσίοις ἀδελφοῖς (1 Cor. 15:6). Blass! compares 
the use of ἐκ in the Attic inscriptions with πραθῆναι. And Monro 
(Homeric Grammar, p. 109) considers this the ablative, which is 
certainly possible. But on the other hand the undoubted genitive 
with ἀξιόω suggests the idea of exchange or barter as the true ori- 
gin and thus a real genitive. ᾿Αλλάσσω is not so used itself, but 
buying and selling easily fall in with the notion of worth. Thus 
ἵνα ὑμᾶς ἀξιώσῃ τῆς κλήσεως (2 Th. 1:11), καταξιωθῆναι τῆς βασιλείας 
0} {50 lim. 5 1 7: ΤΠ 8... 9. 10.:29: ΟΠ {πὸ 
whole one is inclined to this explanation of the usage and to treat 
it as a true genitive. Cf. Rev. 6 : 6 for the genitive of price without 
a verb. But the use of ἀπό with verbs of buying and selling goes 
back in single instances to the Attic time (Radermacher, N. T. 
Gr., p. 91). So στέφανον διδόντες ἀπὸ πεντήκοντα χρυσῶν, Inscr. of 
Magn., 16, 29. 

8. Verbs of Accusing and Condemning. Blass? observes that 
the old Greek usage of the genitive of the thing has well-nigh 
vanished in the N. T. We do have ἐγκαλεῖσθαι στάσεως (Ac. 19 : 40), 
but περί with the genitive is the usual construction in the N. T. 
both with éyxadew (Ac. 23 : 29), κρίνω (Ac. 28 : 6), and even κατηγο- 
pew (Ac. 24:13). However, in the case of κατηγορέω we do find ὧν 
in Lu. 23:14 and Ac. 25:11, but in each instance the genitive 
seems to be due to attraction to the case of the suppressed ante- 
cedent τούτων. Cf. Ac. 24:13 for περί. Still the point is not ab- 
solutely certain and ὧν could be due to κατηγορέω. At any rate 
κατηγορέω is also used with the genitive of the person as in ἵνα κατη- 
γορήσωσιν αὐτοῦ (Mt. 12:10). Cf. also Mk. 15:3 where we have 
genitive and accusative, κατηγόρουν αὐτοῦ πολλά. Moulton (Prol., 
p. 235) notes that D often has accusative with karnyopew as with 
ἀκούω, κρατέω. 

9. Genitive Due to Prepositions in Composition. Some verbs 
have the genitive because of the preposition in composition which 
gives a distinct change in idea to the verb. The preposition is 
often repeated with the noun. Asa matter of fact the only* prep- 
osition that seems to figure thus in the N. T. is xara which is used 
with a number of verbs with the genitive. Not all the κατά com- 


1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 105. He cites Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 173. 

ἢ τ, 104, 83. Blass).Gr. οὗ Ν. Τ᾿. ακ., p. 106. 

4 Jann. (Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 341) comments on the blending of meaning be- 
tween prep. and verb in the later Gk. 


512 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


pounds use the genitive. Cf. the accusative case and note as illus- 
trations of the accusative in the N. T. καταγωνίζομαι, καταβραβείω, 
καταδικάζω, κατακρίνω, κατασοφίζομαι. It may be that some of the 
verbs already instanced as using the genitive may owe it to κατά 
in composition, like xarnyopew (Mt. 12:10). But the point seems 
to be reasonably plain as to κατεγέλων αὐτοῦ (Mt. 9 : 24), ἐὰν κατα- 
γινώσκῃ ἡμῶν ἡ καρδία (1 Jo. 3:20, and note verse 21), though 
ἡμῶν might go with καρδία), κατακαυχᾶται ἔλεος κρίσεως (Jas. 2 : 13), 
καταλαλεῖτε ἀλλήλων (Jas. 4:11), cov καταμαρτυροῦσιν (Mt. 27 : 13), 
κατενάρκησα ἡμῶν (2 Cor. 12:18), καταστρηνιάσωσιν τοῦ Χριστοῦ 
(1 Tim. 5:11), αἰσχύνης καταφρονήσας (Heb. 12 : 2), κατέχεεν αὐτοῦ 
τῆς κεφαλῆς (ΜΚ. 14:3); but in Mt. 26:7 the text οἱ W. Η. has 
ἐπί with genitive as some MSS. in Mk. 

10. Attraction of the Relative. A word only is needed about 
the attraction of the relative, a matter treated properly in the 
chapter on Pronouns, which see. Here it may only be noted that 
the genitive (as of other oblique cases) of the relative sometimes 
appears with a verb when the case is due, not to the verb, but to 
the antecedent. Thus we note περὶ πάντων ὧν ἐποίησεν (Lu. 3: 19); 
an idiom common in Luke, but rare elsewhere, as ἀστέρων ols 
εἶδες (Rev. 1: 20). 

(j) THe GENITIVE OF THE INFINITIVE. This is more properly 
an instance of the genitive of substantives as it is the substantival 
aspect of the infinitive that is in the case. The full discussion of 
the matter belongs to the chapter on Verbal Nouns. Here it may 
simply be remarked that the infinitive with rod is not unknown to 
ancient Greek, though nothing like so common as in the LXX 
as the translation of the Hebrew infinitive construct. But the 
Hebrew infinitive is not an exact analogy as it does not have the 
article! But Thucydides had already shown a fondness for this 
idiom which is thoroughly Greek. As an example from the LXX 
take τοῦ ἐξελέσθαι (Dan. 6:14). For the N. T. note ἐξῆλθεν ὁ 
σπείρων τοῦ σπείρειν (Mt. 13:3). The substantival nature of this 
infinitive with τοῦ is well shown in καιρὸς τοῦ ἄρξασθαι (1 Pet. 4:17). 
But in general τοῦ with the infinitive has as wide an extension of 
meaning in the vernacular κοινή as the genitive absolute.2. The 
details come later. 

(k) THe GENITIVE ABsoLUTE. It may indeed be ablative 
absolute as Farrar® holds, following the analogy of the Latin. 
But, as Giles* observes, the Latin absolute is very likely instru- 


1 C. and &., Sel. from the LXX, p. 59. 3 Gk. Synt., p. 76. 
2 Moulton, Prol., p. 216. 4 Man., etc., p. 339 f. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΩΣΕΙΣ) 513 


mental or locative. The various languages differ greatly, however, 
in the use of the absolute cases, nearly all having a turn in one 
language or another. Cf. dative in Anglo-Saxon. Since the San- 
skrit uses genitive as well as instrumental and locative (usual 
construction), Giles considers the Greek genitive absolute a true 
genitive. In this he is perhaps correct. But Brugmann (Griech. 
Gr., p. 523) discusses the genitive absolute separately from both 
genitive and ablative. Cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p.437. Mullach! 
observes that the genitive absolute is a mark of the higher style 
and was not much used in the vernacular. Jebb? remarks that in 
the modern Greek the genitive absolute is more commonly para- 
phrased in harmony with the general disuse of the participle. 
However, in the vernacular κοινή “the rapid extension of the geni- 
tive absolute is a very obvious feature,’’* and the N. T. is in line 
with the papyri on this point also as in most other matters of 
grammar. Moulton observes further that ‘in the papyri it may 
often be seen forming a string of statements, without a finite verb 
for several lines,” which is rather more than can be said of the 
N. T. It naturally occurs in the N. T. chiefly in the historical 
books. Abbott‘ has felt that Mark uses the genitive absolute 
“somewhat monotonously to introduce the circumstances of a 
new narrative,” and he finds it common in Matthew in temporal 
clauses. John, he observes, has the construction nowhere in re- 
cording Christ’s words, though he elsewhere® “employs it with 
more elasticity of meaning than is found in the Triple Tradition.” 
The LXX shows many examples of the genitive absolute and with 
abundant freedom also. The normal usage in the older Greek is 
to have a genitive absolute when a participle occurs with a noun 
that is disconnected from the rest of the sentence as in ἀναχωρησάν- 
σῶν αὑτῶν (Mt. 2:13). Cf. 2 Cor. 2:12. But the older Greek 
did not always conform to this norm, and variations appear 
also in the N. T. Thus sometimes the participle is found alone 
as in ἐλθόντων (Mt. 17:14) and εἰπόντος (17: 26), a very frequent 
idiom in the papyri.’? Cf. ἀναγνωσθέντων B.U. 925 (iii/Aa.p.?), 
δηλωθέντος B.U. 970 (ii/A.D.). The papyri also show ἐξόντος instead 
of the old ἐξόν.8 Cf. οὐκ ἐξόντος P.O. 275 (a.p. 66). Then again the 
genitive absolute occurs when as a matter of fact the noun or 
pronoun is not absolute and the participle might have merely 


ἐπ τ Di 507. 5 Tb., p. 84. 
2 V. and D., Handb., p. 334. 6 C. and S., p. 58; Thack., p. 24. 
8 Moulton, Prol., p. 74. 7 Moulton, Prol., p. 74. 


4 Joh. Gr., p. 83. 8. ΤΌ. 


514 $A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


agreed in case with the word in question. The simplest example 
is the repetition of the pronoun in the same case as εἰσελθόντος 
αὐτοῦ εἰς οἶκον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ (Mk. 9 : 28). But more noticeable is 
an example like μὴ ἐχόντος δὲ αὐτοῦ ἀποδοῦναι ἐκέλευσεν αὐτόν (Mt. 
18 : 25), or ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐνθυμηθέντος --- ἐφάνη αὐτῷ (Mt. 1 : 20), a 
usage more common apparently in the N. T. than in the papyri. 
But note pou κινδυνύσαντος εἰς θάλασσαν ἔσωσεν, B.U. 423 (ii/A.D.), 
where ye is implied with ἔσωσεν. One even notes the genitive ab- 
solute when the nominative is present as in μνηστευθείσης τῆς μητρὸς 
αὐτοῦ Μαρίας — εὑρέθη (Mt. 1: 18). Moulton! notes “a violent use” 
of the genitive absolute in Heb. 8:9 from the LXX, where we 
have ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπιλαβομένου μου. Here the participle is treated al- 
most like the infinitive (as a substantive). Moulton regards it as 
due to the original Hebrew, and Westcott (in loco) cites ἐν ἡμέρᾳ 
ἐντειλαμένου σου αὐτῷ (Baruch 2:28). See further under Parti- 
ciples. 

IX. The Ablative (‘‘Ablatival Genitive’’) Case (ἡ ἀφαιρετικὴ 
πτῶσις). The treatment of this case will be briefer, for it never had 
the manifold development of the Greek genitive. _ In the original 
speech the genitive and ablative had no distinctive endings save 
in the ὁ stems in the singular. See chapter VII, 11, (a), for discus- 
sion of form. 

(a) THe Name. But the name ablativus is credited to Julius 
Cesar.2 Besides ἀφαιρετική it is also called πατρική. The name is 
quite appropriate. 

(b) THe Mpanina. The ablative is then the ‘whence’ case, 
the case of origin, source, separation or departure. Some of the 
grammars use the expression ‘‘ablatival genitive.” That implies 
that the case is after all a kind of genitive. That is only true as 
to form, not as to sense, and causes some confusion. In Greek the 
ablative is not a live case in form, but in sense it is. 

(c) RARE witH Susstantives. It is possible (though not 
probably correct) to regard δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (Ro. 1 : 17) as ablative, 
θεοῦ being the source of the righteousness. More likely are the 
following examples: τὴν ἔκβασιν τῆς ἀναστροφῆς (Heb. 13 : 7), διαστολὴ 
᾿Ιουδαίου τε καὶ “Ἕλληνος (Ro. 10 : 12), διάκρισις καλοῦ καὶ κακοῦ (Heb. 
5:14). See Monro, Homeric Grammar, p. 146. In 2 Pet.1: 20 we 
have a clear case of the ablative in the predicate after the copula 
γίνεται. Here ἐπιλύσεως (‘disclosure’) is in the ablative. Cf. also 
τοῦ θεοῦ in 2 Cor. 4:7. One may note also éyévero γνώμης (Ac. 20: 


4 ΡΡΟΙ pet: “ 
2 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 193. * Farrar, Ck Synt., p.e1 i: 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 615 


3) as probably parallel. In Heb. 12:11 χαρᾶς and λύπης may be 
considered either true genitives or ablatives. Doubtful also are 
ὑποστολῆς and πίστεως in Heb. 10:39. But we have a clear abla- 
tive in Ac. 20 : 37 ἱκανὸς δὲ κλαυθμὸς ἔγένετο πάντων. Moulton! notes 
the obvious fact that ἀπό and ἐκ (with abl.) are freely used for the 
old ‘‘partitive genitive.” Delbriick? thinks the genitive of material 
originally abl. Cf. vii, (f), 8, for the true genitives in the parti- 
tive sense. This partitive gen. may be illustrated by ἕν τούτων 
(Mt. 6 : 29) which is to be compared with ἕν ἐξ αὐτῶν (Mt. 10 : 29). 
In Jo. 3: 25 the use of ἐκ makes clear the ablative, éyévero ζήτησις 
ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν. Blass* rather needlessly explains this usage by 
appeal to the Hebrew 2. Note also πᾶς ἐξ ὑμῶν (Lu. 14: 88). 
The matter may be further illustrated by ris αὐτῶν (Lu. 7:42) and 
τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν (Mt. 6:27). Indeed with τίς, as Blass* observes, the 
N. T. nearly always uses ἐξ in such examples. He finds the oppo- 
site true of τὶς save in John. Thus τινὲς τῶν γραμματέων (Mt. 12: 
38), but τινὲς ἐξ αὐτῶν (Lu. 11:15. Cf. Jo. 6 : 64). But ἀπό is also 
found with ris (Mt. 27:21). One may note also τὶς ἐν ὑμῖν (Jas. 
5:13). A classical but curious use of this idiom, like the parti- 
tive genitive (already noted), is as the subject or object. The 
explanation lies, of course, in the ellipsis. Thus συνῆλθον καὶ τῶν 
μαθητῶν (Ac. 21:16) may be compared with εἶπαν ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν 
(Jo. 16:17), ἐκ τοῦ ὄχλου συνεβίβασαν (Ac. 19:33). Cf. Rev. 11: 
9. Take Mt. 23:34 as an example of the use as -object, ἐξ 
αὐτῶν ἀποκτενεῖτε, ἐξ αὐτῶν μαστιγώσετε. Cf. especially ἐκ τῶν τέκνων 
σου περιπατοῦντας (2 Jo. 4). In Ac. 15:2 we have the full ex- 
pression τινας ἄλλους ἐξ αὐτῶν. Brugmann (Criech. Gr., p. 397) 
notes the syncretism between the ablative and the genitive with 
the superlative. See a like confusion in the predicate (Monro, 
Hom. Gr., p. 148). W. Havers (Indog. Forsch., XXXI, Bd. 1, 
Heft 3, 1912) ‘‘on the splitting of the genitive in Greek”’ sug- 
gests that the partitive genitive was originally independent and 
adverbial. 

(dq) THe ABLATIVE wiTH ApsEcTIVES. The number is not 
large (cf. the Genitive with Adjectives). In Plato we have, for 
instance, ἐπιστήμης κενός, ἐλεύθερος αἰδοῦς, but see Kiihner-Gerth® for 
a full list in the ancient writers. Thus in the N. T. we find with 
preposition καθαρὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος (Ac. 20 : 26), a clear ablative. 
Cf. also ἐλευθέρα ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου (Ro. 7:3) and ἐλεύθερος ἐκ πάντων (1 

1 Prol., p. 72. Cf. also Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 109. 


2 Vergl. Synt., I, p. 340. SGreoe Nw sGk.ep. 97; 4 Tb. 
5 I, p. 401. The adjs. with α-- privative are regarded as usually with abl. 


516 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Cor. 9:19). But the ablative occurs without prepositions. So 
ξένοι τῶν διαθηκῶν (Eph. 2:12). It is probably best to regard the 
verbal adjectives as having the ablative in these examples: ἀγαπητοὶ 
θεοῦ (Ro. 1:7), γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν (Mt. 11:11), διδακτοὶ θεοῦ (Jo. 
Θ : 45), διδακτοῖς πνεύματος (1 Cor. 2:18), κλητοὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Ro. 
1:6). One may also suggest here εὐλογημένοι τοῦ πατρός (Mt. 
25 : 34), but on the whole it is to be regarded as a true genitive. 
The ablative with adjectives with α-- privative have ‘plentiful 
illustrations from papyri.”’! For instance ἀκίνδυνος παντὸς κινδύνου 
Tb. P. 105 (Gii/ B.c.), τῆς εἰς ἅπαντας εὐεργεσίας --- ἀβοήθητος B.U. 970 
(ii/a.p.). In Mt. 27:24 we find ἀθῷός εἰμι ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος with 
ἀπό. Cf. also ἄσπιλον ἀπὸ τοῦ κόσμου (Jas. 1:27). Thus we easily 
see the ablative in ἀκαταπάστους ἁμαρτίας (2 Pet. 2:14), ἀνάξιος κρι- 
τηρίων (1 Cor. 6 : 2), ἄνομος θεοῦ (1 Cor. 9 : 21), ἄπειρος λόγου (Heb. 
δ : 18), ἀπείραστος κακῶν (Jas. 1: 13). 

Moreover, the ablative after the comparative is very common 
in the N. T., apparently more so than in the papyri. Let a few 
examples suffice: ἰσχυρότερός μου (Mt. 3:11), μικρότερον ὃν πάντων 
τῶν σπερμάτων (ΜΚ. 4:31), πλείονας τῶν πρώτων (Mt. 21:36), 
πλεῖον τῆς τροφῆς (Lu. 12 : 23), πονηρότερα ἑαυτοῦ (Mt. 12 : 45), 
μείζων, τοῦ “κυῤίου (701. 13. 3:16). ΟἹ ΤΟΣ 21 elo ἰδοῦν eee 
1 Tim. 5:8. Here the ablative idea of difference or distinction 
is very plain.. The Latin also uses the ablative in this sense. 
Cf. χήρα μὴ ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα (1 Tim. 5:9). In Jo. 5:36, 
μαρτυρίαν μείζω τοῦ ᾿Ιωάνου, it is not clear whether it is the witness 
borne by John or to him. In Ac. 4:19 θεοῦ after 7 is genitive, 
not ablative, due to ἀκούειν. The superlative may likewise have 
the ablative as in πρῶτός μου (Jo. 1:15), a usage found in the 
papyri.2 Abbott? rather needlessly endeavours to explain πρῶτος 
as a substantive meaning ‘chief,’ like τῷ πρώτῳ τῆς νήσου (Ac. 28: 
7). Note also ποία ἐστὶν ἐντολὴ πρὠτη πάντων (Mk. 12 : 28) where 
πάντων is neuter plural (a possible partitive genitive). Cf. ἔσχατον 
πάντων (1 Cor. 15:8). The positive περισσός may even have the 
ablative, as τὸ περισσὸν τούτων (Mt. 5:37). Cf. πλεῖον with the 
verb περισσεύω and the ablative πλεῖον τῶν --- Φαρισαίων (Mt. 5: 
20). In Eph. 3:8, ἐμοὶ τῷ ἐλαχιστοτέρῳ πάντων ἁγίων, the com- 
parative and the superlative are combined. 

(ce) THe ABLATIVE wiTH Prepositions. It is very common 
in the N. T. Thus ἄνευ λόγου (1 Pet. 3:1), ἀπέναντι πάντων (Ac. 


1 Moulton, Prol., pp. 74, 235; Cl. Rev., 1904, p..152 f. 
2 Ib., 1901, p. 437, cod πρῶτός εἰμι, L.P. w (ii/iii A.D.). 
8 Joh. Gr., p. 90. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 517 


3:16), ἀπὸ τῆς ὥρας (Mt. 9:22), ἄτερ ὄχλου (Lu. 22:6), ἐκ τοῦ 
ὕδατος (Mk. 1 : 10), ἐκτὸς αὐτοῦ (Mt. 28 : 26; cf. ἐντός in same verse), 
ἔμπροσθεν πάντων (Mt. 26 : 70), ἐπέκεινα Βαβυλῶνος (Ac. 7: 48), ἔξω τῆς 
οἰκίας (Mt. 10 : 14), ἔξωθεν τῆς πόλεως (Rev. 14: 20), ὄπισθεν τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ 
(Lu. 23: 26), ὀπίσω μου (Mt. 4: 19), possibly ὀψὲ σαββάτων (Mt. 28: 
1), παρ᾽ αὐτῶν (Mt. 2: 4), παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας (Mt. 5: 32), πέραν 
τοῦ ᾿Ιορδάνου (Mt. 19:1), πλὴν τοῦ πλοίου (Ac. 27 : 22), πρὸ τοῦ 
πάσχα (Jo. 11:55), πρὸς τῆς ὑμετέρας σωτηρίας (Ac. 27 : 34), ὑπὲρ 
πάντων (2 Cor. 5:15, true genitive according to some), ὑπεράνω 
αὐτῆς (Heb. 9:5), ὑπερέκεινα ὑμῶν (2 Cor. 10:16), ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ 
ὧν (Eph. 3:20), ὑπὸ κυρίου (Mt. 1:22), ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν (Mk. 
0 : 11), χωρὶς παραβολῆς (Mt. 18 : 84). In the case of ὀψὲ σαββάτων 
(Mt. 28 : 1) ὀψέ means ‘late from’ (Moulton, Prol., p. 72). Cf. 
ove τῆς ὥρας, Par. P. 35, 37 (1i/B.c.), ὀψίτερον τῆς ὥρας ΤΌ. P. 280 
(ii/B.c.) and ὀψὲ τούτων in Philostratus (Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., 
p. 312). Cf. Blass-Debrunner, p. 101, for still other examples in 
late Greek. See also per’ ὀλίγον τούτων in Xen., Hellen., I, 1, 2. 
The list of such adverbs was growing constantly. This is a con- 
siderable list, but the ablative idea is patent in all with the no- 
tion of separation. An interesting example of the ablative is τὴν 
ἀπὸ σοῦ ἐπαγγελίαν (Ac. 28 : 21). In ὑπέρ, πρό, πρός it is the com- 
parative idea that is involved and that implies separation. 
Hence it seems likely that ὑπό is to be construed also with the 
ablative rather than the genitive, though this point is debatable. 
“In both Greek and Latin the ablative expresses the agent as 
the source of the action, almost invariably with prepositions”’ 
(Buckland Green, Notes on Greek and Latin Syntax, p. 32). There 
is some truth here. For the ablative with prepositions in Cypri- 
otic see Meister, Bd. II, p. 295. See chapter on Prepositions. A 
number of adverbs are themselves in the ablative case, like καλῶς, 
οὕτως (all adverbs in —ws), ἄνω, ete. 

(f) THe ABLATIVE witH VerRBS. The ablative is not used so 
frequently with verbs as the accusative, genitive or dative, and 
yet it is by no means uncommon. Of course, wherever ἀπό (cf. 
Ac. 5 : 2), ἐκ (ef. Mk. 1 : 10) and παρά (Mt. 2 : 4) are used with the 
ablative after a verb, these examples! are not considered, but they 
throw light on the use of the same case without the preposition. 
᾿Από and ἐκ have only the ablative. The ablative is so common 
with compound verbs like ἀφίστημι, ἀποστερέω, etc., that no effort 
is made to separate the simple from the compound verbs. There 


1 Indeed, as Winer (W.-Th., p. 197) remarks, the prep. is most frequently 
employed. 


518 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


are examples where the ablative seems to be due purely to the 
preposition, as τῆς χάριτος ἐξεπέσατε (Gal. 5:4); cf. same word in 
2 Pet. 3:17). But in many other instances the ablative idea in 
the verb is due to the effect of the preposition. 

1. Verbs of Departure and Removal. This is the simplest ablative 
with verbs. Take, for instance, οὐκ ἀφίστατο τοῦ ἱεροῦ (Lu. 2 : 37) 
where the ablative idea is perfectly plain. So also ἀποστήσονταί 
τινες τῆς πίστεως (1 Tim. 4:1). The predicate ablative of source Ὁ 
in 2 Pet. 1:20 (ἐπιλύσεως) was noticed under the discussion of 
substantives. As a rule ἀπό, ἐκ or παρά will be found with the 
mere idea of departure. So χωρίζω ἀπό (1 Cor. 7:10). In Lu. 
7:6 ἀπέχω has ἀπό, but ND have merely the ablative. 

Naturally verbs meaning to free from, to separate, to deprive of, 
to hinder from, etc., use the ablative. ᾿Ελευθερόω always has ἀπό 
(Ro. 6:18), as καθαρίζω ἀπό (1 Jo. 1:7), λύω ἀπό (Lu. 13: 16), λούω ἀπό 
(Ac. 16 : 33), λυτρόω ἀπό (Tit. 2 : 14), ῥύομαι ἀπό (Mt. 6:18), σώζω 
ἀπό (Ro. 5:9) and ἐκ (Ro. 7:24). Cf. also μεθίστημι ἐκ in Lu. 
16:4. But we have the ablative alone in ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι τῆς ζωῆς 
(Eph. 4:18), ἀπεστερημένων τῆς ἀληθείας (1 Tim. 6 : 5), ἀπολέλυσαι 
τῆς ἀσθενείας cov (Lu. 18 : 12), καθαιρεῖσθαι τῆς μεγαλειότητος αὐτῆς 
(Ac. 19:27),! ἐκρατοῦντο τοῦ μὴ ἐπιγνῶναι (Lu. 24:16), ἐκώλυσεν 
αὐτοὺς τοῦ βουλήματος (Ac. 27 : 48). Cf. Lu. 10:42, αὐτῆς. This 
use of the mere ablative was not unknown to good prose in the 
ancient Greek. Moulton? finds it also in the papyri. Thus τούτων 
ἄφελε L.Phb. (11/B.c.), ἀφελέσθαι ὧν ἔδωκαν O.P. 237 (ii/a.D.). One 
may note here again ἐκπίπτω with the ablative in Gal. 5:4 and 
2 Pet.3:17. Cf. κωλύω ἀπό (Lu. 6 : 29). 

2. Verbs of Ceasing, Abstaining. So one may interpret οὐ βραδύνει 
κύριος THs ἐπαγγελίας (2 Pet. 3:9), the marginal reading in W. H. 
(1 Pet. 4 : 1) πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας, and ἀπέχεσθαι εἰδωλοθύτων (Ac. 15: 
28; cf. also 15: 20; 1 Tim. 4:3; 1 Pet. 2:11), though ἀπὸ also is 
used with ἀπέχομαι (1 Th. 4:3; 5:22). One can only repeat that 
these divisions are purely arbitrary and merely for convenience. 
For ἀπό with ἀναπαύομαι and καταπαύω see Rev. 14:13; Heb. 4:4, 10. 

3. Verbs of Missing, Lacking, Despairing. Thus we note ὧν 
τινες ἀστοχήσαντες (1 Tim. 1:6), λείπεται σοφίας (Jas. 1: 5), ὑστεροῦν- 
ται τῆς δόξης (Ro. 3 : 23), ὅσων χρήζει (Lu. 11:8), προσδεόμενός τινος 
(Ac. 17: 25), ἐξαπορηθῆναι ἡμᾶς καὶ τοῦ ζῆν (2 Cor. 1: 8). Cf. τῶν 
ἀναγκαίων ὑστερεῖν L.Pb. (11.,8Β.6.), τῶν δεόντων ἐγλιπεῖν (ib.). Moul- 
ton, Cl. Rev., Ὁ. 487, Dec., 1901. 


1 An “impossible” reading to Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 106. 
* Cl. Rev:, 1901, 0. 157 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 519 


4. Verbs of Differing, Excelling. Here the comparative idea is 
dominant. We observe πολλῶν στρουθίων διαφέρετε ὑμεῖς (Mt. 10:31), 
τὴν ὑπερβάλλουσαν τῆς γνώσεως ἀγάπην (Eph. 3:19), ὑπερέχοντας 
ἑαυτῶν (Ph. 2 : 8), ὑστερηκέναι τῶν ὑπερλίαν ἀποστόλων (2 Cor. 11:5; 
cf. use of ὑστερέω in sense of lack above. Here the comparative 
idea of ὕστερος is uppermost. 

5. Verbs of Asking and Hearing. These may also use the abla- 
tive. This is the usual construction with δέομαι, especially in Luke, 
as δέομαί σου (Lu. 8: 28). The person is in the ablative, but the 
thing will be in the accusative, as δέομαι δὲ τὸ μὴ παρὼν θαρρῆσαι (2 
Cor. 10:2). So also note ἣν ἠκούσατέ μου (Ac. 1:4), but both ἀπό 
(Lu. 22:71) and παρά (Jo. 1:40), and ἐκ (2 Cor. 12 : 6) occur. 

6. Verbs with the Partitive Idea. Here a sharp difference exists 
between the accusative which presents the whole and the genitive 
or the ablative which accents a part. Thus in Rev. 2:17 we have 
δώσω αὐτῷ Tod μάννα Where the point lies in the idea of ‘“‘some”’ of 
the manna, but B reads τὸ and δῇ ἐκ τοῦ. In the same verse note 
the accusative δώσω αὐτῷ ψῆφον λευκήν. When the whole is ex- 
pressed in the N. T. the accusative is used. Thus φαγεῖν εἰδωλόθυτα 
(Rev. 2:14), but ἐσθίει ἀπὸ τῶν ψιχίων (Mt. 15 : 27) and ἐκ τοῦ ἄρ- 
του ἐσθιέτω (1 Cor. 11:28). Thus also πίνων οἶνον (Lu. 7:33), but 
πίετε ἐξ αὐτοῦ (Mt. 26 : 27), ds ἂν πίῃ ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος (Jo. 4:14). Cf. 
also ἐνέγκατε ἀπὸ τῶν ὀψαρίων (Jo. 21:10). Phrynichus says: ἔπιον 
οἴνου ᾿Αττικοί, οἶνον “EXAnves — ἔφαγον Kpéws ᾿Αττικοί, κρέας “Ἑλληνες. 
Cf. ἀπὸ τοῦ καρποῦ δώσουσιν (Lu. 20:10), ἵνα λάβῃ ἀπὸ τῶν καρπῶν 
πον Πρ 2a) ΟΥΑΙ 0. 4 97) Cf, Μ δ 13 Ac.' 21 516: 
See Moulton, Introduction to the Study of Ν. T. Gk., p. 172, 
where the “‘partitive gen.’’ is shown to be often ablative in idea. 
In modern Greek ἀπό is the regular construction for the partitive 
sense, aS δῶσε μου ἀπὸ τοῦτο, ‘give me some of that’ (Moulton, 
Prol., Ὁ. 245). Prepositions ἀπό and ἐκ are thus uniformly used in 
the N.,T. with this construction of the part (clearly ablative 
therefore) save in Rev. 2:17 above and in προσελάβοντο τροφῆς 
(Ac. 27:36). In this last example the MSS. vary a good deal. 
Μεταλαμβάνω (see (7), 3) may be abl. or gen. in μετελάμβανον τροφῆς 
(Ac. 2:46). Blass! notes that only Luke, Paul and the author 
of Hebrews, the more literary writers in the N. T., use the 
ablative (gen.) with μεταλαμβάνω and προσλαμβάνω. Examples like 
Ro. 9:16; Heb. 12:11 may be regarded as either ablative or 
genitive. ; 

7. Attraction of the Relative. Thus ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος ob ἔγὼ δώσω 

t Groof Nv To Gk,p.1100: 


520 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


αὐτῷ (Jo. 4:14), οὐδὲν ἐκτὸς λέγων ὧν τε of προφῆται ἐλάλησαν (Ac. 
20 : 22). Cf. Pronouns. 

X. The Locative (“‘Locatival Dative”) Case (ἡ τοπικὴ πτῶσις). 

(a) Tue Name Locative. It is derived from the Latin locus! 
and is a “grammatical neologism,”’ but is modelled after vocative. 
Still Delbriick? prefers ‘‘local”’ to locative and uses it. It is indeed 
a local case. It is worth noticing that in the Thessalian dialect 
the old genitive had this locative ending’ as did the Arkadian‘* 
also, though this ~o. may have come from -οιο. ‘The Latin gram- 
marians took this. for the dative. We have remnants of the 
ending in English here, there, where. The modern grammars gen- 
erally recognise the distinction in the three cases (locative, instru- 
mental and dative), which have usually identical endings, though 
Blass® is correct in saying that it is not always possible to decide 
the case. However that uncertainty exists but seldom. Jannaris’ 
makes four cases, counting the associative as a separate case. 
Compare the blending in the Latin. 

(b) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LocaTivE. It is indeed the 
simplest of cases in its etymological idea. It is the in case as 
Whitney ® finds it in the Sanskrit. It is location, a point within 
limits, the limits determined by the context, not by the case itself. 
The word itself is the main determining factor in the resultant. 
sense, and each example has its own atmosphere. There is indeed 
variation in the resultant idea. Hence, besides in, we come to the 
ideas of on, at, amid, among, by, with. This development was not 
only in the early Greek® but in the still earlier Sanskrit. The use 
of the locative without ἐν is much more common in Homer than 
in the later Greek. In the modern Greek vernacular indeed the 
locative disappears along with the instrumental and dative before 
εἰς and the accusative. As to ἐν it adds so little to the locative 
case that it is not surprising to find it so frequently used, especially 
as the locative, instrumental and dative all used the same endings. 
Thus we may compare τῷ πλοιαρίῳ ἦλθον (Jo. 21:8) with ἐν πλοίῳ 
(Mt. 14:18), ὕδατι βαπτίζω (Lu. 3:16) with βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι 
(Mt. 3:11), τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ (Jo. 6:40) with ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ 
(Jo. 6:44). The tendency in the older Greek was constantly 
towards the use of ἐν, though the mere locative survived, es- 


1 Cf. Riem. et Goelzer, Synt., p. 196. 6 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 109. 
2 Vergl. Synt., I, p. 182 f., following Gaedicke. 7 Hist. of Gk. Gr., p. 342. 

3 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., p. 307. 8 Sans. Gr., p. 101. 

4 Hoffmann, Gr. Dial., Bd. I, p. 303. ® Giles, Man., etc., p. 329 f. 
& 


Riem. et Goelzer, Synt., p. 197. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) o21 


pecially in some constructions. In Mt. 13 :52°MSS. vary be- 
tween the mere locative τῇ βασιλείᾳ and ἐν with locative and εἰς 
with accusative. 

(c) Puacr. This was probably the original locative. Place of 
rest was put in the locative without a preposition. As already 
indicated, this usage abounds in Homer.' Some of these distinc- 
tively locative forms persisted in the Greek as in the Latin. Thus 
οἴκοι, ᾿Ισθμοῖ, Μαραθῶνι, ᾿ΛΑθήνῃσι, Θύρασι, humi, Corintht, Romae 
(at). Brugmann (Griech. Gr., p. 226) thinks that χαμαί is dative. 
Indeed the locative forms and the dative forms used as locative, 
after the blending of the three case-forms into one, still occur in 
Pindar side by 51.6.2: The orators up to the time of Demosthenes 
use the mere locative frequently. The AXolic* has μέσοι: ἐν μέσῳ 
(cf. οἴκοι and οἴκῳ). But the rule in Attic literary prose is to use a 
preposition with the locative of place. Thus ἐν ᾿Αθήναις (1 Th. 
3:1), ἐν οἴκῳ (1 Cor. 11:34)=‘at home’ and usually ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ 
(Jo. 11:20). But observe λῃσταῖς περιέπεσεν (Lu. 10 : 30), where 
the resultant idea is “among”’ and περί is used with the verb in 
composition, but none the less it is the locative. Blass’ indeed 
remarks that the “local dative” does not occur in the N. T. He 
means the pure locative of place without a preposition, not con- 
sidering the adverb κύκλῳ (Mk. 3:34), and possibly χαμαί (Jo. 
18:6). We have indeed ἑτέρᾳ ὁδῷ ἐκβαλοῦσα (Jas. 2 : 25), possibly 
instrumental. Cf. the figurative usage in 2 Pet. 2:15, etc. Itis 
indeed a very short step to the figurative usage, πορεύεσθαι ταῖς 
ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν (Ac. 14 : 16), μηδὲ τοῖς ἔθεσιν περιπατεῖν (Ac. 21: 21), 
στοιχοῦσιν τοῖς ἴχνεσιν (Ro.4:12). I think that we have the pure 
locative also in τῷ πλοιαρίῳ ἦλθον (Jo. 21 : 8), ὕδατι βαπτίζω (Lu. 
3:16), καθαρίσας τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος (Eph. 5 : 20), τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ 
παρεδρεύοντες (1 Cor. 9:13). Cf. also ἐπέθηκαν αὐτοῦ τῇ κεφαλῇ (Jo. 
19 : 12), ἀδύνατος τοῖς ποσίν (Ac. 14:8). Hence it is overstating 
it to assert that the locative of place without prepositions has 
entirely disappeared from the N. T. The scarcity of this usage 
in comparison with Homer is in perfect harmony with the lin- 
guistic development. Moulton® indeed finds the locative of place 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 100. Cf. also Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 221; 
Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 403; K.-G., I, p. 441. 

2 Giles, Man., etc., p. 330. 

3 Main, Loc. Expr. in the Attic Orators (1892), p. 231. 

4 Meister, Dialec., Bd. 11, p. 193. ἐπ ΟΝ La Gk. Ὁ 119ὲ 

6 Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 158. Cf. also ib., 1901, p. 438, for ᾿Ελευσῖνι, Letr. 220 
(iv/A.D.). 


522 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


in inscriptions as late as the sixth century a.p., B.C.H., 1903, 
Ῥ. 335, τῷ τύβῳ. 

(ὦ Time. It is expressed much more persistently with the 
mere locative. It has outlived the usage as to place and is “fairly 
frequent”! in the N. T. Cf. Sanskrit, Latin, older Greek, Anglo- 
Saxon. Here, of course, time is regarded from the point of view of 
a point, not of duration (accusative). But the accusative is mak- 
ing inroads on the locative and is already used occasionally for ~ 
a point of time. See Accusative. For papyri examples take rots 
παλαιοῖς χρόνοις B.U. 903 (ii/A.D.) and γενεσίοις, γάμοις B.U. 1 
(iii/A.D.), Moulton, Cl. Rev., April, 1904, and Dec., 1901. See also 
τῇ ἀναβάσει, O.P. 742 (1i/B.c.). Observe the difference between the 
accusative (τὸ σάββατον ἡσύχασαν) and the locative (τῇ δὲ μιᾷ τῶν 
σαββάτων ἦλθαν) and the genitive (ὄρθρου βαθέως) all in the same 
sentence (Lu. 24:1). The accusative is easily differentiated from 
both the locative and the genitive. As between the locative and 
the genitive the matter is not quite so clear. Brugmann? indeed 
thinks that originally there was little difference. The difference 
lies in the essential meaning of the two cases. The locative is a 
point and the genitive is the case of genus. Thus in Mt. 24 : 20 
we have ἵνα μὴ γένηται ἡ φυγὴ ὑμῶν χειμῶνος μηδὲ σαββάτῳ. It is not 
mere hair-splitting to note that winter is here set over against sum- 
mer (time within which) and that Sabbath is the point of time. In 
practical result the difference is very slight, but it is hardly just to 
regard the two usages as without difference. Cf. νυκτός (Mt. 25: 
6), νυκτί (Mk. 14 : 80), νύκτα (Ac. 26:7). Καιρῷ (Lu. 20:10) for 
‘in due time’ may be illustrated by τῷ δέοντι καιρῷ, O.P. IV, 729, 5, 
and τῷ τῆς ὀπώρας καιρῷ, 1b., 11. As further examples of the mere 
locative we may note the various instances of ἡμέρα. So τῇ τρίτῃ 
ἡμέρᾳ (Mt. 20:19), τῇ μιᾷ σαββάτων (Jo. 20:1), τῇ πρώτῃ ἡμέρᾳ 
τῶν ἀζύμων (ΜΚ. 14:12), τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ὀγδόῃ (Ac. 7: 8), τῇ ἐσχάτῃ 
ἡμέρᾳ (Jo. 6 : 40), ποίᾳ ἡμέρᾳ (Mt. 24 : 42), ἣ ἡμέρᾳ (Lu. 17: 29 f:), 
τακτῇ ἡμέρᾳ (Ac. 12 : 21), τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ (Jo. 20:19), τῇ ἐπιούσῃ 
ἡμέρᾳ (Ac. 7: 26), τῇ ἐχομένῃ ἡμέρᾳ (Ac. 21:26), and even ἡμέρᾳ 
καὶ ἡμέρᾳ (2 Cor. 4:16). The substantive is not expressed in τῇ 
ἐπιφωσκούσῃ (Mt. 28:1) and τῇ ἑξῆς (Ac. 21:1)3 Cf. also σήμερον 
ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτί (Mk. 14:30), where the adverb is accusative, but 
the substantive locative. With some of these phrases ἐν is also 


1. Blass, Gr, of N.-l. Gey pnt 9: 

2 Griech. Gr., p. 405. Cf. also Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 223. 

* Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 120, for careful discussion. Cf. Abbott, 
Joh. Gr, DOW Gu: 


THE CASES (IITOSEIS) 523 


found as with ταύτῃ (Lu. 19 : 42), ἐκείνῃ (Lu. 6 : 25), ὀγδόῃ (Lu. 1: 
59), μιᾷ (Lu. 20:1), ἐσχάτῃ (Jo. 6 : 44), with ἡμέρᾳ and σαββάτων 
(Lu. 4 : 16), ἡμέρᾳ and genitive (Lu. 4 : 25), with ἑξῆς (Lu. 7 : 11), 
where W. H. read in text ἐν τῷ rather than ἐν τῇ. The MSS., 
especially D, vary a good deal. Νυκτί occurs without ἐν (Lu. 
12 : 20) and with ἐν (Mt. 26:31). So also we find σαββάτῳ (Mt. 
24 : 20), σάββασιν (Mk. 2 : 24), but also ἐν with each (Mt. 12 : 2; 
Mk. 2:23). With ὥρα we have both ὥρᾳ (Lu. 2:38) and-e& 
(Lu. 12:12). Once more φυλακῇ occurs without ἐν (Mt. 14 : 25) 
and with ἐν (Lu. 12:38). With ἔτος we have & once (as Lu. 
3:1) and without ἐν twice (Jo. 2:20; Ac. 18:20), but these 
two examples (ἔτεσιν τεσσεράκοντα, ws ἔτεσιν τετρακοσίοις Kal πεντή- 
κοντα) are probably associative-instrumental.! Cf. προβεβηκότας ἤδη 
τοῖς ἔτεσιν, Tb.P.1 (ii/a.p.) with Lu. 1:7 ἐν. Moulton observes that 
it is hard sometimes to draw the line between the locative and the 
instrumental (Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901). With ἑορτή again we note the 
mere locative (Lu. 2 : 41) or usually é (Jo. 2 : 23): See also καιροῖς 
ἰδίοις (1 Tim. 6 : 15), but usually ἐν καιρῷ (Mt. 11: 25, etc.). Χρόνος 
has only ἐν (as Ac. 1 : 6) save the associative-instrumental usage 
like ἱκανῷ χρόνῳ (Ac. 8:11). Observe also τοῖς γενεσίοις αὐτοῦ 
(Mk. 6:21). So again ἑτέραις" γενεαῖς (Eph. 3:5), but ἐν in Mk. 
8:38. Νυνί (chiefly in Paul, as Ro. 3:21) is a locative form (cf. 
οὐχί). Other locative adverbs of time are ἀεί (2 Cor. 6:10), ἐκεῖ 
(Mt. 6:21), πέρυσι (2 Cor. 8:10), πρωΐ (Mk. 16:2). 

(6) LocaATIVE wiTtH ADJECTIVES. Thus we note of πτωχοὶ τῷ 
πνεύματι (Mt. 5:3), καθαροὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ (5:8), ἀδύνατος τοῖς ποσίν (Ac. 
14: 8), στερεοὶ τῇ πίστει (1 Pet. δ: 9), νωθροὶ ταῖς ἀκοαῖς (Heb. δ: 11), 
περιτομῇ ὀκταήμερος (Ph. 3:5), ἐλεύθεροι τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ (Ro. 6 : 20), 
ταπεινὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ (Mt. 11:29), ἀπερίτμητοι καρδίαις (Ac. 7:51), 
ἁγία καὶ σώματι καὶ πνεύματι (1 Cor. 7:34). Cf. Ro. 12 :10--18. 
In Blass-Debrunner, p. 118, these examples are treated as instru- 
mental. 

(f) LocativE with VERBS. Cf. δεδεμένος τῷ πνεύματι (Ac. 20: 
22), περιβεβλημένους ἱματίοις λευκοῖς (Rev. 4:4, marg. ἐν). In Ro. 12: 
10-138 note the various examples of the locative with participles, 
though ταῖς χρείαις κοινωνοῦντες is probably instrumental. Cf. also 
ἐσκοτωμένοι τῇ διανοίᾳ (Eph. 4 : 18), ζωοποιηθεὶς πνεύματι (1 Pet. 3 : 18), 
σχήματι εὐρεθείς (Ph. 2:8). We seem to have the locative in 
κατειργάσατο ὑμῖν (2 Cor. 7:11), but usually ἐν appears in such 
examples as ἐν ἐμοί (Gal. 1:24). Further examples with verbs are 


1 Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 405; Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., p..225; Moulton, 
Prol., p. 75. 


524 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


τοῖς ἔθεσιν περιπατεῖν (Ac. 21:21), πορευομένη τῷ φόβῳ (Ac. 9: 31), 
ὅταν πειρασμοῖς περιπέσητε ποικίλοις (Jas. 1:2), λῃσταῖς περιέπεσεν 
(Lu. 10:30), ἐστερεοῦντο τῇ πίστει καὶ ἐπερίσσευον τῷ ἀριθμῷ (Ac. 
16 : 5), κάμητε ταῖς ψυχαῖς (Heb. 12:3), ἐμμένειν τῇ πίστει (Ac. 
14 : 22), ἐπιμένωσιν τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ (Ro. 11: 23; cf. 22), ἐνκεντρισθήσονται 
τῇ ἰδίᾳ ἐλαίᾳ (Ro. 11: 24), τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι ἔἐπροφητεύσαμεν (Mt. 7: 22; 
cf. ἐξεβάλομεν also), ζέων τῷ πνεύματι (Ac. 18: 25; οἵ, Lu. 10:21 
and Mk. 5:29), τῇ θλίψει ὑπομένοντες (Ro. 12:12), and perhaps 
even βαπτίσει ὑμᾶς πνεύματι ἁγίῳ (Mk. 1:8). See Ac. 16:5. For 
the so-called instrumental use of ἐν (like ἐν μαχαίρῃ, Mt. 26 : 52) 
see the chapter on Prepositions (cf. also Instrumental Case). 
As a matter of fact ἐν always has the locative, and this use of ἐν 
has the locative also. The activity of the verb is conceived as 
finding expression in the object mentioned. It is not a mere 
Hebraism, for the papyri have it as indeed the earlier Greek oc- 
casionally. But as a practical matter this use of ἐν with the 
locative was nearly equivalent to the instrumental case. The 
use of ὁμολογέω ἐν (Mt. 10:32; Lu. 12:8) Moulton (Prol., p. 
104) considers a Semiticism due to the common Aramaic original. 
Cf. the usual dative (Heb. 13:15). 

(g) THe LocaTIVE WITH SvuBSTANTIvVES. Cf. Heb. 11: 12, 
καθὼς τὰ ἄστρα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τῷ πλήθει. So in Col. 2 : 14, τὸ xa’ ἡμῶν 
χειρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν, the adjective is used as a substantive. 
In 1 Cor. 14: 20 we have the locative with substantive, verb and 
adjective, μὴ παιδία γίνεσθε ταῖς φρεσίν, ἀλλὰ TH κακίᾳ νηπιάζετε, Tats 
δὲ φρεσὶν τέλειοι γίνεσθε. 

(h) ΤῊΝ ΤΟΘΑΤΙΥΕ wiTH PREPposiItTions. Just because the 
prepositions that were used with the locative were only ‘adverbial 
elements strengthening and directing its meaning’! they were 
very numerous. Originally nearly all the prepositions occurred 
with the locative. Thus in Homer and epic and lyric poetry gen- 
erally we meet with the locative with ἀμφί, ἀνά, μετά (Buck, Class. 
Phil. 11, 264), and when the so-called dative is found in Greek 
with ἐν, ἐπί, παρά, περί, πρός, ὑπό, it is really the locative case.2 But 
with a compound verb the case may not always be locative, as 
instance προκείμενον ἡμῖν (Heb. 12:1). A number of the preposi- 
tions like ἀμφί, ἀντί, ἐν (ei), ἐπί, περί, πρός (προτί) are themselves 
in the locative case. Cf. the locative adverbs of time already 
mentioned and ’EBpatori (Jo. 5:2), Ἑλληνιστί (Jo. 9 : 20), κύκλῳ 
(Mk. 3 : 34), the conjunction καί, ete. There are only four prepo- 
sitions in the N. T. that use the locative. As examples note ἐν τῷ 

1 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 103. 2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 101. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 525 


Ἰορδάνῃ (Mt. 3:6), ἐπὲ θύραις (Mt. 24:33), παρὰ τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ 
Ἰησοῦ (Jo. 19 : 25), πρὸς τῷ μνημείῳ (Jo. 20:11). But of these 
πρός has the locative only 6 times, παρά 50, while ἐπί has it 176 
times.! Ἔν, of course, having only the locative, is very common. 
One may note here ἐν πρώτοις (1 Cor. 15:3) almost like an 
adverb. 

(ὃ THe PREGNANT CONSTRUCTION OF THE LocaTivE. It is 
common in the N. T. with &, as the accusative with eis after verbs 
of motion or rest. ‘This matter comes up for discussion again 
under the head of Prepositions, but a few words are perhaps needed 
here. The identity of ἐν and εἰς in origin and early usage must be 
borne in mind when one approaches these two prepositions. Cf. 
ὁ eis τὸν ἀγρόν in Mk. 13:16. On the other hand note ὁ ἐμβάψας 
per’ ἐμοῦ THY χεῖρα ἐν τῷ τρυβλίῳ (Mt. 26: 23). Here Mark (14: 20) 
has εἰς τὸ τρυβλίον. This interchange of ἐν and eis is a feature of the 
LXX (Moulton, Prol., p. 245). Originally there was no difference, 
and finally ἐν vanishes before εἰς in modern Greek. Hach writer 
looks at the matter in his own way. Cf. English vernacular, “come 
in the house,” “jump in the river,” etc. So also Mt. (8 : 6) has 
ἐβαπτίζοντο ἐν τῷ ᾿Ιορδάνῃ ποταμῷ, while Mk. (1:9) reads ἐβαπτίσθη 
εἰς τὸν Ιορδάνην. Cf. ἐν οἴκῳ ἐστίν, text of Mk. 2:1 and marg. εἰς 
οἶκόν ἐστιν. This same pregnant idiom appears with παρά as στᾶσα 
ὀπίσω παρὰ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ (Lu. 7:38). See also Mk. 4:1. Cf. 
again ἐμβάντι eis τὸ πλοῖον (Mt. ὃ : 23). But observe the locative 
with ἐν in composition (Ro. 11 : 24). With ὄνομα we have the mere 
locative (Mt. 7: 22), ἐν and the locative (Mt. 21 : 9), ἐπί and loca- 
tive (Mt. 18 : 5), εἰς and accusative (Mt. 10 : 41; 28: 19).2 Cf. also 
Mt. 12 : 41. 

XI. The Instrumental (‘‘Instrumental Dative”) Case (ἣ 
χρηστικὴ πτῶσις). 

(a) THe Term INstruMENTAL. As applied to case it is mod- 
ern and the adjective itself appears first in the fourteenth century.® 
The Hindu grammarians, however, recognised this case. There 
are not wanting signs indeed that it survived in the Greek as a sep- 
arate case-form. Meister® concludes that in the Cyprian dialect 
the instrumental was still a separate case-form (a ‘‘living”’ case). 
He cites apa, εὐχωλᾶ, besides σὺν τὐχᾶ, and in Kiihner-Gerth® we 
find οἴκοι locative, οἴκω instrumental, and οἴκῳ dative. Other exam- 
ples are ἅμα, δίχα, τάχα in later Greek, not to mention the many ad- 

1 Moulton, Prol., p. 106. 4 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 89. 


meewiaes, Gr. of N. T..Gk., p..123 f, 6 Gk. Dial., II, p. 295. 
8 Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 207. 61, p. 405. 


526 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


verbs! in -a and —y (—a, -) like κρυφῇ, λάθρᾳ, σιγῇ, Bia, etc. This 
corresponds with the Sanskrit singular ending, and the plural bhis 
may be compared with the Homeric φι (φιν), as θεόφι, θεόφιν. But in 
Homer one must note that these endings for singular and plural 
are used for the locative, ablative, and possibly for the dative 
also.2 It is not always easy to draw the line of distinction between 
the locative and instrumental in Greek after the forms blended.’ 
Sometimes indeed a word will make good sense, though not the 
same sense, either as locative, dative or instrumental, as τῇ δεξιᾷ 
τοῦ θεοῦ ὑψωθείς (Ac. 2 : 33; cf. also 5:31). The grammars have 
no Greek term for the instrumental case, but I have ventured to 
call it χρηστικὴ πτῶσις. ‘The increasing use of prepositions (ἐν, διά, 
μετά) makes the mere instrumental a disappearing case in the 
N. T. as compared with the earlier Greek,‘ but still it is far from 
dead. 

(6) Syncretistic? It is a matter of dispute as to whether this 
instrumental case is not itself a mixed case combining an old asso- 
ciative or comitative case with the later instrumental. Both of 
these ideas are present in the Sanskrit case (Whitney, Sanskrit 
Grammar, p. 93). On the whole, however, one is constrained to 
doubt the existence of this so-called comitative case. Most of the 
difference is due to the distinction between persons (association, 
accompaniment) and things (means, implement, instrument). Cf. 
Delbriick, Vergl. Syntax, I, Ὁ. 231. Hence neither term covers 
exactly the whole situation. We have a similar combination in 
our English “with” which is used in both senses. So also the 
Greek σύν (cf. Latin cum) and even μετά (ἐξήλθατε μετὰ μαχαιρῶν 
καὶ ξύλων, Mk. 14:48). In Mk. 14: 48, μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ --- μετὰ μαχαιρῶν, 
both senses occur together. But we may agree that the associa- 
tive was the original usage out of which the instrumental idea 
was easily and logically developed. The comitative usage, for 
instance, is very common in Homer® and Herodotus.’ 

(ὃ Puace. There is no example of this usage in the N. T. 
except πανταχῇ (W. H. text, Ac. 21:28). In Jas. 2 : 25, ἑτέρᾳ ὁδῷ 


1 Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 99. 2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 239. 

3 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 438. 

4 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 116. The mod. Gk., of course, does not use 
the instr. case at all, but only μέ (wera). Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 103. 

5 Giles, Man., p. 334. Cf. Draeger, Hist. Synt., p. 428. 

6 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 99. 

7 Helbing, Uber den Gebrauch des echten und sociativen Dativs bei Herod., 
p. 58 f. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΩΣΕΙΣ) 527 


éxBadovoa, we probably have the locative, though the instr. is 
possible. 

(d) Timm. But we do find examples of the associative-instru- 
mental used with expressions of time. This is indeed a very old 
use of the instrumental, as Brugmann! and Delbriick? show. The 
Sanskrit had it also as the time “‘by the lapse of which anything 
is brought about.’ The singular, like χρόνῳ ἱκανῷ (Lu. 8 : 27; 
Ac. 8: 11), finds parallel in the papyri,‘ as is seen also in Pindar, 
Euripides, Aristophanes, Thucydides.° For the papyri note πολλοῖς 
xpovors N.P: 50 (iii/A.D.), χρόνῳ A.P. 77 (ii/A.D.). Cf. Polybius 
xxxll, 12, πολλοῖς χρόνοις (Moulton, Prol., Ὁ. 76). There is no 
doubt about the plural instrumental in Ro. 16 : 25, χρόνοις αἰωνίοις, 
a parallel to which Moulton® finds in the epistolary formula in 
the papyri, ἐρρῶσθαί ce εὔχομαι πολλοῖς χρόνοις. He rightly doubts 
the necessity of appealing to the Latin as W. Schulze’ does for the 
explanation of the use of the plural, since the classical τῷ χρόνῳ 
could easily give the impulse. 

In Jo. 2 : 20, τεσσεράκοντα καὶ ἕξ ἔτεσιν οἰκοδομήθη, we have the in- 
strumental also, though, of course, this might be looked at as a 
locative, the whole period regarded as a point of time. In an ex- 
ample like πολλοῖς χρόνοις συνηρπάκει αὐτόν (Lu. ὃ : 29) we probably 
have the instrumental also, though here the locative would give a 
good idea, ‘on many occasions’ (‘oftentimes’ Rev. V.), whereas 
the marg. (‘of a long time’) gives the instrumental idea. For the 
instrumental idea Moulton® cites from Letronne (p. 220, fourth 
century A.D.) πολλοῖς ὕστερον χρόνοις. See also ws ἔτεσι τετρακοσίοις 
καὶ πεντήκοντα (Ac. 18 : 20). Cf. also πάσαις ταῖς ἡμέραις (Lu. 1 : 75), 
but marg. of W. H. has accusative. As Moulton® observes, only the 
context can decide which is locative and which instrumental in 
such examples and he suggests that this uncertainty had some- 
thing to do with the increasing use of ἐν to make the locative clear 
and distinct from instrumental or dative. “Speakers of Greek were 
certainly beginning to feel that they could not trust. the dative 
out alone, and we can understand the occasional employment of 
nursemaid ἐν in places where she would have been better left at 


1 Griech. Gr., p. 410. 2 Vergl. Synt., I, p. 246. 

3 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 94. 

4 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 488; 1904, p. 153; Prol., p. 75. 

ὅ Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 246. Cael beg aki dee 

7 Gr. Lat., p. 14. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 121, calls this “duration of 
time” “unclassical,’’ but incorrectly as is already. shown. 

8 Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 438. 9 Tb. 


528 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


home, or replaced by σύν." Blass! comments on the frequency of 
the instrumental with expressions of time in Josephus with no 
perceptible difference between it and the accusative. One can 
hardly agree to Blass’? explanation of the instrumental of time 
that it is due to the disinclination of the writer to put another 
accusative beside the direct object of the verb. Certainly the 
accusative is the most frequent idiom in the N. T. for the idea of 
extension of time, as can be seen in Mk. 2:19; Lu. 13:8; Ac. 
13:18; Rev. 20:38, ete. In Jo. 14:9 W. H. have τοσοῦτον χρόνον 
in the text and put τοσούτῳ χρόνῳ in the marg. In Lu. 8: 27 some 
MSS. have instead of the instrumental χρόνῳ ἱκανῷ the ablative ἐκ 
(ἀπὸ) χρόνων ἱκανῶν. 

(6) Tue Associative Ipea. The idea of association alone is 
responsible for a good many examples, chiefly with verbs, though 
adjectives are not wanting. Substantives cut no figure at all 
according to Blass,’ for ris κοινωνία φωτὶ πρὸς σκότος (2 Cor. 6 : 14) 
is an example of the pure dative (cf. also Lu. 5 : 10; 2 Cor. 6 : 16), 
and in Ro. 15 : 26 we have εἰς τοὺς πτωχούς and in 1 Jo. 1:3, 6, 7 
μεθ’ ἡμῶν. But another example in 2 Cor. 6:14, τίς μετοχὴ δικαιοσύνῃ 
kal ἀνομία, comes much closer to the substantive use of the associa- 
tive-instrumental. But an undoubted example of a substantive 
followed by the associative-instrumental appears in εἰς ὑπάντησιν 
τῷ "Inood (Mt. 8 : 34). So eis ἀπάντησιν ἡμῖν (Ac. 28:15). Cf. also 
Jo. 12:18 (αὐτῷ) and 1 Mace. 3:11 εἰς συνάντησιν αὐτῷς There 
is nothing in this construction out of harmony with the Greek 
idiom. The verb has the associative-instrumental. The geni- 
tive with this substantive occurs in Mt. 27: 32 (6 text) and 1 Th. 
4:17 (but 6 text has associative-instrumental). Cf. Moulton, 
Prol., p. 14. There is no doubt as to the adjectives σύμμορφος 
and σύμφυτος. Thus τὸ σῶμα σύμμορφον τῷ σώματι (Ph. 3 : 21) and 
σύμφυτοι τῷ ὁμοιώματι (Ro. 6 : 5), but σύμμορφος has the genitive τῆς 
εἰκόνος in Ro. 8 : 29 like a substantive. The other compounds in 
σὺν are treated as substantives* with the genitive, like συναιχμά- 
AwTos, συγγενής, συνεργός, σύντροφος, μέτοχος (Heb. 1:9). But note 
ἐναντίος αὐτοῖς (Mk. 6: 48), ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν (Col. 2:14). With verbs 
the associative-instrumental is very common in the N. T. as in 
the older Gk. The most important examples will be given in 
illustration. ᾿Ακολουθέω is a common instance, as ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ 
(Mk. 1:18). Cf. also cuvax. (Mk. 5:37). Rather oddly ἕπομαι is 
not so used, but once we find συνείπετο αὐτῷ (Ac. 20:4). So 


1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 121. Cf. Schmidt, de Jos. elocut., p. 382 f. 
2 Tb. 5. Gr, of N, TD. GE nelis, 4 Ib. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 529 


διελέγετο αὐτοῖς (Ac. 20:7), though πρός (Mk. 9 : 34) also is used. 
Other compounds of διά with this case are διαλλάγηθι τῷ ἀδελφῷ 
(Mt. 5:24), διεβλήθη αὐτῷ (Lu. 16:1), τῷ διαβόλῳ διακρινόμενος 
(Ju. 9), τοῖς Ιουδαίοις διακατηλέγχετο (Ac. 18:28). But closely 
allied to these words are κατηλλάγημεν τῷ θεῷ (Ro. 5:10), σοι 
κριθῆναι (Mt. 5 : 40), ὡμίλει αὐτῷ (Ac. 24: 26), which last may have 
πρός and accusative (Lu. 24:14). Then again note ἑτεροζυγοῦντες 
(2 Cor. 6:14), rots πνευματικοῖς ἐκοινώνησαν (Ro. 15 : 27), κολλᾶσθαι 
αὐτοῖς (Ac. 5:13), ἐντυγχάνει τῷ θεῷ (Ro. 11:2). Cf. further ἀνδρὶ 
δέδεται (Ro. 7:2) and μεμιγμένην πυρί (Rev. 15:2). In Rev. 8:4 
we may (R. V. dative) have the associative-instrumental! ταῖς 
προσευχαῖς with ἀνέβη. Moulton cites ἀποδώσω σοι τῷ ἔνγιστα 
δοθησομένῳ ὀψωνίῳ, B.U. 69 (1,.Α.}.}) ‘with your next wages’ (Cl. 
Rev., Dec., 1901). Cf. the old Greek αὐτοῖς ἀνδράσιν and the 
“military dative’? (Moulton, Prol., p. 61). The compounds with 
σύν that use this case are numerous. Thus συλλαβέσθαι (Lu. 5 : 7), 
συμβουλεύσας τοῖς ᾿Ιουδαίοις (Jo. 18:14), though this might be a 
dative (cf. συμβαίνω and συμφέρει), συνεφωνήθη ὑμῖν (Ac. 5:9; οἵ. 
15 :15),? μιᾷ ψυχῇ συναθλοῦντες τῇ πίστει (Ph. 1:27, two examples 
probably of the instrumental, the first of manner), συνηκολούθει 
αὐτῷ (Mk. 14:51), αἱ συναναβᾶσαι αὐτῷ (Mk. 18 : 41), συνανέκειντο 
τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ (Mt. 9 : 10), μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι αὐτῷ (2 Th. 8 : 14), συν- 
αναπαύσωμαι ὑμῖν (Ro. 18 : 32), συνήντησεν αὐτῷ (Lu. 9 : 37), μοι συν- 
αντιλάβηται (Lu. 10 : 40: cf. Ro. ὃ : 26), συναποθανεῖν σοι (ΜΚ. 14: 
31), οὐ συναπώλετο τοῖς ἀπειθήσασιν (Heb. 11:31), συνέβαλλον αὐτῷ 
(Ac. 17: 18), ὑμῖν συνβασιλεύσωμεν (1 Cor. 4:8), συνηγέρθητε τῷ 
Χριστῷ (Col. 8 : 1), συνεισῆλθεν τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ (Jo. 18 : 15), συνείπετο αὐτῷ 
(Ac. 20 : 4), συνήργει τοῖς ἔργοις (Jas. 2 : 22), συνῆλθεν αὐτοῖς (Ac. 9: 
39), συνεσθίει αὐτοῖς (Lu. 15 : 2), συνευδοκεῖτε τοῖς ἔργοις (Lu. 11 : 48), 
συνευωχούμενοι ὑμῖν (2 Pet. 2:13), συνείχετο τῷ λόγῳ (Ac. 18:5), 
συνζήσομεν αὐτῷ (Ro. 6:8), συνζητεῖν αὐτῷ (Mk. 8:11), συνεζωο- 
ποίησεν τῷ Χριστῷ (Eph. 2:5), συνήδομαι τῷ νόμῳ (Ro. 7: 22), συν- 
ταφέντες αὐτῷ (Col. 2 : 12), συνεστῶτας αὐτῷ (Lu. 9 : 92), συγκαθήμενοι 
αὐτοῖς (Ac. 26:30), συνκακοπάθησον τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ (2 Tim. 1:8), 
συνκακουχεῖσθαι τῷ λαῷ (Heb. 11: 25), συνκατατεθειμένος τῇ βουλῇ (Lu. 
23 : 51), μὴ συνκεκερασμένους τῇ πίστει τοῖς ἀκούσασιν (Heb. 4 : 2, two 
examples of the instrumental), συνκοινωνεῖτε τοῖς ἔργοις (Eph. ὅ : 
11), συνκρίνοντες ἑαυτοὺς ἑαυτοῖς (2 Cor. 10:12), συνλαλοῦντες τῷ 
Ἰησοῦ (Mk. 9 : 4), συνμαρτυρεῖ τῷ πνεύματι (Ro. 8 : 16), συνοδεύοντες 
αὐτῷ (Ac. 9:7), συνομοροῦσα τῇ συναγωγῇ (Ac. 18:7), συνπαθῆσαι 
1 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 75. 
2 Considered peculiar by Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 114. 


530 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ταῖς ἀσθενείαις (Heb. 4:15), συνπαρόντες ἡμῖν (Ac. 25:24), ovw- 
ἐπέμψαμεν αὐτοῖς (2 Cor. 8:22), συνεπορεύοντο αὐτῷ (Lu. 7:11), 
συνσταυρωθέντος αὐτῷ (Jo. 19 : 32), συνστοιχεῖ τῇ νῦν ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ (Gal. 
4 : 25), μὴ συνσχηματίζεσθε τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ (Ro. 12:2), συντυχεῖν 
αὐτῷ (Lu. ὃ : 19), συνυπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ (Gal. 2:13), συνέχαιρον αὐτῇ 
(Lu. 1:58), συνχρῶνται Σαμαρείταις (Jo. 4:9), though χράομαι uses 
the strict instrumental usually; a rather long list surely, but one 
not in vain, if one gets a just idea of the N. T. usage. Some of 
these verbs occur frequently and some have πρός or μετά. 

(f) Wira Worps oF LIKENESS AND IDENTITY. We find this 
usage with several adjectives. Thus ὅμοιος ἀνθρώπῳ (Lu. 6 : 48) 
and always, save the accusative in Rev. 14:14 and in 1:13 
(true text). In Jo. 8:55 some MSS. actually have ὅμοιος ὑμῶν 
instead of ὑμῖν. Cf. our vulgar “the likes of you.” So also ἴσους 
ἡμῖν (Mt. 20:12) and ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν πίστιν (2 Pet. 1:1). ‘O αὐτός 
with the instrumental is found once only, ἕν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ τῇ ἐξυρημένῃ 
(1 Cor. 11:5). In 1 Th. 2:14 we find τὰ αὐτὰ καθῶς, and in Ph. 
1:30 τὸν αὐτὸν ἀγῶνα οἷον. Several verbs are used the same way. 
So ἔοικεν ἀνδρί (Jas. 1:23), τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς ὁμοιωθῆναι (Heb. 2:17), 
παρομοιάζετε τάφοις (Mt. 23 : 27), ἔπρεπεν αὐτῷ (Heb. 2:10). Some 
MSS. have ὁμοίως αὐτῇ in Mt. 22:39. In Rev. 4:3 ὅμοιος ὁράσει 
λίθῳ we have two instrumental examples. 

(g) Manner. It is expressed by the instrumental case. This, 
like the other uses of the case in the N. T., is in harmony with 
ancient usage,! not to say that of the κοινή. Some Ν. T. adverbs 
illustrate this usage well, like δημοσίᾳ (Ac. 16:37), εἰκῇ (1 Cor. 
15 : 2), ἰδίᾳ (1 Cor. 12:11), κρυφῇ (Eph. 5:12), λάθρᾳ (Mt. 2:7), 
πανοικεί (Ac. 16:34), πανπληθεί. (Lu. 28 : 18), πάντῃ (Ac. 24:3), 
πεζῇ (ΜΚ. 6 : 33), τάχα (Ro. 5:7). But the usage is abundant 
outside of adverbs, chiefly with verbs, but also with adjectives 
and even with substantives. Thus we find τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς (Eph. 
2:3) and Κύπριος τῷ γένει (Ac. 4 : 36; cf. also 18 : 2, ὀνόματι ᾿Ακύλαν, 
Ποντικὸν τῷ γένει). See also the participle τῷ ὄντι (Ro. 7: 23). Cf. 
also φύσει in Gal. 2:15 and τῷ προσώπῳ in Gal. 1:22. Here are 
some of the chief examples with verbs: χάριτι μετέχω (1 Cor. 10 : 30), 
προσευχομένη ἀκατακαλύπτῳ τῇ κεφαλῇ (1 Cor. 11:5), περιτμηθῆτε τῷ 
ἔθει (Ac. 15:1), τῇ προθέσει προσμένειν (Ac. 11:23), ὅτι παντὲ τρόπῳ, 
εἴτε προφάσει εἴτε ἀληθείᾳ, Χριστὸς καταγγέλλεται (Ph. 1:18, all 
three examples), ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳ προσώπῳ κατοπτριζόμενοι (2 Cor. 
3:18). Blass notes also ῥαπίσμασιν αὐτὸν ἔλαβον (Mk. 14 : 65) as a 
vulgarism which finds a parallel in a papyrus? of the first century 

1 K-G., 1, ps 435. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 118. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 531 


A.D., κονδύλοις ἔλαβεν. Cf. τῇ Bia, B.U.45 (ili/a.p.). But often μετά 
and the genitive (μετὰ Bias, Ac. 5 : 26), ἐν and the locative (ἐν δέκα 
χιλιάσιν, Lu. 14: 31), κατά and the accusative (Ac. 15:11) or 
the mere accusative (Mt. 23 : 37) occur rather than the instru- 
mental. There is one usage in the N. T. that has caused some 
trouble. It is called! ‘‘Hebraic”’ by some of the grammarians. 
The instances are rather numerous in the N. T., though nothing 
like so common as in the LXX.2. Conybeare and Stock quote Plato 
to show that it is, however, an idiom in accordance with the genius 
of the Greek language. Thus λόγῳ λέγειν, φεύγων φυγῇ, φύσει 
πεφυκυῖαν, etc. They call it the ‘cognate dative.” That will do if 
instrumental is inserted in the place of dative. Moulton* admits 
that this idiom, like the participle βλέποντες βλέψετε, IS an example 
of ‘‘translation Greek,” but thinks that a phrase like ἐξολεθρεῦσα 
οὐκ ἐξωλέθρευσαν (Josh. 17:13) is much more like the Hebrew 
infinitive absolute which is reproduced by this Greek instru- 
mental or participle. Blass‘ insists that the classical parallels 
γάμῳ γαμεῖν, φυγῇ φεύγειν are not true illustrations, but merely 
accidentally similar, an overrefinement in the great grammarian, 
I conceive. The Latin has the idiom also, like curro curriculo. 
Here are some of the important N.T. instances: ἀκοῇ ἀκούσετε (Mt. 
13:14), ἀναθέματι ἀνεθεματίσαμεν (Ac. 23:14), ἐνυπνίοις ἐνυπνιασθή- 
σονται (Ac. 2 : 17), ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα (Lu. 22 : 15), θανάτῳ τελευτάτω 
(Mt. 15 : 4), ὅρκῳ ὥμοσεν (Ac. 2 : 80), ἐξέστησαν ἐκστάσει μεγάλῃ (ΜΚ. 
δ: 42), παραγγελίᾳ παρηγγείλαμεν (Ac. 5: 28), προσευχῇ προσηύξατο 
ΝΠ Ἰ) χαρᾷ, χαίρει (Jo. 3:29; cf. 1 Pet. 1:8). Cf. also ση- 
μαίνων ποίῳ θανάτῳ ἤμελλεν ἀποθνήσκειν (Jo. 18:32) and σημαίνων 
ποίῳ θανάτῳ δοξάσει τὸν θεόν (Jo. 21:19), where the idiom seems 
more normal. Blass®> observes that this usage “intensifies the 
verb in so far as it indicates that the action is to be understood 
as taking place in the fullest sense.’”’? In Ro. ὃ : 24 we more likely 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 75. 

2 C. and §., p. 60 f. 

3 Prol., p. 75 f. Cf. θάνον θανάτῳ in Homer. 

ears of N. 1. ΟΦ p. 119. 4 

5 Ib. Thack. (Jour. of Theol. Stu., July, 1908, p. 598 f.) shows that in 
the Pentateuch the Hebrew infinitive absolute was more frequently rendered 
by the instr. case, while in the Books of Samuel and Kings the participle 
is the more usual. In the LXX as a whole the two methods are about equal. 
On p. 601 he observes that the N. T. has no ex. of the part. so used except in 
O. T. quotations, while several instances of the instr. occur apart from quota- 
ΠΟΤ τὴ 11|. 2..:15; 0ο. 5.:29; Ac. 4:17; 5: 28723 12; Jas. 5:17. See 
also Thack., Gr., p. 48. 


532 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


have the means than the manner. Cf. ἀρκεῖσθε τοῖς ὀψωνίοις in 
Lu. 3:14. ᾿ 

(h) DEGREE OF DIFFERENCE (Measure kin to idea of man- 
ner). The accusative is sometimes used here also with the com- 
parative, as πολὺ μᾶλλον (Heb. 12:9). But in Lu. 18:39 we have 
πολλῷ μᾶλλον (cf. Mt. 6:30). Cf. πολλῷ μᾶλλον, P. Par. 26 (ii/B.c.). 
In Ph. 1:23 we find the instrumental with the double compara- 
tive πολλῷ μᾶλλον κρεῖσσον. In particular observe τοσούτῳ μᾶλλον 
ὅσῳ βλέπετε (Heb. 10:25) which corresponds to the English idiom 
“the more, the less’ in “‘the more one learns, the humbler he 
grows.” As a matter of fact the English ‘‘the” here is instru- 
mental also, as is seen in the Anglo-Saxon dy. Cf. also τοσούτῳ 
κρείττων (Heb. 1:4). 

(ὃ Cause. The instrumental may be used also to express the 
idea of cause, motive or occasion. This notion of ground wavers 
between the idea of association and means. Here are some illus- 
trations: ἐγὼ δὲ λιμῷ ὧδε ἀπόλλυμαι (Lu. 15:17), ἵνα σταυρῷ τοῦ 
Χριστοῦ μὴ διώκωνται (Gal. 6 : 12), λύπῃ καταποθῇ (2 Cor. 2: 7), τινὲς 
δὲ τῇ συνηθείᾳ ἐσθίουσιν (1 Cor. 8:7), οὐ διεκρίθη τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ ἀλλὰ 
ἐνεδυναμώθη τῇ πίστει (Ro. 4: 20), τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ ἐξεκλάσθησαν (Ro. 11: 20), 
ἠλεήθητε τῇ τούτων ἀπειθίᾳ (Ro. 11 : 30), τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέει ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ 
νῦν ἐλεηθῶσιν (11:31), μὴ ξενίζεσθε τῇ ἐν ὑμῖν πυρώσει (1 Pet. 4 : 12), 
τοιαύταις γὰρ θυσίαις εὐαρεστεῖται (Heb. 18 : 16), τῷ μὴ εὑρεῖν με Τίτον 
(2 Cor. 2:18), εὐδοκήσαντες τῇ ἀδικίᾳ (2 Th. 2:12). 1η1 Cor. 9: 
7 we have τίς στρατεύεται ἰδίοις ὀψωνίοις ποτέ; Cf. τῇ ὑπερβολῇ (2 Cor. 
12:7). But some verbs in the N. T. prefer a preposition for this 
idea, but not with the instrumental case. Thus ἠγαλλίασεν ἐπὶ 
τῷ θεῷ (Lu. 1:47), ἐξεπλήσσοντο ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ (Mt. 7: 28), ἐν σοὶ 
εὐδόκησα (Mk. 1:11), εὐφραίνοντο ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις (Ac. 7:41). With 
θαυμάζω we find ἐν (Lu. 1: 21), ἐπί (Lu. 4 : 22), περί (Lu. 2 : 18), 
dua (Rev. 17: 7), not to mention ei (1 Jo. 3:13), é7e (Lu. 11: 38).! 

(7) Means. But no usage of this case is more common than 
that of means. With things sometimes we call it means, with 
persons agent, though more often the agent is expressed by 
ὑπό with genitive-ablative (cf. ab with the ablative in Latin). 
There is no essential difference in the root-idea. Donaldson (New 
Cratylus, Ὁ. 439) calls it the “implementive case.’”? This is, of 
course, an idiom found with verbs. Note especially χράομαι (cf. 
Latin wor with instrumental, not ablative), τῷ Παύλῳ χρησάμενος 
(Ac. 27:3), πολλῇ παρρησίᾳ χρὠμεθα (2 Cor. 3:12), ἐάν τις αὐτῷ 


1 Cf. Blass, Gr. οἱ N. T. Gk., p. 118. Cf. for the pap. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 
1901, p. 438. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 533 


νομίμως χρῆται (1 Tim. 1:8), in which examples we have both 
thing and person.! Cf. 1 Cor. 9:12, 15, etc. But see accusative 
in 1 Cor. 7:31. Among the many examples we can only select 
the most striking. Thus μή ποτε ἴδωσιν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς (Mt. 13 : 15), 
ἐξέβαλεν τὰ πνεύματα λόγῳ (Mt. 8:16), πέδαις καὶ ἁλύσεσι δεδέσθαι 
(Mk. 5: 4), ψώχοντες ταῖς χερσίν (Lu. 6:1), ταῖς θριξὶν ἐξέμασσεν 
(Lu. 7:38), ἤλειφεν τῷ μύρῳ (2b.), ὕπνῳ (Lu. 9:32), φιλήματι πα- 
ραδίδως (Lu. 22 : 48), ταῖς μαγίαις ἐξεστακέναι αὐτούς (Ac. 8:11), 
ἔχρισεν αὐτὸν πνεύματι καὶ δυνάμει (Ac. 10:38), ἀνεῖλεν ᾿Ιάκωβον 
μαχαίρῃ (Ac. 12 : 2), δεδάμασται τῇ φύσει (Jas. 8. : 7), συναπήχθη αὐτῶν 
τῇ ὑποκρίσει (Gal. 2:13), πεπληρωμένους πάσῃ ἀδικίᾳ, πονηρίᾳ, κτλ. 
(Ro. 1:29), χάἀριτί ἐστε σεσωσμένοι (Ἰρἢ. 2:5, 8), μὴ μεθύσκεσθε 
οἴνῳ (Eph. ὅ : 18), ῤῥεραντισμένον αἵματι (Rev. 19 : 13), πνεύματι (Ro. 
8 : 14), οὐ φθαρτοῖς, ἀργυρίῳ ἢ χρυσίῳ, ἐλυτρώθητε, ἀλλὰ τιμίῳ αἵματι 
(1 Pet. 1:18f.), ᾧ τις ἥττηται (2 Pet. 2:19), ἐσφραγίσθητε τῷ 
πνεύματι (Eph. 1:18), πηλίκοις ὑμῖν γράμμασιν ἔγραψα τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί 
(Gal. 6:11, one dative and two instrumental cases). Cf. κατα- 
κρινοῦσιν αὐτὸν θανάτῳ (Mk. 10: 38, but θανάτου in D, and in Mt. 
20:18 & has εἰς θάνατον). See the frequent use of πίστει in Heb. 
11, which is more than mere manner, though in verse 13 we have 
κατὰ πίστιν. Moulton (Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901) cites δήλωσον ἢ πλοίῳ 
ἐξέρχει ἢ ὄνῳ, O.P. 112 (iii/iv a.p.). Cf. Jo. 19:39 f., ὀθονίοις 
μετὰ τῶν ἀρωμάτων for proximity of μετά to the instrumental. 
Moulton (Prol., p. 76) notes “the remarkable instrumental in 
Ep. Diogn. 7, ᾧ τοὺς οὐρανοὺς ἔκτισεν. Besides some examples are 
open to doubt. Thus κατακαύσει πυρὶ ἀσβέστῳ (Mt. 3:12) may 
be either locative or instrumental. The same might be true of 
τῷ πλοιαρίῳ ἦλθον (Jo. 21:8) and ἐβάπτισεν ὕδατι (Ac. 1:5), though 
the locative is pretty clearly right here. Then again in Ac. 22: 
25, προέτειναν τοῖς ἱμᾶσιν, we have either the instrumental or the 
dative. But in 2 Pet. 1:3 ἰδίᾳ δόξῃ καὶ ἀρετῇ (marg. in W. H.) 
are clearly instrumental, not dative. In Ro. 8: 24, τῇ ἐλπίδι 
ἐσώθημεν, we have either the modal instrumental or the instru- 
mental of means. Cf. also 1 Cor. 14:15. Blass? perhaps over- 
emphasizes the influence of the Heb. 2 on the N. T. Greek in what 
is called the instrumental use of é (the case with é is always 
locative, historically considered). This is a classic idiom* and 
the papyri give numerous illustrations’ of it, though the Heb. 


1 In Herod. we find a double instr. with χρῆσθαι. Cf. Helbing, Der Instru- 
mental in Herod., 1900, p. 8. at Cr Open: Gk... p17, 

8. K.-G., II, p. 464 f. 

4 Moulton, Prol., pp. 76, 104; Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 153. 


534 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


2 did make it more frequent in the LXX. Some of the uses 
of ἐν and locative, like ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀπολοῦνται (Mt. 26 : 52), πολεμήσω 
ἐν τῇ ῥομφαίᾳ (Rev. 2 : 16), ἐν φόνῳ paxaipns ἀπέθανον (Heb. 11: 37), 
are fairly equivalent to the pure instrumental case, as ἀνεῖλεν μα- 
χαίρῃ (Ac. 12: 2), πεσοῦνται στόματι μαχαίρης (Lu. 21: 24). But others 
without ἐν in Blass’ list are more debatable and may be construed 
as merely locatives after all, as seen above. Besides the exam- 
ples already mentioned, πυρὶ ἁλισθήσεται (Mk. 9 : 49) may be com- 
pared with ἐν τίνι αὐτὸ ἀρτύσετε (9 : 50) and ev rim ἁλισθήσεται (Mt. 
5:13). See further Mt. 7:2 and δὼ ῥάβδῳ ἔλθω (1 Cor. 4: 21) 
which stands over against ἐν ἀγάπῃ πνεὐματί τε πραὕτητος. 

Some doubt remains as to whether the instrumental case is 
used for the agent. In the Sanskrit! the instrumental is a common 
idiom with a perfect passive verb or participle. But the Latin 
uses the dative in such an example as is seen by mzhi, not me. 
Most of the grammarians take the Greek passive perfect and verbal 
as the Latin with the dative.2- But Delbriick® recognises the doubt 
in the matter. The one example in the N. T. is in Lu. 28 : 15, 
οὐδὲν ἄξιον θανάτου ἐστὶν πεπραγμένον αὐτῷ. D here reads ἐν αὐτῷ and 
Blass‘ suggests that the right reading is without πεπραγμένον as in 
Ac. 25:5. It is possible also that in 2 Pet. 2:19, @ τις ἥττηται, we 
have person, not thing, of whom (Am. St. V), not of what. Cf. 
also Jas. 3:7. One may mention here also as a possible instru- 
mental κἀγὼ εὑρεθῶ ὑμῖν (2 Cor. 12 : 20), ws ἔγνώσθη αὐτοῖς (Lu. 24: 
35), ὥφθη ἀγγέλοις (1 Tim. 3:16), but these are most probably 
true datives. The usual way of expressing the agent in the N. T. 
is ὑπό for the direct agent and διά for the intermediate agent, as 
in Mt. 1:22. But other prepositions are also used, like azo (Ac. 
2:22). ἐκ (Jo. 113) ἐν (Colelini7); arapartJo. 1G) ον 
real distinction between ὑπό and ἐν in Ro. 12: 21. 

(k) Wirth Preposirions. The Greek uses the instrumental 
with only two prepositions ἅμα and σύν, both with the comitative 
idea. In the Cypriotic Greek we have σὺν τύχα, the distinctive 
instrumental ending. Cf. the Sanskrit sam with the instrumental 
and the Latin cwm. There is only one instance of ἅμα in the N. T. 
with the instrumental, ἅμα αὐτοῖς (Mt. 13:29), but note ἅμα σὺν 
αὐτοῖς (1 Th. 4:17; cf. also 5:10). Σύν appears chiefly in Luke’s 


1 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 95. 

2 K.-G., I, p. 422; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 400 f.; Meisterh., p. 210, for inscr. 
(Attic); Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 344; Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 98 f., considers it a 
true dative. 3 Vergl. Synt., I, p. 300. But cf. pp. 184, 297. 

“Groot N; (Gk pelt, 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 535 


writings, as σὺν αὐτῇ (Lu. 1:56). But in composition σύν is very 
common, as has already been shown. So συνχαίρετέ μοι (Ph. 
2,18), 

XII. The Dative (True) Case (ἡ δοτικὴ πτῶσις). 

(a) SyNcrRETISM. That of the locative, instrumental and dative 
cases has not advanced so far in Greek as has that between 
the genitive and the ablative. Monro! thinks that “distinct 
forms for these three cases survived down to a comparatively 
late period in Greek itself.’ He rightly conceives that it is not 
difficult, as a rule, to distinguish the three cases in usage. Brug- 
mann? gives various examples of how the three cases made contri- 
bution to the common endings for the final blending. 

(b) THE Decay oF THE Dative. But in modern Greek this 
syncretistic combination has vanished in the vernacular. Moul- 
ton* can properly speak of the ‘decay of the dative,” a decay that 
applies for the modern Greek to the locative and instrumental also. 
In the Sanskrit (Lanman) the dative, after the ablative, was the 
most infrequent case. The modern Greek simply uses εἰς and 
accusative for the usual dative (and locative) ideas and μέ (μετά) 
with accusative for the instrumental. We see an approach to this 
use of eis in the N. T., ἐλεημοσύνας ποιήσων eis τὸ ἔθνος μου (Ac. 24 : 17), 
τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἠθέτησαν εἰς ἑαυτούς (Lu. 7:30). So eis ὑμᾶς (1 
Pet. 1:4). Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 213) is correct in refusing 
to consider eis with κηρύσσω or εὐαγγελίζομαι (Mk. 13:10; Lu. 24 : 
47; 1 Pet. 1 : 25) as at all out of the way. The pregnant idea is in 
Mk. 8:19 and Ro. 8:18. Eis is found also with ἔνοχος (Mt. 5: 
22), εὔθετος (Lu 14 : 35), εὔχρηστος (2 Tim. 4 : 11), but ὠφέλιμος with 
πρός (1 Tim. 4:8). Only in the most illiterate papyri is the decay 
of the dative seen, as in τίνι λόγου, N.P. 47 (iii/a.p.), and in the 
late inscrs. like ὁ βοηθῶν ὑμῶν, J. H.S., XTX, 14. Cf. Moulton, Cl. 
Rev., Apr., 1904. Per contra note ἐπιμελήθ[ητ]. τῷ παιδίῳ, P. Oxy. 
744 (i/B.c.). Leaving out ἐν, the locative, instrumental and da- 
tive show a contraction in the N. T. as compared with the earlier 
Greek.t But even in the N. T. ““ἐν is considerably more than 
a match for eis,’”’ yet the vernacular revived and intensified the 
old identity of ἐν and εἰς seen in the early dialects.> Hatzidakis® 
shows how this tendency increased in the later Greek till εἰς tri- 
umphed over ἐν in the modern Greek. But even in the N. T. it 
is often impossible to insist on the idea of motion or extension in 

1 Hom. Gr., p. 97 f. 4 Tb. 


2 Griech. Gr., pp. 226 ff. . S Blass τ OL Nal. Gkiip.L22. 
Pe Prol:.; p. 62. 6 Hinl., p. 210f. 


536 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


els, aS 6 dp els τὸν κόλπον (JO. 1: 18), ὁ εἰς τὸν ἀγρόν (Mk. 13: 16). Cf. 
τοῖς εἰς τὸν οἶκον (Lu. 9:61). Moulton! cites from D ἐν as equiva- 
lent to εἰς in Acts 7:12; 8:23. One may compare the disappear- 
ance of the locative with ὑπό and the use of the accusative for both 
motion and rest,? whereas in Appian and Herodian (Atticists) the 
locative is in the lead.’ Cf. the disappearance of the dative forms 
in English save in the pronouns him, whom, etc. Even Wyclif 
had ‘“‘believe ye to the gospel” (Mk. 1:15). 

(c) Tur Inna or THE Dative. It is that of personal interest. 
It is sometimes used of things, but of things personified.t Apol- 
lonios Dyscolos calls the dative the case of περιποίησις. The accu- 
sative, genitive and dative are all cases of inner relations,® but the 
dative has a distinctive personal touch not true of the others. The 
dative is not a local case. There was originally no idea of place 
in it.6 It is thus a purely grammatical case (rein grammatisch). 
Even ἔρχομαί σοι (Rev. 2 : 16) is used of a person, not place. Cf. 
ἔρχεταί σοι (Mt. 21:5, from the LXX) and ἐλθέ wo, P. Par. 51 
(Β.α. 160). But in physical relations the dative approaches the 
accusative in idea.’ Thus we find the dative of place in Heb. 12: 
22, προσεληλύθατε Σιὼν ὄρει καὶ πόλει θεοῦ ζῶντος (cf. 12:18) and 
ἐγγίζοντι τῇ Δαμασκῷ (Λαο. 22 :6). Cf. ἤγγισεν τῇ πύλῃ (Lu. 7: 12). 
It is not used for the notion of time. 

(d) THe Dative witn Supstantives. I am not here insisting 
that the dative was used first with substantives rather than with 
verbs,® but only that the dative has often a looser relation to the 
verb than the accusative or the genitive.’ It is more common to 
have the verb without the dative than without the accusative or 
genitive (Brug., 7b.). This is seen also in the common use of the 
dative as the indirect object of verbs that have other cases and in 
the use of the dative with substantives somewhat after the manner 
of the genitive. Not all substantives admit of this idiom, it is 
true, but only those that convey distinctly personal relations. 
But some of these substantives are allied to verbs that use the 
dative. So εὐχαριστιῶν τῷ θεῷ (2 Cor. 9 : 12), θλίψιν τῇ σαρκί (1 Cor. 
7: 28), ἄνεσιν τῷ πνεύματί μου (2 Cor. 2:13), σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί (2 Cor. 

pie et 20) Bad ats ἘΠ) 0. 

8. Cf. Helbing, Die Prip. bei Herod., p. 22. Cf. Moulton, Prol., pp. 63, 107. 

4 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 98. 

6 Wundt, Vélkerpsych., 1. Bd., Tl. II, p. 126. 

6 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 185. But see E. W. Hopkins, Trans. Am. 
Hist. Assoc., XX XVII, pp. 87 ff. 

7 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 95. 

8 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 277. 9 Brug., Griech Gr., p. 399. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 537 


12:7), ἀνάπαυσιν ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑμῶν (Mt. 11:29), εὐωδία τῷ θεῷ 
(2 Cor. 2:15), εἰς ταφὴν τοῖς ξένοις (Mt. 27: 7), rots ἀπολλυμένοις 
μωρία (1 Cor. 1:18). Cf. Lu. 5:14. With some of these ex- 
amples verbs occur, but the dative is not here due to the verb. 
Some of them are in the predicate also, as χάρις τῷ θεῷ (Ro. 7: 
25), with which compare marg. εὐχαριστῶ. See Lu. 10:5. Cf. 
τοῖς ἀσθενέσιν (1 Cor. 8:9). So in 1 Cor. 9:2, εἰ ἄλλοις οὐκ εἰμὶ 
ἀπόστολος, ἀλλά ye ὑμῖν εἰμί, the dative is not due to εἰμί. Cf. in 
next verse ἡ ἐμὴ ἀπολογία Tots ἐμὲ avaxpivovow. Cf. also αὐτοῖς in 
Ph. 1:28. So νόμος ἑαυτοῖς (Ro. 2:14), ἐμοὶ θάνατος (Ro. 7 : 13), 
and, not to multiply examples, τοῦτό μοι καρπὸς ἔργου (Ph. 1 : 22), 
ποτ ταῦ pou (2 Cor. 11228). Cf. Ro. 1:14;°8 312: In 1°Cor. 
4 : ὃ both the dative and εἰς and accusative occur, but properly so, 
ἐμοὶ δὲ εἰς ἐλάχιστόν ἐστιν. Cf.1 Cor. 14: 22 for the same thing. The 
dative due to attraction of the relative is seen in ois Lu. 9 : 48. 

(e) With ApsEctivES. This dative occurs naturally. These 
adjectives and verbals, like the substantives, have a distinctly 
personal flavour. Here are the most striking examples: ἀπειθὴς τῇ 
οὐρανίῳ ὀπτασίᾳ (Ac. 26:19), ἀρεστὰ αὐτῷ (Jo. 8 : 29), ἀρκετὸν τῷ 
μαθητῇ (Mt. 10:25), ἄσπιλοι καὶ ἀμώμητοι αὐτῷ (2 Pet. 8 : 14), 
ἀστεῖος τῷ θεῷ (Ac. 7: 20), γνωστὸς τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ (Jo. 18:15), δοῦλα 
τῇ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ (Ro. 6:19), δυνατὰ τῷ θεῷ (2 Cor. 10 : 4), ἐλεύθεροι τῇ 
δικαιοσύνῃ (Ro. 6: 20), ἐμφανῆ ---ἡμῖν (Ac. 10:40), ἔνοχος ἔσται τῷ συνε- 
δρίῳ (Mt. 5 : 22), τὸ εὔσχημον καὶ εὐπάρεδρον τῷ κυρίῳ (1 Cor. 7:35), 
ἱκανὸν τῷ τοιούτῳ (2 Cor. 2 : 6), καλόν σοί ἐστιν (Mt. 18 : 8), μονογενὴς 
τῇ μητρί (Lu. 7: 12), νεκροὺς τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ (Ro. 6:11), πιστὴν τῷ κυρίῳ 
(Ac. 16:15), πτωχοὺς τῷ κόσμῳ (Jas. 2:5), σωτήριος πᾶσιν (Tit. 
2:11), ᾧ . . . ὑπήκοοι (Ac. 7:39), φανερὸν ἔγένετο τῷ Φαραώ (Ac. 
7:13), ὄντες αὐτῷ φίλοι (Ac. 19:31), ὠφέλιμα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις (Tit. 
3:8). Wellhausen (Hinl., p. 33 f.) calls ἔνοχος τῷ “ungriechisch.”’ 
But note ἔνοχος ἔστω τοῖς ἴσοις ἐπιτε[ί[μοις, P. Oxy. 275 (a.p. 66). 
The participle in Lu. 4:16 (Ac. 17: 2) almost deserves to be classed 
with the adjectives in this connection, τὸ εἰωθὸς αὐτῷ. 

(f) WirH ADVERBS AND Prepositions. The dative is found 
a few times with adverbs. Thus ὡς ὁσίως καὶ δικαίως καὶ ἀμέμπτως 
ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἔγενήθημεν (1 Th. 2:10), oval τῷ κόσμῳ (Mt. 
18 : 7) and so frequently (but accusative in Rev. 8:13; 12 : 12). 
Blass! compares Latin vae mihi and vae me. Brugmann? indeed 
considers καταί, mapai, πάλαι, χαμαί all to be dative forms. - But, 
while this is true, the dative is not used with prepositions in the 


1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 112. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 153, finds ἀκολούθως 
with dat. in pap. 2 (Griech. Gr., pp. 226; 228. 


538 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Sanskrit! and not certainly in the Greek.2? The locative is very 
common with prepositions, and the instrumental appears with two, 
but the dative is doubtful. In reality this statement must be 
modified a bit, for éyyts has the dative twice in-the N. T. (Ac. 
9:38), τῇ ᾿Ιόππῃ; ᾧ ἐγγύς (Ac. 27:8), though the genitive is the 
usual case employed. Cf. ἐγγίζω with dative, Ac. 9:3; 10:9; Jas. 
4:8. Brugmann® admits the dative with ἀντίον, ἐναντίον, πλησίον 
in the older Greek, though no N. T. examples occur. Delbriick 
(Grundl., p. 180) finds the dative with ἐπί. 

᾿ (0) WitH Vrerss. Here the dative finds its most extensive use. 

1. Indirect Object. Perhaps the earliest use. Certainly it re- 
mains the one most commonly met. Indeed there are few transi- 
tive verbs that may not use this dative of the indirect object. In 
the passive of these verbs the dative is retained. Some representa- 
tive illustrations are here given. “Ades αὐτῷ καὶ τὸ ἱμάτιον (Mt. 5: 
40), ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν (Mt. 6:12), ἀνεῴχθησαν αὐτῷ (marg.) 
οἱ οὐρανοί (Mt. ὃ : 16), δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσίν (Mt. 7:6), δοθῆναι 
τοῖς πτωχοῖς (Mk. 14:5), ὑμῖν πρῶτον... ἀπέστειλεν (Ac. 3 : 26), 
ἀπειλησώμεθα αὐτοῖς μηκέτι λαλεῖν (Ac. 4:17), ἃ δὲ γράφω ὑμῖν (Gal. 
1 : 20), ἐπέβαλον αὐτοῖς τὰς χεῖρας (Ac. 4:3), λέγει αὐτοῖς ὅτι (Mk. 
14 : 27), ὑμῖν δείξει ἀνάγαιον (ΜΚ. 14:15), ἐρρέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις (Mt. 
5 : 21), προσέφερον αὐτῷ παιδία (ΜΚ. 10 : 18), εὐαγγελίζομαι ὑμῖν χαρὰν 
μεγάλην (Lu. 2 : 10), ὥφειλεν αὐτῷ ἑκατὸν δηνάρια (Mt. 18 : 28), πάντα 
ἀποδώσω σοι (Mt. 18 : 26), θλίψιν ἐγείρειν τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου (Ph. 1:17), 
ποιήσω ὧδε τρεῖς σκηνάς, σοὶ μίαν κτλ. (Mt. 17: 4), ἣν αὐτὸς ἐπηγγείλατο 
ἡμῖν (1 Jo. 2 : 25). An example like ἐπεῖχεν αὐτοῖς (Ac. 3 : 5) is really 
the indirect object. Cf. Ac. 26:27. In 2 Cor. 12:7, ἐδόθη μοὶ 
σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί, the μοι is indirect object and σαρκί may be either 
dative of advantage or locative. 

2. Datiwus Commodi vel Incommodi. The so-called dative of 
advantage or disadvantage does not differ very greatly from the 
indirect object. A good example is ἔρχομαί σοι (Rev. 2:5, 16). 
Moulton (Prol., p. 245) cites Auschylus (P.V. 358), ἀλλ᾽ ἦλθεν αὐτῷ 
Ζηνὸς ἄγρυπνον βέλος. It is indeed rather more loosely connected 
at times and varies more in the resultant idea. Thus in μαρτυρεῖτε 
ἑαυτοῖς ὅτι (Mt. 23 : 31) we have to translate ‘against yourselves,’ 
though, of course, the dative does not mean ‘against’ any more 
than it means ‘for’ or ‘in behalf of.’ The personal relation is 
expressed by the case and it may be favourable or unfavourable. 

1 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 96. 


2 Giles, Man., etc., p. 329, but see Prepositions (ch. XIII). 
ὃ. Griech. Gr., p. 455. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 539 


Indeed, nowhere does the personal aspect of the dative come out 
more clearly than in this usage. Thus πάντα τὰ γεγραμμένα — τῷ 
υἱῷ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (Lu. 18:31), γραμματεὺς μαθητευθεὶς τῇ βασιλείᾳ 
(Mt. 18 : 52), νύμφην κεκοσμημένην τῷ ἀνδρί (Rev. 21 : 2), ἀναπληροῦται 
αὐτοῖς (Mt. 18 : 14), δικαίῳ νόμος οὐ κεῖται (1 Tim. 1:9; note long list 
of datives), ἀνασταυροῦντας ἑαυτοῖς τὸν υἱόν (Heb. 6 : 6), ᾧ σὺ μεμαρ- 
τύρηκας (Jo. 8 : 26), ἔκρινα ἐμαυτῷ τοῦτο (2 Cor. 2:1), μὴ μεριμνᾶτε τῇ 
ψυχῇ (Mt. 6: 25) ἀσεβέσιν τεθεικώς (2 Pet. 2 : 6), εἴτε ἐξέστημεν, θεῷ" 
εἴτε σωφρονοῦμεν, ὑμῖν (2 Cor. 5:18), ἐνεῖχεν αὐτῷ (Mk. 6:19). 
Blass! notes how frequent this idiom is in Paul’s Epistles, especially 
in the vehement passages. Thus μηκέτι ἑαυτοῖς ζῶσιν (2 Cor. 5 : 15), 
ἵνα θεῷ ζήσω (Gal. 2:19), ἀπεθάνομεν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ (Ro. 6 : 2; οἵ. 6:10 1.), 
ἐθανατώθητε τῷ νόμῳ --- εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι ὑμᾶς ἑτέρῳ (Ro. 7: 4), εὑρέθη 
μοι (Ro. 7:10), τῷ ἰδίῳ κυρίῳ στήκει ἢ πίπτει (Ro. 14:4), κυρίῳ 
ἐσθίει (Ro. 14 : 6), ἑαυτῷ ζῇ --- ἑαυτῷ ἀποθνήσκει (verse 7). Cf. ἐμοί in 
Ro. 7:21, ὑμῖν in 2 Cor. 12 : 20 and μοι with ἐγένετο in Ac. 22 : 6. 
A good example is ἀπομασσόμεθα ὑμῖν, Lu. 10:11. See ἐμαυτῷ in 2 
Cor. 2:1 and τῷ πνεύματι (2:13). Cf. βαστάζων αὑτῷ τὸν σταυρὸν 
(00.109 :17). In Mk. 10:33 note also the other datives, either 
the indirect object or the direct object like ἐμπαίζουσιν αὐτῷ. 
Cf. also πᾶσιν and τοῖς ’Iovéaioes in 1 Cor. 9:19f. In this con- 
nection one may note also ri μοι τὸ ὄφελος (1 Cor. 18 : 32), 
τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί (Lu. 4:34). The intense personal relation is also 
manifest in the examples in 1 Cor. 1:23 f. Cf. also 1:18, 30. 
Prof. Burkitt (Jour. of Theol. Stud., July, 1912) interprets τί ἐμοὶ 
καὶ σοί (Jo. 2:4) to mean ‘What is it to me and thee?’ That 
is, ‘What have we to do with that?’ In a word, ‘Never mind!’ 
like the modern Egyptian md ‘alzsh in colloquial language. The 
so-called ethical dative (cf. co. in Mt. 18:17) belongs here. A 
very simple example is συμφέρει yap σοι (Mt. 5:29). Moulton? 
cites a papyrus example for ἔρχομαί σοι (Rev. 2: 5, 16), though from 
an illiterate document. For μέλει see Ac. 18:17; 1 Pet. 5: 7. 

3. Direct Object. Then again the dative is often the direct 
object of transitive verbs. These verbs may be simple or com- 
pound, but they all emphasize the close personal relation like 
trust, distrust, envy, please, satisfy, serve, etc. Some of them vary 
in construction, taking now the dative, now the accusative, now 


ΤΟΥ N; ΤΟ ΚΕ. 111, 

2 Prol., p. 75. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 113, calls this the ethical dative. 
The so-called dative of “majesty” Blass considers a Hebraism. He compares 
ἀστεῖος τῷ θεῷ With πόλις μεγάλη τῷ θεῷ (Jonah, 3:3), ‘a very great city.’ But 
it is doubtful if the N. T. follows the LXX here. 


540 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


a preposition. But this is all natural enough. Thus καὶ ἠπίστουν 
αὐταῖς (Lu. 24:11), ἀπειθῶν τῷ υἱῷ (Jo. 8 : 36), ἐπείθοντο αὐτῷ (Ac. 
5 : 36), ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ (ΜΚ. 1 : 27). Once we find the dative with 
πέποιθα (Ph. 1 : 14), but elsewhere prepositions, as ἐν (2 Th. 3: 4), 
eis (Gal. 5:10), ἐπί (Lu. 18:9). In particular πιστεύω calls for a 
word. Deissmann! has made an exhaustive study of the subject, 
and Moulton? has given a clear summary of results. This verb 
may be used absolutely (Jo. 20 : 31) or with an object clause (.) 
in the sense of believe. -Moreover, it often means entrust (Gal. 
2:7). Leaving out these uses Moulton finds that πιστεύω occurs 
with the dative 39 times and always in the sense of believe or trust 
(especially in John, as Jo. 5 : 46, εἰ yap ἐπιστεύετε Μωυσεῖ ἐπιστεύετε 
ἂν ἐμοί). It is rather remarkable that ἐν occurs only once (Mk. 
1:15, πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ) explained by Deissmann® as mean- 
ing ‘in the sphere of,’ to which Moulton agrees. In Eph. 1:13 
ἐν more properly belongs to ἐσφραγίσθητε. The LXX uses ἐν rarely 
with πιστεύω and no other preposition. But in the N. T. εἰς 
occurs 45 times (37 times in John’s Gospel and 1 Jo.) while ἐπί ap- 
pears 6 times with the locative and 7 with the accusative. Moul- 
ton objects to overrefining here between εἰς and ἐπί (at most like 
believe in and believe on). So also as to accusative and locative 
with ἐπί. What he does properly accent is the use of these two 
prepositions by the Christian writers to show the difference be- 
tween mere belief (dative with πιστεύω) and personal trust (εἰς and 
ἐπί). This mystic union received a further development in Paul’s 
frequent ἐν Χριστῷ. The relation between ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι and ἐπὶ 
τῷ ὀνόματι is parallel. 

We must note other groups with the dative, like verbs of serving. 
Thus διηκόνουν αὐτῷ (Mt. 4:11), τῷ vot δουλεύω νόμῳ θεοῦ (Ro. 
7:25, both instrumental and dative here), λατρεύειν αὐτῷ (Lu. 1: 
74), ὑπηρετεῖν αὐτῷ (Ac. 24 : 23). But in Ph. 3:3 we have the 
instrumental with λατρεύω, and προσκυνξέω uses either the dative 
(Mt. 2: 2) or the accusative (Jo. 4 : 23), not to mention ἐνώπιον 
(Lu. 4:7). The dative with δουλόω in 1 Cor. 9 : 19 is merely the 
indirect object. 

Another convenient group is verbs to please, to suffice, to be 
envious, angry, etc. Thus θεῷ ἀρέσαι (Ro. 8 : 8), ἐνεβριμῶντο αὐτῇ 


1 In Christo, p. 46f. My friend, Prof. Walter Petersen, of Lindsborg, 
Kan., does not believe that the dative is ever the direct object of a verb, and 
Dr. W. O. Carver agrees with him: 

2 Prol., p. 67 f. 3 In Christo, p. 46 f. 

4 Moulton, Prol., p. 68; Heitmiiller, Im Namen Jesu, I, ch. i. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 541 


(Mk. 14 : 5), μετριοπαθεῖν rots ἀγνοοῦσιν (Heb. 5 : 2), ὁ ὀργιζόμενος τῷ 
ἀδελφῷ (Mt. 5: 22), ἀρκεῖ σοι (2 Cor. 12:9), ἀλλήλοις φθονοῦντες 
(Gal. 5 : 26, accusative, margin of W. H.). 

Once more, we may note verbs meaning to thank, to blame, to 
enjoy, etc. So εὐχαριστῶ σοι (Jo. 11:41), ἐγκαλείτωσαν ἀλλήλοις 
(Ac. 19 : 88), ἐπετίμησεν αὐτοῖς (Mt. 12:16), τοῖς ἀνέμοις ἐπιτάσσει 
(Lu. ὃ : 25). So also προσέταξεν αὐτῷ (Mt. 1 : 24), διεστέλλετο αὐτοῖς 
(Mk. 8 : 15), ἐμοὶ χολᾶτε (Jo. 7:23). But κελεύω has accusative, 
though the dative occurs in the papyri. 

There remain verbs meaning to confess, to lie, to help, to shine, 
etc. Thus we find ὁμολογούντων τῷ ὀνόματι (Heb. 13:15)! and 
ἀνθωμολογεῖτο τῷ θεῷ (Lu. 2:38), οὐκ ἐψεύσω ἀνθρώποις (Ac. 5:4), 
βοήθει μοι (Mt. 15:25, but ὠφελέω has accusative), ἵνα φαίνωσιν 
αὐτῇ (Rev. 21 : 29). In the later κοινή we find βοηθέω with accusa- 
tive or genitive (Radermacher, N. 7. Gr., p. 110). Cf. also τῷ 
θεῷ προσεύχεσθαι (1 Cor. 11:18), ᾧ ἀντίστητε (1 Pet. 5:9). CF. 
two datives in Lu. 11:4. 

4. The Dative with Intransitive Verbs. However, this is not a 
point that it is always easy to decide, for in ἀρκεῖ σοι (2 Cor. 12: 
9) one is not sure where to place it. See above. Cf. Lu. 3: 14. 
We are so prone to read the English into the Greek. The same 
remark applies in a way to τί ὑμῖν δοκεῖ (Mt. 18 : 12), πρέπει ἁγίοις 
(Eph. 5:3). But there is no doubt about ri ἐγένετο αὐτῷ (Ac. 
7:40), αὐτῷ συμβαίνειν (Mk. 10 : 32), and the passive constructions 
like ἀπολείπεται σαββατισμὸς τῷ λαῷ (perhaps dativus commodi, 
Heb. 4 : 9), ἐφάνη αὐτῷ (Mt. 1 : 20), ἐρρήθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις (perhaps in- 
direct object, Mt. 5:21). The same thing is true of a number of 
the examples of “advantage or disadvantage”’ already given, like 
Ro. 6:10; 14:4, ete. Cf. also μέλει τῷ θεῷ (1 Cor. 9:9). See 
ἕν σοι λείπει (Lu. 18 : 22), but ἕν σε ὑστερεὶ (Mk. 10: 21). 

5. Possession. The Greek, like the Latin, may use the dative 
for the idea of possession. Thus οὐκ ἦν αὐτοῖς τόπος (Lu. 2 : 7), οὐκ 
ἔστιν σοι μερίς (Ac. 8:21), ὑμῖν ἐστιν ἡ ἐπαγγελία (Ac. 2:39), τίνι 
ἔσται (Lu. 12 : 20), εἰσὶν ἡμῖν τέσσαρες ἄνδρες (Ac. 21: 23), ἔστιν 
συνήθεια ὑμῖν (Jo. 18 : 30), ἐὰν γένηταί τινι ἀνθρώπῳ ἑκατὸν πρόβατα 
(Mt. 18:12). The idiom is extended even to examples like οὐ μὴ 
ἔσται σοι τοῦτο (Mt. 16 : 22), ἔσται χαρά σοι (Lu. 1:14). Cf. Ac. 
2:43; Lu.9:38. This is a frequent idiom in the ancient Greek 
and a perfectly natural one. This predicative dative at bottom 
is just like the usual dative. 

6. Infinitive as Final Dative. Giles® calls attention to the in- 

1 So Mt. 10 : 32, but note ὁμολογῶ ἐν αὐτῷ in Lu. 12 : 8. 2 Man., p. 327. 


542 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


finitive as a final dative. This was the original use of the dative 
in —a, the expression of purpose. So ἤλθομεν προσκυνῆσαι αὐτῷ 
(Mt. 2:2). Here we have the dative form and the dative of pur- 
pose. Cf. the old English ‘‘for to worship.”” This dative form con- 
tinued, however, when the case of the infinitive was no longer 
dative. 

7. The Dative of the Agent. It was discussed under the instru- 
mental and there is nothing new to be said here. The one clear 
example is found in Lu. 23:15. But not very different is the idiom 
in Mt. 6:1 (πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι αὐτοῖς) and 23:5. Cf. also 2 Pet. 
3:14. 

8. The Dative because of the Preposition. We have already 
had examples of this. Compound verbs often have the dative 
where the simplex verb does not. The case is due to the total 
idea of the compound verb. The dative occurs with ἀνατί- 
θεμαι in Ac. 25:14; Gal. 2:2. So! with ἀντί, as ᾧ ἀντίστητε (1 
Pet. 5:9), ἀντιλέγει τῷ Καίσαρι (Jo. 19 : 12), ἀντικείμενοι αὐτῷ (Lu. 
13 : 17), τῷ ἁγίῳ ἀντιπίπτετε (Ac. 7:51). ᾿Από in ἀποτάσσομαι goes 
with the dative (Mk. 6 : 40). The same thing is sometimes true 
of ἐν, as ἐνέπαιξαν αὐτῷ (ΜΚ. 15 : 20), ἐμβλέψας αὐτοῖς (Mk. 10 : 27). 
Sometimes with ἀντι-- we have πρός, as with ἐν we find ἐν or πρός 
after the verb. With ἐνεῖχεν αὐτῷ (Mk. 6:19) we must supply 
θυμόν or some such word. Εἰς and ἐπί usually have a preposition 
after the compound verb, except that compounds of ἐπί often 
have the indirect object in the dative (especially ἐπιτίθημι). But 
compare ἐπιτάσσω and ἐπιτιμάω above. Cf. ἐπέστη αὐτοῖς (Lu. 2 : 9), 
but ἐπί repeated (Lu. 21:34). With παρά we note παρέχω and 
παρίστημι with indirect object. In παρέστησαν αὐτῷ (Ac. 9 : 39) 
we can see either the dative or the locative. Cf. παρεδρεύειν 
(1 Cor. 9:13). In 2 Pet. 1:9 we may have the possessive da- 
tive with πάρεστιν. With περί again there is doubt as between 
the locative and dative in περίκειμαι (Heb. 12:1), περιπείρειν 
(1 Tim. 6:10), περιπίπτω (Lu. 10:30). Πρός with προστίθημι has 
the indirect object in the dative (Mt. 6:33), but with προσέρ- 
χομαι the dative directly as with ὄρει (Heb. 12:18, 22). With 
προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς (Lu. 17: 3) the object νοῦν has to be supplied, but 
this is not the case with προσκαρτεροῦντες τῇ διδαχῇ (Ac. 2 : 42), nor 
with @ προσεκλίθη (Ac. 5 : 36), nor with προσέπεσεν αὐτῷ (Mk. 5 : 33) 
nor with προσεφώνει αὐτοῖς (Ac. 22:2). With προσκυλίω (Mt. 27: 
60) the dative is merely the indirect object, but note ἐπί in Mk. 
15:46. Compounds of ὑπό likewise generally have the dative, as 

1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of IN. Ty τ p16. 


THE CASES (ΠΤΏΣΕΙΣ) 543 


ὑπακούω (Mt. ὃ : 27), ὑπάρχω (Lu. 12:15), ὑποτάσσω (Lu. 10:17), 
ὑποτίθεμαι (1 Tim. 4 : 6). 

(h) AMBIGUOUS EXAMPLES. Sometimes it is not easy to decide 
whether the case is locative, instrumental or dative. The ex- 
ample in Ac. 2 : 33, ὑψοῦν τῇ δεξιᾷ, has already been cited. This 
may mean ‘to lift up to the right hand,’ ‘at the right hand’ or ‘by 
the right hand.’ Cf. also Ro. 8 : 24; Jo. 21:8. But it is not often 
that there is any serious difficulty in the matter. In 2 Cor. 11:1, 
ἀνείχεσθέ μου μικρόν τι ἀφροσύνης, note ablative, accusative, genitive. 
And, if some cases remain, as with the genitive and ablative, that 
cannot be finally settled, the matter must simply remain in abey- 
ance. It so happens that in Lu. 8 : 29 f. we have all eight cases 
used if πολλοῖς χρόνοις be here locative and not instrumental. It 
may serve as a good exercise to discriminate in this passage each 
of the cases and explain the distinctive meaning and the result in 
this special context. The cases have kept us for a good while, 
but the subject is second to none in importance in Greek syntax. 
Nowhere has comparative philology shed more light than in the 
explanation according to historical science of the growth and 
meaning of the Greek cases. 


CHAPTER XII 
ADVERBS (’EIIIPPHMAT A) 


I. Special Difficulties. See chapter VII (Declensions) for dis- 
cussion of the origin, formation and history of adverbs. The 
matter will come up again in chapter XIII (Prepositions) where the 
so-called “‘improper”’ prepositions are treated. Brugmann! has no 
syntactical handling of the subject, though Delbriick? gives an 
exhaustive presentation of the matter. But even Delbriick gives 
less than a page to the purely syntactical phases of the adverb (p. 
643), whereas Winer’ treats the adverb only under syntax. 

(a) NaTuRE or THE ADVERB. - The first difficulty is in deciding 
what is an adverb. As shown in chapter VII, the adverb not only 
has great variety in its origin, but also wide expansion in its 
use. In simple truth a large portion of the “parts of speech”’ are 
adverbs. Brugmann‘ pointedly says that it is not possible to draw 
a sharp line between adverb, particle and preposition. The devel- 
opment of adverb into preposition, conjunction, intensive particle 
and even interjection was illustrated in chapter VII with perhaps 
sufficient fulness. To this ist may be added the negative particles 
which are really adverbs. In particular in the Sanskrit is there 
difficulty in the treatment of preposition and conjunction as 
distinct from adverb, since the indeclinable words were less dis- 
tinctly divided.6 But this vagueness applies to other members 
of the Indo-Germanic group.’ In Greek and Latin no distinct 
line can be drawn between adverbs and prepositions.’ | 

(b) THe NarrowrER SENSE oF ApvEeRB. These wider and 
more specialized forms of the adverb must be dropped out of view 


1 Griech. Gr., pp. 250-257. 


2 Vergl. Synt., I, pp. 535-643. 8 W.-Th., pp. 462-473. 

4 Griech. Gr., p. 250. On final s in adv. see Fraser, Cl. Quarterly, 1908, 
p. 265. 

5 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 403. 

§ Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 536. 7 Giles, Man., p. 341. 


544 


ADVERBS (’EIIIPPHMATA) 545 


before we can do anything with the mere adverb which is not prep- 
osition, conjunction, particle nor interjection. There is a good 
deal that needs to be said concerning the syntax of the mere ad- 
verb, for, in spite of its being a fixed case-form, it has a varied and 
interesting usage in the Greek sentence. The adverb has been 
treated by the grammars as a sort of printer’s devil in the sentence. 
It has been given the bone that was left for the dog, if it was left. 

II. Adverbs with Verbs. 

(a) Commonsst Usr. This is indeed the etymology of the 
word and the most frequent use of the pure adverb. But one can- 
not say that this was the original use, as the name ézippnua might 
suggest. The truth is that the adverb has such a varied origin 
that it is difficult to make a general remark on the subject that 
will be true. Only this may be said, that some adverbs began to 
be used with verbs, some with adjectives, some absolutely, ete. 
At first they were not regarded as strictly adverbs, but were used 
progressively so (cf. χάριν) until with most the earlier non-adverbial 
uses ceased. 

(b) N. T. Usace. Winer! suspects that the N. T. writers did 
not understand the finer shades of meaning in the Greek adverbs, 
but this is true only from the point of view of the Attic literary 
style and applies to the vernacular κοινή in general. But he is 
wholly right in insisting on the necessity of adverbs for precise 
definition in language. The grammarians find offence? in the 
adverbs of the κοινή as in other portions of the vocabulary. Some 
of the ‘‘poetic’”’ adverbs in Winer’s list are at home in the papyri 
as in the N. T., like εὐαρέστως. A few examples will suffice for the 
normal usage in the N. T. See the majestic roll of the adverbs in 
Heb. 1:1, πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαι. Cf. σπουδαιοτέρως (Ph. 
2 : 28), περισσοτέρως and τάχειον (Heb. 18 : 19), περαιτέρω (Ac. 19: 
39) as examples of comparison. 

(c) PREDICATIVE USES WITH γίνομαι AND εἰμί. There is nothing 
out of the way in the adverb with γίνομαι in 1 Th. 2:10, ὡς ὁσίως 
καὶ δικαίως καὶ ἀμέμπτως ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἔγενήθημε. Here the 
verb is not a mere copula. Indeed εἰμί appears with the adverb 
also when it has verbal force. Thus καθὼς ἀληθῶς ἐστίν (1 Th. 2 : 13) 
is not equivalent to καθὼς ἀληθές ἐστιν. Cf. καθὼς ἔστιν ἀλήθεια ἐν 
τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ (Eph. 4 : 21). So also ἡ γένεσις οὕτως nv (Mt. 1:18), εἰ 
οὕτως ἐστὶν ἡ αἰτία τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (Mt. 19 : 10), τὸ οὕτως εἶναι (1 Cor. 
7:26). Cf. 1 Cor. 7:7. The adverb in all these instances is 
different from the adjective. Cf. τί με ἐποίησας οὕτως (Ro. 9 : 20) for 
1 W.-Th., p. 462. 2 Ib., Ὁ. 463. 


ν 


546 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


a similar predicate use of the adverb. Cf. also οὕτως πεσών and 
ὄντως ὁ θεὸς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐστίν (1 Cor. 14 : 25) and ἀληθῶς in Mt. 14 : 33. 
In Ph. 4:5, 6 κύριος ἔγγύς, the copula ἐστίν is to be supplied and 
here the adverb is not far from the adjective idea. Cf. also 
πόρρω ὄντος (Lu. 14 : 32), μακράν (Mk. 12 : 34), ἴσα (Ph. 2: 6). 

(ὦ Wirn "Eyw. It has some idiomatic constructions with the 
adverb that are difficult from the English point of view. Thus 
τοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας (Mt. 14:35), and with the instrumental case 
in Mk. 1:34. Cf. Lu. 7:1. In English we prefer the predicate 
adjective with have (He has it bad), whereas the Greek likes the 
adverb with ἔχω. So ἐσχάτως ἔχει (Mk. 5:23) and in Jo. 4:52 
κομψότερον ἔσχεν the comparative adverb. One must be willing for 
the Greek to have his standpoint. Cf. οὕτως ἔχει in Ac. 7:1 and 
πόρρω ἀπέχει (Mk. 7:6). Πῶς ἔχουσιν (Ac. 15 : 36) needs no com- 
ment. It is a common enough Greek idiom. Cf. βαρέως ἔχουσα, 
P.Br.M. 42 (B.c. 168). 

(6) Wirn ParticreLes. “Aya ἐλπίζων (Ac. 24: 26) belongs to 
the discussion of participles. But one may note here ἤδη τεθνηκότα 
(Jo. 19:33) and ὡς μέλλοντας (Ac. 23:15). Cf. also the use of 
ἤδη with παρῆλθεν (Mt. 14:15), a matter that concerns the aorist 
tense. But note both viv and ἤδη with ἐστίν in 1 Jo. 4:3. 

(f) Loosz RELATION To THE VERB or any other part of the 
sentence. So ἀκμήν (cf. ἔτι) in Mt. 15:16 and τὴν ἀρχήν in Jo. 
8 : 25, for this accusative is really adverbial. Cf. also τὸ λοιπόν 
(Ph. 3:1), τοὐναντίον (Gal. 2: 7). 

III. Adverbs Used with Other Adverbs. There is, to be sure, 
nothing unusual about this either in Greek or any other tongue. 
So πολὺ μᾶλλον (Heb. 12: 9), μᾶλλον κρεῖσσον (Ph. 1 : 23), μᾶλλον 
περισσότερον (Mk. 7: 36) are merely normal uses barring the double 
comparative in the two examples which, however, have their own 
explanation. The compound adverbs, which are common in the 
N. T. (as ὑπερπερισσῶς, Mk. 7:37; οἵ. πολυτρόπως in Heb. 1:1), 
call for no more explanation than other compound words. Cf. 
καθόλου (Ac. 4:18). The Greek, like the German, easily makes 
compound words, and the tendency to long compound words 
grows with the history of language. See ἀπερισπάστως in 1 Cor. 
7:35. For compound adverbs see chapter VII, m1, (c). For the 
comparison of adverbs see 7b., τι, (e). 

IV. Adverbs with Adjectives. A typical illustration is found 
in 1 Tim. 3 : 16, ὁμολογουμένως μέγα. So οὕτω μέγας in Rev. 16 : 18. 
The instances are not very numerous in the N. T., since indeed, 
especially in the Gospels, the adjective is not excessively abundant. 


ADVERBS (’EIIIPPHMATA) 547 


In Ac. 24 : 25, τὸ νῦν ἔχον, the participle being both verb and ad- 
jective, causes no difficulty. In Ac. 23 : 20, ὡς μέλλων τι ἀκριβέ- 
στερον πυνθάνεσθαι περὶ αὐτοῦ, we have the adverbial use of τι as well 
as ἀκριβέστερον. Cf. ἀπερισπάστως with εὐπάρεδρον in 1 Cor. 7:35. 

V. Adverbs with Substantives. Here indeed one may recall 
that the substantive as well as the adjective gives a basis for this 
idiom (cf. Jordan River). Νῦν is a typical example in the N. T. 
Thus we find ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ (Ro. 3 : 26), τῇ viv ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ (Gal. 
4 : 25), ζωῆς τῆς νῦν (1 Tim. 4:8), τὸν viv αἰῶνα (2 Tim. 4 : 10). 
Here indeed the adverb has virtually the force of the adjective, 
just as the substantive in this descriptive sense gave rise to the 
adjective. The English can use the same idiom as “the now 
time,” though this particular phrase is awkward. The Greek has 
so much elasticity in the matter because of the article which 
gives it a great advantage over the Latin.'! Cf. also ἡ δὲ ὄντως 
χήρα (1 Tim. 5:5), ἡ δὲ ἄνω ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ (Gal. 4 : 26), τῆς ἄνω 
κλήσεως (Ph. 3 : 14), ὁ τότε κόσμος (2 Pet. ὃ : 6). 

VI. Adverbs Treated as Substantives.2 The very adverbs 
named above may be here appealed to. It is especially true of 
words of place and time. Thus ἐκ τῶν ἄνω εἰμί (Jo. 8 : 23), τὸ vat 
(2 Cor. 1:17), τὰ ἄνω (Col. δ: 110); Τὰ viv (Ac. 5 : 38), ἕως τοῦ νῦν 
(Mk. 18 : 19), ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν (Lu. 1:48) and often. Cf. rots ἐκεῖ (Mt. 
26 : 71), τὰ ὧδε (Col. 4:9). So πλησίον always in the N. T. save 
once as preposition with genitive (Jo. 4:5). It usually has the 
article (Mt. 5 : 43), but may be used without it in the nominative 
case (Lu. 10:29). A striking instance of the adverb treated as 
substantive appears in χωρὶς τῶν παρεκτός (2 Cor. 11:28). Other 
examples of the adverb with the article are ἄχρι τοῦ δεῦρο (Ro. 
1:13), ἐκ τῶν κάτω (Jo. 8 : 23), εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω (Mk. 18 : 16), τοὺς ἔξω 
(1 Cor. ὅ : 12), τὸ ἔξωθεν καὶ τὸ ἔσωθεν (Lu. 11 : 40), εἰς τὸ ἔμπροσθεν 
(Lu. 19:4). In τοῖς μακράν and τοῖς ἐγγύς (ΡΗ. 2 : 17) the adverb 
is rather adjectival in idea. In τῇ ἑξῆς (Ac. 21: 1) we have to sup- 
ply, of course, ἡμέρᾳ, though the text of Lu. 7:11 reads & τῷ ἑξῆς. 
Here the adverb is treated rather as an adjective, but the point of 
distinction between the use as substantive and adjective is not 
always clear. Cf. also ἡ αὔριον (Mt. 6: 34), περὶ τῆς σήμερον (Ac. 
19 : 40). But it is not merely when the adverb has the article 
that it is treated as a substantive. Prepositions are used with 
adverbs without any article. Then it is not always clear whether 
we have two words or one. Thus editors print ὑπὲρ ἐκεῖνα as well 
as ὑπερέκεινα (2 Cor. 10: 16), ὑπὲρ ἐκ περισσοῦ as well as ὑπερεκ- 

τι Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 798. Sei eG. nk, pool. 


548 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


περισσοῦ (Eph. 3 : 20), ὑπὲρ λίαν as well as ὑπερλίαν (2 Cor. 11: δ). 
Cf. ἔπειτα, ἐπάνω, ἐφάπαξ, and ἕως ἄρτι in 1 Cor. 15:6. Thus ἀπὸ 
πέρυσι (2 Cor. 9:2), am’ ἄνωθεν ἕως κάτω (Mk. 15:38), am’ ἄρτι. 
(Mt. 23:39), ἀπὸ μακρόθεν (Mt. 27:55), ἀπὸ πρωί (Ac. 28 : 23), 
ἅμα mowt (Mt. 20:1), ἕως ἄρτι (Mt. 11 : 12), ἕως τρίς (Lu. 22 : 34), 
ἕως ἑπτάκις (Mt. 18 : 21 f.), ἕως ἔξω (Ac. 21 : 5), ἕως ἔσω (Mk. 14 : 54), 
ἕως πότε (Mt. 17:17), ἕως ὧδε (Lu. 23:5), etc. For this doubling 
of adverbs see ἐκτὸς εἰ μή (1 Cor. 14 : 5) in the realm of conjunctions. 
Moulton (Prol., p. 99) finds in the papyri ἐκ τότε, O.P. 486 (11,,Α.}.), 
and note ἀπὸ πέρυσι (Deissmann, B. S., p. 221). 

VII. The Pregnant Use of Adverbs. Just as the prepositions 
ἐν and eis are used each with verbs of rest and motion (and παρά 
with locative or accusative), so adverbs show the same absence of 
minute uniformity. Ποί, for instance, is absent from both the 
LXX and the N. T., as is ὅποι. Instead we find ποῦ ὑπάγει (Jo. 
3:8) and ὅπου ἐγὼ ὑπάγω (Jo. 18 : 33), but πόθεν ἔρχεται (Jo. 3 : 8) 
and ὅθεν ἐξῆλθον (Mt. 12 : 44). So also ἔρχεται ἐκεῖ (Jo. 18 : 3) like 
our ‘‘come here.’’ But on the other hand in Ac. 22: 5, ἄξων καὶ 
τοὺς ἐκεῖσε ὄντας, the usual word would be ἐκεῖ. But ἐκεῖσε is regu- 
lar in Ac. 21:3. Winer! calls this an “abuse” of language, which 
is putting it rather too strongly, since it is found in the best Greek. 
It is largely a matter of usage, for with ὧδε and ἐνθάδε the ideas of 
hic and huc had long coalesced, while ἔξωθεν, ἔσωθεν, κάτω Mean 
both ‘without’ (Mt. 23: 27) and ‘from without’ (Mk. 7: 18), ‘with- 
in’ (Mt. 7: 15) and ‘from within’ (Mk. 7: 23), ‘below’ (Mt. 4 : 6) 
and ‘from below’ (Jo. 8 : 23). Cf. wera Ba ἔνθεν ἐκεῖ (Mt. 17: 20) and 
ἔνθεν --- ἐκεῖθεν (Lu. 16:26). In Mt. 25:24, 26, συνάγων ὅθεν οὐ 
διεσκόρπισας, we have ἐκεῖθεν οὗ merged into ὅθεν by attraction. In 
οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας (Heb. 13: 24) it is uncertain what standpoint the 
writer takes. With ἐκ we have not only the normal idiom like 
τοῖς ἐκ περιτομῆς (Ro. 4 : 12) and of ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας (Ph. 4: 22), 
but the pregnant use where ἐν could have occurred. Thus ἄραι τὰ 
ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας (Mt. 24 : 17) with which compare ὁ εἰς τὸν ἀγρόν (Mk. 
13:16, ἐν in Mt. 24:18). Cf. 6 πατὴρ ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ in Lu. 11:18, 
though some MSS.? do not have the second 6. The correlation of 
adverbs belongs to the chapter on Pronouns. 

VIII. Adverbs as Marks of Style. Thus ἄρτι is not found in 
Mark, Luke, James, Jude nor Hebrews, though fairly often in 
Matthew, John and Paul. Νῦν, on the other hand, is frequent 
throughout the N. T. as a whole. Abbott? has an interesting dis- 


1 W.-Th., p. 472. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 258. 
8 Joh. Gr., pp. 22 ff. 


ADVERBS (’ENIPPHMATA) 549 


cussion of καὶ νῦν in John and Luke. Νυνί is found only in Acts, 
Paul and Hebrews, the most literary portions of the N. T. Then 
again Mark has abundant use of εὐθύς, but not εὐθέως, while Mat- 
thew employs both. John uses each only three times. Abbott! 
notes that wherever Matthew uses εὐθύς it is found in the parallel 
part of Mark. Εὐθέως prevails in Luke (Gospel and Acts). Abbott 
insists on difference in idea in the two words, εὐθέως (‘immediately’), 
εὐθύς (‘straightway’). So in Matthew τότε is exceedingly common, 
while in 1 Cor. ἔπειτα is rather frequent, though the two words 
have different ideas. Then again ἔγγύς is more common in John 
than all the Synoptists together.2- The context must often decide 
the exact idea of an adverb, as with ἐκαθέζετο οὕτως (Jo. 4:6). Cf. 
ws ἦν ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ (Mk. 4 : 36). 

IX. The Adverb Distinguished from the Adjective. 

(a) DirFERENT Mranina. The adjective and the adverb often 
mean radically different things. Thus in Jo. ὃ : 29, οὐκ ἀφῆκέν με 
μόνον, the adjective μόνον means that ‘he did not leave me alone.’ 
As an adverb, if the position allowed it, it would be ‘not only did 
he leave, but,’ etc., just the opposite. In 2 Tim. 4:11 μόνος 
means that Luke is alone with Paul. So in Lu. 24:18 σὺ μόνος 
may be contrasted with μόνον πίστευσον (Lu. 8: 50). The point is 
specially clear with πρῶτος and πρῶτον. Thus in Ac. 3 : 26 we have 
ὑμῖν πρῶτον ἀναστήσας, not ὑμῖν πρώτοις. It is not ‘you as chief,’ 
but ‘the thing is done first for you.’ So also Ro. 2 : 9 (Ἰουδαίου re 
πρῶτον καὶ “EXAnvos). But in 1 Jo. 4:19 note ἡμεῖς ἀγαπῶμεν, ὅτι 
αὐτὸς πρῶτος ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς. ‘God is the first one who loves.’ Cf. 
also ἦλθεν πρῶτος εἰς TO μνημεῖον (Jo. 20: 4) where John is the first one 
to come to the tomb. In Jo. 1:41 the MSS. vary between πρῶτος 
and πρῶτον (W. H.). One can but wonder here if after all πρῶτος 
is not the correct text with the implication that John also found 
his brother James. The delicate implication may have been easily 
overlooked by a scribe. Cf. also the difference between ἐλάλει 
ὀρθῶς (Mk. 7:35) and ἀνάστηθι ἐπὶ τοὺς πόδας cov ὀρθός (Ac. 14 : 10). 
The English has a similar distinction in ‘“‘feel bad” and ‘‘feel 
badly,” ‘look bad” and “‘look badly.”’ We use ‘well’? in both 
senses. Cf. ἑδραῖος in 1 Cor. 7: 37. 

(Ὁ) DirFERENCE IN GREEK AND ENGLISH Ip1om. But the 
Greek uses the adjective often where the English has the adverb. 
That is, the Greek prefers the personal connection of the adjective 
with the subject to the adverbial connection with the verb. So 
we have αὐτομάτη ἡ γῆ καρποφορεῖ (Mk. 4 : 28) and αὐτομάτη ἠνοίγη 

1 Ib., p. 20. 2 Ib., p. 19. 


550 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(Ac. 12:10). In Lu. 21:34 the same construction is found with 
ἐφνίδιος ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη. The ancient Greek idiom of the adjective 
rather than the locative of time appears in Ac. 28 : 18, devrepator 
ἤλθομεν. So ὀρθριναί (Lu. 24:22). The same use of the adjective 
rather than the adverb meets us in 1 Cor. 9 : 17, εἰ yap ἑκὼν τοῦτο 
πράσσω -- εἰ δὲ ἄκων, just as we see it in the ancient Greek. Cf. 
the Latin nolens volens. See Ro. 8:20. In μέσος the Greek has 
an adjective that we have to use a phrase for. Thus μέσος ὑμῶν 
στήκει (Jo. 1:26), ‘there stands in the midst of you.’ Cf. a very 
different idea in ἡμέρας μέσης (Ac. 26 : 13), ‘middle of the day.’ 

X. Adverbial Phrases. 

(a) INcrPIENT ADVERBS. Some of these are practically ad- 
verbs, though they retain the case-inflection and may even have 
the article. Thus τὴν ἀρχήν (Jo. 8:25), 7d Aourov (Ph. 3:1), 
τοὐναντίον (Gal. 2 : 7), τὸ πρῶτον (Jo. 12 : 16), τὸ πρότερον (Jo. 6: 62), 
τὸ πλεῖστον (1 Cor. 14 : 27), τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν (Lu. 19 : 47), τοῦ λοιποῦ 
(Eph. 6:10), ete. These expressions are not technically adverbs, 
though adverbial in force. Cf. also the cognate instrumental like 
χαρᾷ χαίρει (Jo. 3:29). So O.P. 1162, 5 (iv./a.p.). 

(b) PREPOSITIONAL PHRASES. These adjuncts have the sub- 
stantial force of adverbs. Indeed there is little practical differ- 
ence in structure between ἀπὸ πέρυσι (2 Cor. 9 : 2) and ὑπερλίαν (2 
Cor. 11: 5), ὑπεράνω (Eph. 4 : 10) and ἕως κάτω (Mk. 15 : 38). Since 
the uncial MSS. had no division between words, we have to de- 
pend on the judgment of the modern editor and on our own for 
the distinction between an adverb like παραχρῆμα (Lu. 1:64) and 
an adverbial phrase like παρὰ τοῦτο (1 Cor. 12: 15). Cf. also ἐπέ- 
κεινα (Ac. 7: 48), ὑπερέκεινα (2 Cor. 10 : 16), καθόλου (Ac. 4:18). In 
Ro. 7:18 καθ᾽ ὑπερβολήν is used with an adjective. Other examples 
are κατ᾽ ἰδίαν (Mt. 14:18), κατὰ μόνας (Mk. 4:10), κατὰ ἑκούσιον 
(Phil. 14), κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτόν (Heb. 10 : 1), ἐκ δευτέρου (Mk. 14 : 72), ἐκ 
ψυχῆς (Col. 3 : 23), ἐξι ἀρχῆς (Jo. 6 : 64), am’ ιἀρχῆς (2 Th. 2: 18), els 
κενόν (Ph. 2 : 16), ἐν ἀληθείᾳ (Mt. 22 : 16), ἐν πρώτοις (1 Cor. 15 : 3), 
ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ (Ac. 17:31), ἐπ᾽ ἀληθείας (Lu. 22:59), καθ᾽ ἡμέραν 
(Mk. 14:49), ἐν νυκτί (1 Th. 5:2), ἐν ἐκτενείᾳ (Ac. 26:7), ἀπὸ 
μέρους (Ro. 11 : 25), éx μέρους (1 Cor. 12 : 27. Cf. μέῤος τὶ, 11. 18), 
κατὰ μέρος (Heb. 9:5), ἀπὸ μιᾶς (Lu. 14 : 18), εἰς τὸ παντελές (Heb. 
7: 25). With μέσον we have quite a list, like ἀνὰ μέσον (Mt. 18 : 25), 
ἐκ μέσου (Mt. 13 : 49), ἐν μέσῳ (Mk. 6 : 47), διὰ μέσου (Lu. 4 : 30), διὰ 
μέσον (Lu. 17: 11), εἰς τὸ μέσον (Lu. 5:19), εἰς μέσον (Mk. 14: 60), 
κατὰ μέσον (Ac. 27: 27), μέσον (Ph. 2:15). In Mk. 14:30 adverb 
and phrase occur together, σήμερον ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτί. This is not a 


ADVERBS (’EIIPPHMATA) 501 


complete list by any means, but it will suffice to illustrate the 
point under discussion. <A striking example is found in 1 Cor. 
12:31, καθ᾽ ὑπερβολὴν ὁδὸν ὑμῖν δείκνυμι, Where the adverbial phrase 
has practically the force of an adjective with ὁδόν. Clearly, then, 
many of the adverbs grew out of these prepositional phrases like 
παραυτίκα (2 Cor. 4:17), ἔκπαλαϊ᾽ (2 Pet. 2:3), etc. Cf. even νουν- 
εχῶς (Mk. 12 : 34). 7 

(c) PARTICIPLES. Some participles come to be used adverbially. 
This is not merely true of adverbs made from participles, like ὄντως 
(Mk. 11:32), ὁμολογουμένως (1 Tim. 3 : 16), ὑπερβαλλόντως (2 Cor. 
11:23), but it also applies to τῷ ὄντι (Ro. 7: 23), τὸ νῦν ἔχον (Ac. 
24 : 25), τυχόν (1 Cor. 16:6) and verbals like ἀναγκαστῶς (1 Pet. 
5:2). Besides, the intensive use of the participle is adverbial 
in effect like εὐλογῶν εὐλογήσω oe (Heb. 6:14). Then again a case 
like ψευδόμενοι (Mt. 5:11) is in point. Cf. θέλων in Col. 2 : 18. 
See also προσθεὶς εἶπεν (Lu. 19:11) which Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., 
p. 258) compares with προσθεῖσα ἔτεκεν (Gen. 38:5). See chapter 
on Verbal Nouns. 

(ἃ THe VerB [0580 ADVERBIALLY. This is, of course, not 
true technically, but only in the result. The old Greek idiom 
with λανθάνω and φθάνω, where the participle expressed the chief 
idea and the verb was subordinate, occurs twice in the N. T. So 
ἔλαθόν τινες Eevioavtes (Heb. 13: 2) and προέφθασεν λέγων (Mt. 17: 25). 
But it must be borne in mind that the Greek idiom is perfectly 
consistent in this construction, as ‘they escaped notice in entertain- 
ing,’ ‘he got the start in saying.’ Cf. λάθρᾳ elsewherein N. T. It 
is not necessary in Ac. 12 : 16, ἐπέμενεν κρούων, to take the verb as 
an adverb in sense. It is simply, ‘he continued knocking.’ The 
infinitive may likewise present the chief idea as in προέλαβεν μυρίσαι 
(Mk. 14: 8), προσέθετο πέμψαι (Lu. 20 : 11 f.), like the Heb. 95177 
πρῶ, But in Mk. 12:4 we have the regular Greek idiom! πάλιν 
ἀπέστειλεν. Cf. Ac. 12:3 προσέθετο συλλαβεῖν. This idiom is ex- 
ceedingly common in the LXX.? In Lu. 6: 48, ἔσκαψεν καὶ ἐβάθυνεν 
(‘he dug and went deep’), we have an idiom somewhat like our 
English vernacular ‘‘he went and dug,” “he has gone and done 
it,’ ete. Cf. Ro. 10:20 ἀποτολμᾷ καὶ λέγει, Mt. 18:3 ἐὰν μὴ στρα- 
φῆτε καὶ γένησθε. But I doubt if θέλω with the infinitive is to be 
taken in the N. T. either adverbially or as the mere expletive 
for the future tense. In Jo. 7: 17 θέλῃ ποιεῖν means ‘is willing to 
do.’ So in Jo. 8: 44, etc. The text is obscure in Col. 2:18 and 


1 W.-Th., p. 468. 
2 (, and S., Sel. from the LXX, p. 97. 


552 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT! 


there θέλων may have an adverbial force. Blass! conceives that in 
Mt. 6:5, φιλοῦσιν .. . προσεύχεσθαι, we may translate ‘gladly pray.’ 
But what advantage has this over ‘love to pray,’ ‘are fond of 
praying’? 

1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 258. Cf. W.-Th., p. 467. 


CHAPTER XIII 
PREPOSITIONS (ΠΡΟΘΕΣΕΙΣ) 


I. The Name. As is often the case, so here the name describes 
a later development, not the original, nor the essential, idea. 

(a) Some PostpositivE. Prepositions may indeed be post- 
positive like the Latin mecum, the Greek τούτου χάριν, τέκνων πέρι 
(anastrophe). In the Turkish tongue! they are all postpositive. 
And Giles (Manual, p. 341) thinks that ὀμμάτων ἄπο is earlier than 
ἀπὸ ὀμμάτων. 

(ὃ) Nor Orietnatty Usep witH Verpss. Moreover, the 
name implies that they properly belong with verbs (prae-verbia, 
προθέσει). But we now know that the use with verbs was a much 
later development. There are indeed in Greek no “inseparable” 
prepositions, which are used only in composition with verbs. In 
the Attic, outside of Xenophon, σύν was used mainly in composi- 
tion.? In the N. T. ἀμφί is found only with compound words like 
ἀμφιβάλλω, ἀμφιέννυμι. In the Sanskrit most of the verbal pre- 
fixes can be traced to adverbs with cases.* 

(c) EXPLANATION. Hence the name must be explained. The 
later grammarians used the term for those adverbs which were 
used in composition with verbs and in connection with the cases 
of nouns. Both things had to be true according to this definition. 
But it will be seen at once that this definition is arbitrary. The 
use with verbs in composition was the last step, not the first, in 
the development. Besides, what is to be said about those ad- 
verbs that are used, not with verbs, but with cases, and no longer 
appear as mere adverbs? Take ἄνευ, for instance, with the abla- 
tive. It is not found in composition with verbs nor by itself 


1 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 95. 

2 Monro, Hom. Gr., pp. 123, 147. Courtoz (Les Préfixes en Grec, en Lat. 
et en Frangais, 1894, p. 51) says: “Outre les dix-huit prépositions que nous 
venons de passer en revue, il y a encore, en grec, quelques particules insépa- 
rables, qui s’emploient comme préfixes dans les mots composés. Ces particules 
sont 4, ἀρι ou ἐρι, δυσ, fa et νη. But these are not the “prepositions” under 
discussion. 8 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 414. 

553 


554 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


apart from a noun. It is, of course, a preposition. The grammars 
call it an “improper” or adverbial preposition. It is only ‘im- 
proper” from the standpoint of the definition, not from that of 
the Greek language. The truth seems to be that by preposition 
one must mean a word used with cases of nouns and many of 
which came to be used in composition with verbs. The facts do 
not square with the other definition. 

II. The Origin of Prepositions. 

(a) OrntGINALLY ApvEeRBS. This is now so well recognised 
that it seems strange to read in Winer! that “prepositions e.g. 
often assume the nature of adverbs, and vice versa,’ even though 
he adds “that the prepositions are adverbs originally.” Giles? 
puts the matter simply and clearly when he says: ‘ Between ad- 
verbs and prepositions no distinct line can be drawn.” Thus even 
in Homer ἀμφί, περί, etc., appear still as adverbs.? Delbriick* goes 
a bit further and says that originally the prepositions were place- 
adverbs. Brugmann® qualifies that to “mostly,” and he adds that 
we cannot draw a sharp line between the use as adverb and the 
use as pre-verb or preposition.® 

(b) REASON FoR User oF Prepositions. ‘The preposition is, 
therefore, only an adverb specialized to define a case-usage.’’? 
This definition gives the reason also. The case alone was enough 
at first to express the relation between words, but, as language 
developed, the burden on the cases grew heavier. The analytic 
tendency in language is responsible for the growth of prepositions.® 
The prepositions come in to help out the meaning of the case in a 
given context. The notion, therefore, that prepositions ‘‘govern’’ 
cases must be discarded definitely. Farrar® clearly perceived this 
point. “1 is the case which indicates the meaning of the preposi- 
tion, and not the preposition which gives the meaning to the case.” 
This conception explains the use and the non-use of a preposition 
like ἐν, for instance, with the locative, ἀπό or παρά with the abla- 
tive, etc. In the Sanskrit the prepositions do not exist as a sep- 
arate class of words, though a good many adverbs are coming to 
be used with the oblique cases (except the dative) to make clearer 
the case-idea.!° 


1 W.-Th., p. 356. 2 Man., etc., p. 341. 

8 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 659. Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 123. 

4 Ib., p. 659. Cf. Grundl., IV, p. 134. 

5 Griech. Gr., p. 429. 8 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 94. 
6 ΤΌ. p. 430. 9 10. 

7 


Giles, Man., etc., p. 341. 10 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 414, 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEI=) 555 


(c) VaARyING History. The adverbs that come to be used with 
the cases vary greatly in their history. Some cease to be used 
as adverbs, as σύν, for instance. Others continue (besides the 
use with cases and with verbs) to be employed occasionally as 
adverbs (ava eis, Rev. 21:21; κατὰ eis, Mk. 14:19; ὕπερ ἔγώ, 
2 Cor. 11:23). Some are used both with nouns, and in com- 
position with verbs, like ἐν, περί and the other seventeen ‘‘ proper” 
classical prepositions. ’Audi occurs only in composition. Others 
are not used in composition with verbs, but are no longer mere 
adverbs like ἄνευ. Others are employed both as adverb and with 
cases of nouns, like ἅμα, ἔξω, etc. Some occur both as preposi- 
tion and conjunction, like ἄχρι, μέχρι, ἕως, πλήν. Some figure as 
substantive, adverb and preposition with case, like χάριν. 

III. Growth in the Use of Prepositions. 

(a) OncE No Prepositions. ΑΒ already noted, in the Sanskrit 
there is no separate class of prepositions, though a number of ad- 
verbs are already coming to be used as prepositions, and verbs 
have some prefixes. Some adverbs in Greek are occasionally used 
with cases, like ἀξίως and the genitive, but are not prepositions. 
Here we see the use of prepositions started, tentatively at*any rate. 
We may suppose a time further back in the history of the Indo- 
Germanic tongues when no adverbs were used with cases, when 
the cases stood all alone. 

(0) THE PREPOSITIONS STILL UsEpD AS ADVERBS IN Homer. Not 
only do the ‘‘adverbial”’ prepositions have their usual freedom, 
but a considerable number of adverbs are found in composition 
with verbs. Homer marks a distinct advance over the Sanskrit 
in the increase of prepositions. There is in Homer a real class of 
prepositions. But in Homer the limitation of the preposition to 
cases of nouns and composition with verbs is far from being estab- 
lished. ᾿Αμφί, ἐν, etc., may be simply adverbs, ‘on both sides,’ 
‘inside.’! So common is the separation of the preposition from the 
verb that the term tmesis is used for it, but no strict line can be 
drawn between this usage and the ordinary adverb.? 

(c) Decreasinac Use as ADVERBS AFTER Homer. It is not 
common thereafter for the eighteen classical prepositions, those 
used in composition with verbs as well as with cases of nouns, 
to occur separately as adverbs. It is not common, but still pos- 
sible. This list comprises ἀμφί, ἀνά, ἀντί, ἀπό, διά, εἰς, ἐξ, ἐν, ἐπί, 
κατά, μετά, παρά, περί, πρό, πρός, σύν, ὑπέρ, ὑπό. Now these words 
were used with steady increase so that one of the marks of later 

1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 128. 4 ΤΌ. 124. 


556 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Greek is the abundance of compound verbs as well as the more 
extensive use of these prepositions with the various cases. Not 
only is this true, but continually new adverbs joined the already 
large list of adverbial prepositions employed with cases. In a 
word, as Blass! remarks, the use of a preposition with nouns was 
‘‘a, practice which in the course of the history of the language be- 
came more and more adopted in opposition to the employment of 
the simple case.”’ The Emperor Augustus was noted for his ex- 
cessive use of prepositions in his effort to speak more clearly 
(quod qué facilius exprimeret, Suetonius).2 Other Latin writers 
show the same tendency. 

(d) Semitic INFLUENCE IN N. T. The N. T. writers were 
once supposed to make such free use of prepositions because of 
the Hebrew and Aramaic. But the N. T. does not make abundant 
use of all the prepositions. ᾿Αμφί has dropped out entirely save 
in composition, and ἀνά is nearly confined to the distributive use 
and ἀνὰ μέσον, a sort of compound preposition.’ It occurs only 
12 times, omitting the adverbial use in Rey. 21:21. ’Avri appears 
22 times, but as Moulton‘ explains, five of these are due to ἀνθ᾽ ὧν. 
But ἀπό is very abundant in the N. T., as are διά, els, ἐκ, ἐν, ἐπί, 
κατά, μετά, πρός. But παρά, περί, πρό, civ, ὑπέρ, ὑπό are, like ἀνά, 
already going the way of ἀμφί. Krebs has made a careful study 
of the prepositions in Polybius,’ as Helbing has done for Herod- 
otus® and Johannessohn for the LXX.’7 They show the same 
general tendency towards the increased use of some prepositions 
to the disuse of others. For the N. T., Moulton® has made a 
careful calculation which is worth reproducing. ᾿Εν and εἰς far 
outnumber any of the other prepositions in the N. T.9 And ἐν 
leads εἰς by a good margin. Moulton takes ἐν as unity and 
finds the other N.T. prepositions ranging as follows: ἀνά .0045, 
ἀντί (Οὐδ, ἀπό .24, διά .24, eis .64, ἐκ .34, ἐπί 82, κατά .17, wera .17, 
παρά .O7, wept .12, πρό .018, πρός .25, σύν .048, ὑπέρ .054, ὑπό .08. 
The three commonest prepositions in Herodotus! are eis, ἐν and 
ἐπί, in this order. In Thucydides and Xenophon the order is ἐν, 


ΤΟ OU NewLs Gaky pe lode 

2 Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 95; Egger, Gr. Comp., p. 195. 

8. Moulton, Prol., p. 100. £7 1b: 

5 Die Priip. bei Polyb., 1882; cf. p. 3. 

6 Die Prip. bei Herod. und andern Hist., 1904. 

7 Johannessohn, Der Gebr. der Casus und der Priip. in der Sept., T1. I, 1910. 
Cf. also C. and S., p. 80 f. 

8 Prol., p. 98. ΕΙΣ ΟΣ: 

10 See Helbing, Priip. bei Herod., p. 8 f., for the facts here used. 


PREPOSITIONS (ΠΡΟΘΕΣΕΙΣ) 557 


eis and éri. But Xenophon varies the order of frequency in his 
various books. In Polybius the three chief prepositions are κατά, 
πρός, eis; in Diodorus εἰς, κατά, πρός; in Dionysius ἐν, ἐπί, els; in 
Josephus (War) πρός, εἰς, κατά, (Ant.) εἰς, ἐπί, πρός; in Plutarch ἐν, 
πρός, eis; in Dio Cassius ἐν, εἰς, ἐπί. In the Ν. T. the three main 
ones, as seen above, are ἐν, εἰς, ἐκ, though ἐπί is not far behind ἐκ. 
In the literary κοινή it will be seen that the use of εἰς is nearly double 
that of ἐν, whereas in the N. T. εἰς is ahead of é only in Mark and 
Hebrews.! In the vernacular κοινή, ἐν makes a rather better show- 
ing. The large increase of the adverbial prepositions in the N. T., 
as in the κοινή, calls for special treatment a little later. It may be 
here remarked that they number 42, counting varying forms of the 
same word like ὄπισθεν, ὀπίσω. 

(e) In MoprrRN GreEK. The varying history of the eighteen 
prepositions goes still further.2. Thus ἀντί(ς) survives in the ver- 
nacular as well as ἀπό (ἀπέ), διά (γιά), els (és, σέ, ᾿ς), μετά (μέ), κατά 
(xa) and ὡς. Cf. Thumb, Handb., pp. 100ff. The bulk of the 
old prepositions drop out in the medieval period. Their place is 
supplied largely by the later prepositional adverbs, as ava by ἄνω, 
ἐξ by ἔξω, but partly also by a wider use of the remaining preposi- 
tions, as εἰς for ἐν and πρός, μέ for σύν. Then again all prepositions 
in the modern Greek use the accusative case as do other adverbs, 
and sometimes even with the nominative (γιὰ σοφός, ‘as a sage’). 

In a sense then the Greek prepositions mark a cycle. They show 
the return of the accusative to its original frequency. They have 
lost. the fine distinctions that the old Greek prepositions once pos- 
sessed when they were used to help out the ideas of the cases. They 
drop out before the rise of other prepositions which more clearly 
exhibit the adverbial side of the preposition. The so-called im- 
proper prepositions are more sharply defined in modern Greek 
(Thumb, Handb., pp. 107 ff.). But in the N. T. the prepositions 
have not gone so far in their history. 

IV. Prepositions in Composition with Verbs. 

(a) Not ΤῊΣ Main Function. As has already been shown, 
this was not the original use of what we call prepositions, though 
this usage has given the name to this group of words. Besides it 
debars one technically from calling those numerous adverbs prep- 
ositions which are used with cases, but not used in composition 
with verbs. But no “inseparable” prepositions were developed 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 62. 
2 See Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 365 f., for careful comparison between anc. 
and mod. Gk. Cf. Hatz., Einl., p. 151. 


558 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


in Greek,! though in the N. T. ἀμφί does not appear outside of 
composition. In most dialects ἀμφί was obsolete (Buck, Gk. Dia- 
lects, Ὁ. 102). In modern Greek ἀνά--, παρά-- and ἐκ-- (ξε) are used 
chiefly in composition (Thumb, Handb., p. 99), but 6x occurs 
with accusative. 

(b) Preposition ALONE. Sometimes indeed the preposition is 
used alone (ellipsis) and the verb has to be supplied, as in οὐκ ἔνι 
(Gal. 3 : 28) for οὐκ ἔνεστι. So ὕπερ éyw in 2 Cor. 11:23. Cf. adr’ 
ava (‘but up!’) in Homer. This ellipsis does not differ greatly 
from the common use of tmesis in Homer, where the preposition 
is regarded more as an adverb. 

(c) IncreasinG Use. The use of prepositions in composition 
increased with the history of the Greek language. One character- 
istic of the later Greek is the number of compound verbs employed.? 
This is a matter partly of impression and will remain so till one 
“χαλκέντερος grammarian” arrives “who will toil right through 
the papyri and the κοινή literature.”’* No one is anxious for that 
task, but Krebs‘ is able to say that verbs compounded with 
prepositions play a noteworthy réle in the later Greek. This 
is not simply true of new compounds like ἐντκακέω, ete., but 
“there is a growing tendency to use the compounds, especially 
those with διά, κατά and σύν, to express what in the oldest Greek 
could be sufficiently indicated by the simplex.”® The N. T. does 
not indeed show as lavish a use of compound verbs as does Polyb- 
ius, the chief representative of the literary κοινή of his time. But 
these διπλᾶ belonged to the language of the people in Aristotle’s 
time® and the papyri show a common use of compound verbs.’ 
As compared with Polybius the N. T. makes less use of certain 
verbs, but the matter varies with different verbs and different 
writers.® 

1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 123. 

2 The LXX in particular shows a great variety of uses of the prep. with 
verbs, partly due to transl. from the Heb., partly to the κοινή. Cf. C. and S., 
p. 88, for list. Cf. Johannessohn, Der Gebr. d. Casus und der Priip. in der LX X. 

3 Moulton, Prol., p. 118. Cf. W.-Th., p. 426. 

4 Zur Rect. der Casus in der spiteren hist. Grac., III. Heft, p. 3. 

5 Moulton, Prol., p. 115. δ Biass Gr. ΟΝ LGUs 

7 Mayser, Gr. ἃ. griech. Pap., pp. 486 ff. Kuhring (de praepositionum 
Graecarum in chartis Aegyptiis usu quaestiones selectae, 1906) and Rossberg 
(de praep. Graec. in chartis Aegypt. Ptol. aetatis usu, 1909) have both attacked 
the problems in the pap., as Geyer (Observationes epigraphicae de praep. 
Graec. forma et usu, 1880) has done for the inscr. 


8 Moulton, Prol., p. 116 f. The great work on prepositions is Tycho Momm- 
sen’s Beitr. zu der Lehre von den griech. Priip., 1895. 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEIS) 559 


(d) REPETITION AFTER VERB. Sometimes the preposition is 
repeated after the verb, as in the older Greek. The prepositions 
most frequently repeated are ἀπό, ἐξ, eis, ἐν, ἐπί. This is partly 
because these prepositions are so common in the N. T. and 
partly because they emphasize the local notions of ‘from,’ ‘in,’ 
or ’upon,’ and ‘to’ or ‘into.’ Perhaps also the preposition in 
composition is a bit worn down. The papyri and inscriptions 
show the same repetition of the preposition, though hardly so 
frequently, if one may judge by his impressions. See ἀπῆλθεν 
am’ αὐτοῦ (Mk. 1:42). With ἀπό indeed Winer! finds that for the 
most part the preposition is repeated in the N. T. Thus we note 
also ἀπαρθῇ an’ αὐτῶν (Mt. 9:15), ἀφαιρεῖται ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ (Lu. 16:3, 
but not so in 10 : 42), ἀπηλλάχθαι ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ (Lu. 12 : 58), ἀπεθάνετε 
ἀπὸ τῶν στοιχείων (Col. 2:20), am’ αὐτῶν ἀποβάντες (Lu. 5:2), ἀπέπεσαν 
ἀπὸ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν (Ac. 9 : 18), ἀπορφανισθέντες ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν (1 Th. 2 : 17), 
ἀφορίσει am’ ἀλλήλων (Mt. 25 : 32), ἀπεσπάσθη an’ αὐτῶν (Lu. 22:41), 
ἀποστρέψει ἀπὸ ᾿Ιακὠβ (Ro. 11: 26), ἀποχωρεῖτε am’ ἐμοῦ (Mt. 7: 23), 
ἀπόστητε ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ (Lu. 13 : 27, but not 2 : 37). 

Likewise ἐκ may be repeated as with ἐκβάλλει ἐκ τοῦ θησαυροῦ 
(Mt. 13 : 52), ἐκ cod ἐξελεύσεται (Mt. 2 : 6), ἐξαιρούμενος ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ 
(Ac. 26 : 17), ἐξελεξάμην ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου (Jo. 15 : 19), ἐκ τῆς κατὰ φύσιν 
ἐξεκόπης (Ro. 11: 24), ἐξέπεσαν ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν (Ac. 12:7), ἐκπορευόμενον 
ἐκ τοῦ στόματος (Mt. 15: 11), ἐκφυγεῖν ἐκ τοῦ οἴκου (Ac. 19 : 16). 

Verbs compounded with eis “uniformly repeat eis’? (Winer- 
Thayer, p. 430). So, for instance, εἰσήγαγον (Lu. 22 : 54), εἰσιέναι 
(Ac. 3:3), εἰσῆλθεν (Mt. 2 : 21), εἰσπορεύονται (Mk. 1 : 21), εἰσφέρεις 
(Ac. 17: 20). 

With ἐν we observe the repetition in some verbs appears, though 
often eis occurs instead both where motion is implied and where 
the idea is simply that of rest (pregnant construction). As is well 
known, ἐν and εἰς are really the same word. Hence the rigid dis- 
tinction between the two prepositions cannot be insisted on. There 
are two extremes about εἰς and ἐν, one to blend them entirely be- 
cause of alleged Hebraism, the other to insist on complete dis- 
tinction always. As a rule they are distinct, but εἰς frequently 
encroached on ἐν where one has to admit the practical iden- 
tity, like eis οἶκόν ἐστιν (Mk. 2:1, marg. in W. H.), ὁ ὧν εἰς τὸν κόλπον 
τοῦ πατρός (Jo. 1:18), etc. For the frequent LX X examples see 
Conybeare and Stock, p. 81. Still, for the sake of uniformity, 
only examples of ἐν are here given, like ἐμβάψας ἐν τῷ τρυβλίῳ 
(Mir. 26 < 23), ἐμβριμώμενος ἐν ἑαυτῷ (Jo. 11 : 38), ἐνγεγραμμένη ἐν ταῖς 

1 W.-Th., p. 427. 


560 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


καρδίαις (2 Cor. 8 : 2), ἐνδημοῦντες ἐν τῷ σώματι (2 Cor. 5 : 6), ἐνεργῶν 
ἐν ὑμῖν (Ph. 2:13), ἐνέμειναν ἐν τῇ διαθήκῃ (Heb. 8: 9), ἐνοικείτω ἐν 
ὑμῖν (Col. 8 : 10), ἐντρυφῶντες ἐν ταῖς ἀπάταις (2 Pet. 2 : 13). ᾿ 

A number of verbs have ἐπί repeated, such as ἐπιβεβηκὼς ἐπί 
with accusative (Mt. 21:5), ἐπιβάλλει ἐπί with accusative (Lu. 
5 : 36), ἐπῆρεν ἐπ᾽ ἐμέ (Jo. 18 : 18), ἐφαλόμενος ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς (Ac. 19 : 16), 
ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ (Lu. 1:35), ἔπιδε ἐπὶ τὰς κτλ. (Ac. 4 : 29), ἐπέκειτο 
ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ (Jo. 11:38), ἐπέβλεψεν ἐπὶ τὴν κτλ. (Lu. 1:48), ἐπέπεσεν én’ 
αὐτόν (Lu. 1 : 12), ἐπ᾽ οὐδενὶ αὐτῶν ἐπιπεπτωκός (Ac. 8: 16), ἐπιρίψαντες 
ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν (1 Pet. 5:7), ἐπιτιθέασιν ἐπὶ τοὺς κτὰ. (Mt. 23: 4), ἐποικοδο- 
pet ἐπὶ τὸν κτὰ. (1 Cor. 8 : 12), ἐποικοδομηθέντες ἐπὶ τῷ κτλ. (Eph. 
2+ 20); 

As to διά not many verbs have it repeated, but note διαπο- 
ρεύεσθαι αὐτὸν διὰ σπορίμων (Lu. 6:1), διεσώθησαν δι᾽ ὕδατος (1 Pet. 
3:20), διέρχεται δι’ ἀνύδρων (Mt. 12:48), διήρχετο διὰ μέσον (Lu. 
LALO: 

A similar rarity as to repetition exists in the case of κατά, but 
we note xarnyopetre κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ (Lu. 29 : 14), κατακαυχᾶσθε κατὰ τῆς 
ἀληθείας (Jas. 8 : 14). 

Very seldom is παρά repeated as in παρελάβετε παρ᾽ ἡμῶν (1 Th. 
4ee cll Whe lS. 28 ΠΥ 0): 

Περί is repeated with more verbs than παρά. Thus περιαστράψαι 
περὶ ἐμέ (Ac. 22:6), περιεζωσμένοι περὶ τὰ κτὰ. (Rev. 18 : 6), περί- 
κειται περὶ τὸν κτλ. (Lu. 17: 2), περιεσπᾶτο περὶ πολλήν (Lu. 10 : 40). 

Πρό, like μετά, shows no example of repetition in the critical 
text, though some MSS. read rporopebon πρὸ προσώπου (for évwmor) 
ins π|Π 10. 

As examples of πρός repeated take προσκολληθήσεται πρὸς τὴν κτλ. 
(Eph. 5:31), προσέπεσεν πρὸς τοὺς κτὰ. (Mk. 7: 25), προσετέθη πρὸς 
τοὺς κτλ. (Ac. 19 : 36). It is seldom repeated. 

As a lonely example of σύν repeated see συνεζωοποίησεν σὺν αὐτῷ 
(ΟἹ culo): 

We have no example of ὑπό repeated and but one of ὑπέρ in 
some MSS. (not the critical text) for Ro. 8 : 26 (ὑπερεντυγχάνει --- 
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν). 

(ὁ) DirFERENT PREPOSITION AFTER VERB. Once more, a dif- 
ferent preposition may be used other than the one in composition. 
This is, of course, true where the meaning differs radically, as in 
συνακολουθοῦσαι ἀπό (Lu. 23 : 49), but even when the prepositions 
do not differ very greatly. Thus εἰς frequently follows compounds 
of ἐν, as ἐμβάντι εἰς πλοῖον (Mt. 8 : 23), ἐμβαλεῖν εἰς τὴν γέενναν (Lu. 
12 : 5), ἐμβαπτόμενος εἰς τὸ κτὰ. (Mk. 14 : 20), ἐμβλέψατε εἰς τὰ κτλ. 


PREPOSITIONS (ΠΡΟΘΕΣΕῚΣ) 561 


(Mt. 6 : 26), ἐμπεσόντος εἰς τοὺς κτλ. (Lu. 10 : 36), ἐνέπτυσαν εἰς τὸ κτλ. 
(Mt. 26 : 67), ἐνεκεντρίσθης εἰς καλλιέλαιον (Ro. 11:24). There is 
little cause for comment here. 

In general the varying of the preposition is pertinent and is to 
be noted. So, for instance, ἀπό, ἐκ, παρά. Here παρά calls attention 
to the fact that one is beside the place or person whence he starts; 
ἀπό merely notes the point of departure, while ἐκ distinctly asserts 
that one had been within the place or circle before departing. Cf. 
therefore Mt. 3:16 ἀνέβη ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος and Mk. 1:10 ἀναβαίνων 
ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος. Thus ἀπό follows παραβαίνω in Ac. 1: 25, παραλαμ- 
βάνω in 1 Cor. 11: 28, παραφέρω in Mk. 14:36, and παρέρχομαι in 
Mt. 5:18. Verbs compounded with ἐκ (besides ἐκὴ may have ἀπό 
as ἐκκλίνω in 1 Pet. 3:11, or παρά as ἐξέρχομαι in Lu. 2:1, while 
ἐκπορεύομαι Shows either ἐκ (Mt. 15:18), ἀπό (Mt. 20 : 29) or παρά 
(Jo. 15 : 20). So compounds of κατά use. either ἀπό as καταβαίνω 
(Lu. 9 : 54) or ἐκ as 2b. (Jo. 6:41). See further discussion under 
separate prepositions. 

Compounds of ava likewise are followed by εἰς aS With ἀναβαίνω 
(Mt. 5:1), avayw (Lu. 2: 22), ἀναβλέπω (Lu. 9: 16), ἀναλαμβα- 
vouat (Mk. 16:19), ἀναπίπτω (Lu. 14: 10), ἀναφέρω (Lu. 24 : 51), 
avepxouat (Gal. 1 : 18); or by ἐπί as ἀναβαίνω (Lu. 5:19), ἀναβιβάζω 
(Mt. 13:48), ἀνακάμπτω (Lu. 10:6), ἀνακλίνομαι (Mt. 14 : 19), 
ἀναπίπτω with accusative (Mt. 15:35) or genitive (Mk. 8:6), 
ἀναφέρω (1 Pet. 2 : 24); or by πρός as ἀναβαίνω (Jo. 20 : 17), ἀνακάμπτω 
(Mt. 2:12), ἀναπέμπω (Lu. 23:7). As a rule πρός refers to per- 
sonal relations while eis and ἐπί differ in that ἐπί more distinctly 
marks the terminus. But the line cannot be drawn hard and fast 
between these prepositions, because ἐπί and πρός show a variation. 
Thus verbs compounded with ἐπί may be followed by εἰς as in 
ἐπιβάλλω (Mk. 4 : 37), ἐπιβαίνω (Ac. 20:18), ἐπαίρω (Lu. 18 : 18), 
ἐφικνέομαι (2 Cor. 10:14). ᾿Επιγράφω is even followed by ἐν in 
Ac. 17: 23. On the other hand, πρός may be followed by ἐπί as 
in προστίθημι (Mt. 6 : 27) or ἐν as in προσμένω (1 Tim. 1:3). And 
even εἴσειμι has πρός in Ac. 21:18 and εἰσφέρω has ἐπί (Lu. 12: 11), 
Aca in composition may be followed by eis as in διαβαίνω (Ac. 16; 
9), πρός (Lu. 16 : 26) or ἀνά (1 Cor. 6 : 5), ete. 

Compounds with μετά usually have eis, like μεταβαίνω (Lu. 10: 7 
both ἐκ and eis), μεταλλάσσω (Ro. 1: 26), weravoew (Mt. 12: 41), 
μεταπέμπομαι (Ac. 10 : 22), μεταστρέφω (Ac. 2: 20), μετασχηματίζω 
(1 Cor. 4:6), μετατίθημι (Ac. 7:16), μετατρέπω (Jas. 4: 9), μετοι- 
κίζω (Ac. 7:4). But peradidwu (Ro. 12:8) and μεταλλάσσω (Ro. 
1: 25) have ἐν. 


562 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Περιάγω is followed by ἐν in Mt. 4:23. As to πρό in Lu. 1:17 
we have προελεύσεται followed by ἐνώπιον. 

Verbs compounded with σύν may have μετά (cf. the displacing 
of σύν by μετά in modern Greek) as in συναίρω (Mt. 25 : 19) συλλαλῶ 
(Mt. 17:3), συμπέμπω (2 Cor. 8:18), συμφωνῷ (Mt. 20:2) and 
even συνκατεψηφίσθη μετὰ τῶν ἕνδεκα ἀποστόλων (Ac. 1: 26). But 
note συνάγω. eis (Mt. 3:12), ἐπε (27:27) and πρὸς (Mk. 7:1), 
συνέρχομαι πρός (Ac. 28:17), ἐπί (1 Cor. 11: 20) and eis (11: 38 f.). 

For ὑπερφρονεῖν παρά see Ro. 12:3. Cf. ὑπερβάλλω ἐπί in 2 Cor. 
9 : 14 and ὑπεραίρομαι ἐπί in 2 Th. 2:4. 

With ὑπό we find a number of prepositions especially with ὑπάγω, 
as pera (Mt. 5:41), eis (9:6), ἀπὸ (13 : 44), πρὸς (Jo. 138::3), ἐν 
(Jas. 2:16), with which compare ὀπίσω (Mt. 16 : 23) and μεταξύ 
(18:15). Cf. also ὑποστρέφω with εἰς (Lu. 1:56) and ἐπί (Ac. 
8:28). Delicate shades of meaning will be found in all these 
prepositions without undue refinement. See Conybeare and Stock, 
p. 88, for different prepositions with verbs in the LXX. 

(f) Seconp PreposiTion NoT Necessary. But it is not 
always necessary for any preposition to follow the compound verb. 
Often the preposition with the verb may be followed by the case 
that is usual with the preposition without much regard to the 
verb itself. That is to say, the preposition in composition may be 
tantamount in result to the simple verb followed by that preposi- 
tion. This is not always true, but it sometimes happens so. It 
is not necessary to give an exhaustive list. As examples we may 
note the following: ᾿Επιπίπτειν αὐτῷ (Mk. 8 : 10) with the dative 
may be compared with τῆς χάριτος ἐξεπέσατε (Gal. 5:4) with the 
ablative. Here the two prepositions and the cases correspond 
exactly. The instrumental case is illustrated by συνχάρητεέ μοι (Lu. 
15:6). Cf. also the ablative in Lu. 10 : 42 with ἀφαιρεθήσεται. As 
an example of the locative take ἐμμένειν τῇ πίστει (Ac. 14 : 22). An 
example of the genitive is seen in gov καταμαρτυροῦσιν (Mt. 26 : 62. 
Cf. also Mt. 16 : 18) and of the accusative in τὴν ἅλυσιν ταύτην περί- 
κειμαι (Ac. 28: 20) where a change of standpoint takes place, since 
the chain is around Paul. Cf. Heb. 12:1. In a case like διεπο- 
ρεύοντο τὰς πόλεις (Ac. 16 : 4) one may either regard the accusative 
as loosely associated with the preposition (cf. διὰ μέσον in Lu. 17: 
11) or consider that the preposition has made an intransitive verb 
transitive (see next point). See ch. XI for further exx. 

(g) Errect or PREPOSITION ON MEANING OF THE VERB. *Some- 
times there is no effect at all. The preposition is merely local as 
in ἐξέρχομαι, ‘go out.’ The preposition may be “perfective” and 


PREPOSITIONS (ΠΡΟΘΕΣΕΙΣ) 563 


merely intensify the meaning of the verb, as in κατεσθίω (‘eat up’), 
καταδιώκω (‘hunt down’). The preposition is sometimes weakened 
in idea as In ἀποδέχομαι, ἀποκρίνομαι. Prepositions in composition 
sometimes change the meaning of the verb and blend withit. A 
resultant meaning arises with a new construction. The use of 
διά alluded to above may be a case in point. Thus take διαβαίνω 
with accusative (Heb. 11: 29), διέρχομαι (Lu. 19:1). The use of 
διαπλέω with the accusative in Ac. 27:5 is probably the result of 
the preposition in composition. See also προάξω ὑμᾶς in sense 
of ‘go before’ (Mt. 26: 32). Cf. further ἀποδεκατοῦν, μεταδίδωμι, 
συγκλείειν. These examples will suffice, though they could be 
multiplied easily. 

(h) DRoppING THE PREPOSITION WITH SECOND VERB. Winer! 
denies that we have in the N.T. an instance of the old Greek idiom 
of using the preposition with the first verb and dropping it with 
the repeated verb though really retained in sense. But Moulton? 
seems to show that the N. T. does offer some examples of this 
construction, like the κατῆγον, ἦγον, ἦγον, of Euripides’ Bacchides, 
1065 (English ‘pulled down, down, down,’ Moulton).2 He cites 
παρέλαβον, ἔλαβον (Jo. 1:11 f.); rpoeypadn, eypadn (Ro. 15:4); 
ἐξηραύνησαν, ἐραυνῶντες (1 Pet. 1:10 f.); ἐπενδύσασθαι, ἐνδυσάμενοι (2 
Cor. 5:3); ἀντιστῆναι, στῆναι (Eph. 6:13); κατέφαγον, ἔφαγον 
(Rev. 10:10). These are certainly possible illustrations, though 
I have doubts about 2 Cor. 5:3 and Eph. 6:13. In Eph. 
6:13 especially στῆναι is stronger alone than with ἀντί. I do 
not agree that in 1 Cor. 12:2 we have an illustration in ἤγεσθε 
ἀπαγόμενοι. 

(ὃ INTENSIVE oR ΡΕΒΕΈΟΤΙΥΕ. There is still another very 
common use of the preposition in composition. It is that of a 
“mere adverb and intensifies or completes the idea of the verb. 
Sometimes the frequent use of the compound form tends to ob- 
scure this adverbial idea. Thus in ἀποκρίνομαι the force of ἀπό has 
largely faded and in ἀποθνήσκω it is quite obscure. Doubtless ‘die 
off? was the original idea for the one, as ‘answer back’ for the 
other. The appeal to the original usage will explain the force 
of the preposition. But in most instances the idea is very clear, 
as In συνκαλεῖ τοὺς φίλους (Lu. 15: 6), ‘calls his friends together.’ 
This common function of the preposition in all the Indo-Germanic 
tongues was probably the original use with verbs. At any rate 
it is common enough in English, though we usually separate verb 
and preposition. We say ‘‘up-set”’ as well as ‘‘set up,” but they 

1 W.-Th., p. 433. 2eProli pe 1100 8. Tb. 


564 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


mean different things. We all see the adverbial force in ‘‘come 
home,” ‘‘come back,” ‘‘come away,”’ etc., but it 1s the adverb just 
as truly in “‘fore-close,”’ ‘‘ pre-clude,” etc. Indeed, prepositions when 
compounded are etymologically pure adverbs. The English may 
be compared with the Homeric Greek in the separateness of the 
adverb from the verb.!. In German the compound use of the pre- 
position is very extensive, but later Greek and Latin illustrate it 
abundantly.2. The German prepositions are either inseparable or 
detachable. As applied to the meaning of the verb the term “‘ per- 
fective” is used for the force of the preposition, but it is not a very 
happy designation, since one is at once reminded of the perfect 
tense with which it has nothing to do.2. Moulton gives a number 
of luminous examples such as θνήσκω ‘to be dying,’ ἀποθανεῖν ‘to die 
(off)’; φεύγειν ‘ to flee,’ διαφυγεῖν ‘to escape (flee clean through)’; διώκω 

‘to pursue,’ καταδιώκω ‘to hunt down’; τηρεῖν ‘to watch,’ cwrn- 
petv ‘to keep safe’; ἐργάζεσθαι ‘to work,’ κατεργάζεσθαι ‘to work 
out (down to the end),’ etc. The preposition in this “ perfective” 
sense does have a bearing on the present and aorist tenses of any 
given verb, but that phase of the matter belongs to the discussion 
of the tenses. Indeed, not all of the N. T. verbs by any means show 
examples of this “perfective” use of the preposition. Moulton4 
notes this absence, as compared with Polybius, in the case of &pxo- 
μαι, θεάομαι, θεωρέω, λογίζομαι, κινδυνεύω, μέλλω, ὀργίζομαι, πράσσω. He 
finds that the papyri support this “perfective” use of the preposi- 
tion as between simplex and compound. N. T. illustrations are 
interesting. Thus σπάομαι (Mk. 14:47) is used of Peter’s drawing 
his sword (note voice), but διασπασθῇ (Ac. 28 : 10) expresses the 
fear that Paul may be drawn in two. So ἐργάζομαι is a common 
verb for doing work (as Mk. 14:6), but κατεργάζομαι accents the 
carrying of the work through as in Ph. 2:12, and in verse 13 
ἐνεργεῖν is used for the idea of in-working as contrasted with the 
out-working or development taught by κατεργάζεσθαι. Cf. also 
μηδὲν ἐργαζομένους ἀλλὰ περιεργαζομένους (2 Th. 3:11) where the 
whole idea turns on περί, ‘doing nothing but doing about’ is a 
free rendering. The same distinction is seen between ἐσθίω ‘to 
eat’ (Mt. 15: 2) and κατεσθίω ‘to eat up (down)’ in Lu. 20: 47. 
Cf. also ἔφαγον (Mt. 6:25) and κατέφαγον (Mt. 13:4). As one 
further illustration note ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους (1 Cor. 13 : 12) and 
τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην (ib.). In general, on the 
whole subject of prepositions in composition see Delbriick, Ver- 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 112. 3 Moulton, Prol., p. 111. 
2 Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 815. 4 Prol., p. 116. 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEI2) 565 


gleichende Syntax, I, pp. 660 ff. Cf. also Brugmann, Griech. Gr., 
ΠΡ. 4311. See also ch. XVIII for further remarks. 

(7) DousLe Compounps. It is always interesting to note the 
significance of both prepositions. As noted in chapter V, Word 
Formation, Iv, (c), these double compounds are frequent in the 
κοινή and so in the N. T. The point to emphasize here is that each 
preposition as a rule adds something to the picture. There are 
pictures in prepositions if one has eyes to see them. For instance, 
note ἀντι-παρ-ῆλθεν (Lu. 10:31 f.), συν-αντι-λάβηται (10:40. CF. 
Ro. 8 : 26. First known in LXX, but now found in papyrus and 
inscriptions third century B.c. Cf. Deissmann, Jzght., p. 88), 
ὑπερ-εν-τυγχάνει (Ro. 8: 26), ἀντ-ανα-πληρῶ (Col. 1: 24), συν-παρα-λα- 
Bety (Ac. 15:37), προσ-ανα-πληρῶ (2 Cor. 9:12), ἀντι-δια-τίθεμαι 
(2 Tim. 2: 25),. etc. 

V. Repetition and Variation of Prepositions. A few words 
are needed in general on this subject before we take up the prep- 
ositions in detail. . 

(a) SAME PREPOSITION WITH DIFFERENT CaAsEs. Sometimes 
the same preposition is used with different cases and so with a dif- 
ferent resultant idea. Take διά, for instance. In 1 Cor. 11:9 we 
have οὐκ ἐκτίσθη ἀνὴρ διὰ τὴν γυναῖκα, while in verse 12 we read ἀνὴρ 
δια τῆς γυναικός. In Heb. 2:10 the whole point turns on the dif- 
ference in case, δι’ ὃν τὰ πάντα καὶ δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα. In Heb. 11:29 
the verb with διά in composition has the accusative while διά 
alone has the genitive, διέβησαν τὴν ᾿Ερυθρὰν Θάλασσαν ὡς διὰ ξηρᾶς 
γῆς. Cf. διὰ μέσου (Lu. 4:30) and διὰ μέσον (Lu. 17: 11). But the 
resultant idea is here the same. ᾿Επί is a pertinent illustration. 
In Rev. 5:1 we find ἐπὶ τὴν δεξιάν and ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου, while in 
Rev. 11:10 observe ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς and ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς. Cf. also Rev. 14: 
6. So again in Mt. 19:28 note ἐπὲ θρόνου and ἐπὲ θρόνους and in 
Mt. 24 : 2 ἐπὶ λίθον, but λίθος ἐπὶ λίθῳ in Lu. 21:6. Cf. ἐπὲ τοῦ 
and ἐπὶ τὴν in Rev. 14:9. So ἐλπίζω ἐπί with dative in 1 Tim. 
4:10 and accusative in 5:5. This is all in harmony with the 
ancient Greek idiom. 

For an interesting comparison between the Synoptic and the 
Johannine use of prepositions and the varying cases see Abbott, 
Johannine Vocabulary, pp. 357-361. The variation is especially 
noticeable in διά, ἐπί and παρά. The LXX shows abundant use 
of the preposition after verbs. Cf. Conybeare and Stock, Selections 
from the LXX, p. 87 f., and Johannessohn, Der Gebrauch ete. 
In some stereotyped formule one notes even in modern Greek 
ἀπὸ καρδίας, μετὰ Bias, κατὰ διαβόλου (Thumb, Handb., pp. 103 ff.). 


566 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(b) REPETITION WITH SEVERAL Nouns. When several nouns 
are used with the same preposition the preposition is repeated 
rather more frequently than in the earlier Greek.1. Winer? thinks 
that the repetition occurs only when the two or more substantives 
do not come easily under the same category. Within limits this 
is true (cf. repetition of the article), but there is rather more free- 
dom in the later Greek on this point. In Jo. 4:23 we do have a 
similar idea in the phrase ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ as in ἀπὸ φόβου καὶ 
προσδοκίας in Lu. 21: 26. Cf. also ἐν Λύστροις καὶ ᾿Ικονίῳ (Ac. 16 : 2), 
but in verse 1 observe καὶ els AépBnv καὶ εἰς Λύστραν, where perhaps 
the double conjunction plays some part. Indeed with καὶ --- καί 
or τε--- καί the preposition is commonly repeated. Thus καὶ ἐν 
ὀλίγῳ Kal ἐν μεγάλῳ (Ac. 26 : 29), ἔν τε τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου καὶ ἐν TH ἀπολογίᾳ 
(Ph. 1 : 7). With disjunctive conjunctions the repetition is usual 
also, as ἀπὸ ἀκανθῶν ἢ ἀπὸ τριβόλων (Mt. 7: 16). With antithesis the 
repetition is the rule, as μὴ ἐν σοφίᾳ ἀλλ᾽ ἐν δυνάμει (1 Cor. 2:5. Cf. 
also verse 4). But one cannot properly insist on any ironclad rule 
when he considers a case like ἀπὸ Μωυσέως καὶ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν 
προφητῶν (Lu. 24: 27), πρὸς Σίμωνα ἹΠέτρον καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἄλλον (Jo. 20: 
2), ἐν δυνάμει καὶ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ ἐν πληροφορίᾳ (1 Th. 1: δ). Ina 
comparison again the preposition is repeated, as ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς --- ὥσπερ 
καὶ ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς (Ac. 11:15). But even with disjunctive conjunctions the 
preposition is not always repeated, as ἐπὲ δυσὶν ἢ τρισίν (Heb. 10: 28). 
In ‘Ac. 26:18 ἀπό is not repeated, though εἰς occurs in one member 
of the sentence and ἐπί in the other. In Jo.:-16 : 8 περί is repeated 
for rhetorical reasons, περί ἁμαρτίας καὶ περί δικαιοσύνης Kal περί Kpi- 
σεως. Cf. Eph. 6:12 where the repetition occurs without a con- 
junction, πρὸς τὰς ἀρχάς, πρὸς Tas ἐξουσίας, πρὸς τοὺς κοσμοκράτορας, 
etc. Cf. also Jo. 17:9. 

(c) REPETITION WITH THE RELATIVE. The preposition is not 
always repeated with the relative. Usually the classic authors 
did not repeat the preposition with the relative when the antece- 
dent had it. So the N. T. shows similar examples, as ἐν ἡμέραις ais 
ἐπεῖδεν (Lu. 1: 25), els τὸ ἔργον ὃ προσκέκλημαι (Ac. 13:2), ἀπὸ πάν- 
των ὧν (Ac. 18 : 99), ete. But the repetition is seen in such ex- 
amples as eis τὴν γῆν ταύτην, eis ἥν (Ac. 7:4); ἀπὸ πρώτης ἡμέρας, ad’ 
ἧς (Ac. 20:18). In Jo. 4 : 53, ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ, ἐν 7, the preposition oc- 
curs with the relative, but not with the antecedent. However, 
there is very little difference between the mere locative case and & 
added. Especially noticeable‘ is a case where the antecedent is 


1 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 158. *% W.-Th., p. 422. 
2 W.-Th., p. 420. 4 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 174. 


PREPOSITIONS (ΠΡΟΘΈΣΕΙΣ) 567 


not expressed and the relative has the preposition of the antece- 
dent. So περὶ ὧν in Jo. 17:9 is equal to περὶ τούτων ods δέδωκάς 
μοι. Cf. eis dv (Jo. 6 : 29). 

(d) CONDENSATION BY VARIATION. Once more, the variation 
of the preposition is a skilful way of condensing thought, each 
preposition adding a new idea. Paul is especially fond of this 
idiom. Thus in Ro. 3 : 22 we note δικαιοσύνη δὲ θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως ᾿Ιησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ eis πάντας. Cf. verses 25 f. A particularly striking example 
is ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα (Ro. 11:36). Cf. also 
Col. 1:16 ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα --- δι᾿ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται. 
Cf. ἐπί, διά, ἐν in Eph. 4:6. In Ο6Δ].1:1 Paul covers source and 
agency in his denial of man’s control of his apostleship by the use 
of ἀπό and διά. See Winer-Thayer, p. 418 f. Cf. also ὑπὸ Κυρίου 
διὰ τοῦ προφήτου (Mt. 1: 22) for mediate and intermediate agent. 
One should not make the prepositions mere synonyms. Cf. ὑπέρ 
(Ro. 5:6), ἀντί (Mt. 20 : 28), and περί (Mt. 26 : 28) all used in 
connection with the death of Christ. They approach the subject 
from different angles. 

VI. The Functions of Prepositions with Cases. 

(a) THE CASE BEFORE PREpOsITIONS.! Both in time and at 
first in order. In the Indo-Germanic tongues at first the substan- 
tive was followed by the preposition? as is still seen in the Greek 

®&exev, χάριν, etc. The Greek, however, generally came to put the 
preposition before the substantive as with compound verbs. 

(b) Notion oF Dimension. ‘The prepositions especially help 
express the idea of dimension and all the relations growing out of 
that,? but they come to be used in various abstract relations also. 
Indeed it was just the purely “‘local’’ cases (ablative, locative and 
instrumental) that came to lose their independent forms (Moulton, 
Prol., p. 60 f.), due partly to the increase in the use of prepositions. 

(c) ORIGINAL ForcE OF THE Case. The case retains its orig- 
inal force with the preposition and this fundamental case-idea 
must be observed. The same preposition will be used with dif- 
ferent cases where the one difference lies in the variation in case 
as already noted. Take παρά, for instance, with the ablative, the 
locative or the accusative. The preposition is the same, but the 
case varies and the resultant idea differs radically. 


1 K.-G., I, p. 448. “La préposition ne fait que confirmer, que préciser une 
idée exprimée par un cas employé adverbialement.”’ Riem. and Cucuel, Synt. 
Grec., 1888, p. 213. 

2 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 653. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 433 f. 

ὃ K.-G., I, p. 451. Cf. Delbriick , Grundl. etc., p. 184. 4 K.-G., I, p. 450. 


568 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(ἃ) THz GRoUND-MEANING OF THE PREPOSITION. This must 
always be taken into consideration.! It is quite erroneous to say 
that παρά, for instance, means now ‘from,’ now ‘beside,’ now 
‘to.’ This is to confuse the resultant meaning of the preposition, 
case and context with the preposition itself. It is the common 
vice in the study of the prepositions to make this crucial error. 
The scientific method of studying the Greek preposition is to 
begin with the case-idea, add the meaning of the preposition it- 
self, then consider the context. The result of this combination 
will be what one ‘translates into English, for instance, but he 
translates the total idea, not the mere preposition. It is puerile 
to explain the Greek prepositions merely by the English or 
German rendering of the whole. Unfortunately the Greeks did 
not have the benefit of our English and German. Kihner-Gerth? 
well observe that it is often impossible to make any translation 
that at all corresponds to the Greek idiom. 

(ec) THE OBLIQUE CaAsES ALONE WITH PREPOSITIONS. See 
also ch. XI. The vocative was obviously out of the question, 
and the nominative only appeared with pure adverbs like ava eis 
(Rev. 21:21). Cf. Mk. 14:19; Ro. 12:5, καθ᾽ εἷς: But not all 
the ‘six oblique cases were used with equal freedom with prep- 
ositions. Certainly in the original Indo-Germanic tongues the 
dative was not used with prepositions.’ The dative is not origi- 
nally a “local’? case and expresses purely personal relations. 
Delbriick thinks that the Greek dative did come to be used 
sometimes with ἐπί as in Homer, ἐπὶ Τρώεσσι μάχεσθαι. Indeed 
some N. T. examples of ἐπί may naturally be datives like ἐσπλα- 
γχνίσθη ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς (Mt. 14:14), μακροθύμησον ἐπ᾽ ἐμοί (Mt. 18: 26). 
But usually even with ἐπί the case is locative, not dative. We do 
have two examples of ἔγγύς with the dative, as Ac. 9:38; 27:8. 
Originally again the genitive was not used with prepositions,’ but 
the Greek undoubtedly uses the genitive, though not a “local” 
case, with some prepositions like ἀντί, διά, ἐπί. 

({) OrtaInAL FREEDOM. That is to say, most of the preposi- 
tions could be used with ablative, locative, accusative and some 
with the genitive or instrumental. But the three first mentioned 
(‘whence,’ ‘where,’ ‘whither’ cases) called upon most of the prepo- 
sitions. The dialect inscriptions give many proofs of this matter. 
Thus ἀπό and ἐξ both appear in the Arcadian and Cyprian dialects 


1K-G., I, p. 451. 2 Tb. 


8. Delbriick, Grundl. ete., pp. 180, 184. Cf. also Monro, Hom., Gr. p. 125, 


ἌΠΟ p..130. 6 Tb., p. 134. 


a 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEI2) 569 


with the locative as well as the ablative.! ᾿Αμφί originally oc- 
curred with locative, accusative and genitive. The same thing 
was true of ἐπί, μετά περί and ὑπό (possibly with ablative, not 
genitive). Indeed περί once used the ablative also. Παρά and 
πρός were used with locative, accusative or ablative. It is pos- 
sible indeed that πρός may have been used with five cases, adding 
true dative and true genitive to the above.? In the case of ἐπί 
four cases occur (Delbriick) since it apparently used the dative 
also. Other prepositions once were used with two cases, as ἀνά 
and ἐν with locative and accusative (even the gen. with ἐν and εἰς 
like εἰς Gov), whereas κατά seems to use accusative, genitive, abla- 
tive. Πρό originally had locative as well as ablative, while ὑπέρ 
had ablative (genitive Ὁ) and accusative and διά accusative and 
genitive. ’Avri has only genitive, while σύν has only instrumental. 
᾿Αμφί is no longer a free preposition in the N. T., but occasionally 
occurs in the papyri. 

(g) No AprquatE Division By Cases. It is very difficult, there- 
fore, to make any adequate division of the prepositions by the 
cases. There were indeed in early Greek two with only one case, 
eight with two, and eight with three cases. But the point to 
observe is that the usage varies greatly in the course of the cen- 
turies and in different regions, not to say in the vernacular and in 
the literary style. Besides, each preposition had its own history 
and every writer his own. idiosyncrasies. For the detailed compa- 
rison of the prepositions see Helbing,’? and for the history of the 
cases with the prepositions see Krebs.t. But in the Ptolemaic 
times prepositions are more and more used with the accusative to 
the corresponding disappearance of the other oblique cases.2 In 
particular one must note (cf. ch. XI) the disappearance of the 
locative, instrumental and dative before the accusative and the 
genitive, until in the modern Greek εἰς and the accusative have 
superseded é and the locative and the dative proper also. Even 
σὺν and the instrumental disappear in the modern Greek verna- 
cular before μέ (μετά) and the accusative.® 

(h) SrruaTION ΙΝ THE N. T. But in the N. T. the matter has 
not developed that far and the cases are not so much blurred, 


1 Delbriick, Grundl., p. 129. Cf. Hadley and Allen, pp. 252-260. 

2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 449 f. 

3 Die Prip. bei Herod., p. 8f. Cf. Abbott, Joh. Voc., etc., pp. 357 ff., 
for prep. in the Gospels. 4 Die Prap. bei Polyb., p. 6 f. 

5 Mullach, Gr. Volg., pp. 376 ff.; Vélker, Pap. Graec. Synt., p. 30. 

6 Cf. Geldart, Guide to mod. Gk., p. 247; Thumb, Handb., pp. 100 ff. 


570 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


though the range of the prepositions in the matter of cases is 
greatly limited. The seventeen “proper” prepositions (ἀμφί drops 
out) in the N. T. use the cases as will be now shown. 

1. Those with One Case. ’Ava, ἀντί, ἀπό, εἰς, ἐκ, ἐν, πρό, σὺν use 
only one case, eight as opposed to two in the early Greek (ἀντί 
and σύν). The cases used are not the same (accusative with ava 
and eis; genitive with ἀντί; ablative with ἀπό, ἐκ and πρό; locative 
with ἐν; instrumental with σύν), but nearly half of the prepositions 
have come to one case in the N. T. In the modern Greek all the 
prepositions occur usually with the accusative (or even the nom.). 
The use of the genitive (abl.) is due to literary influence. The com- 
mon proper prepositions in modern Greek are εἰς, ἀπό, μέ, γιά, 
and less commonly κατά, παρά, ἀντίς, and in dialects πρός (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 98). This tendency towards case simplification is well 
illustrated by the so-called improper prepositions which use only 
one case (abl., gen. or dat.), though they do not feel the movement 
towards the accusative. 

2. Those with Two Cases. Five (as opposed to eight) use two 
cases: διά, μετά, περί, ὑπέρ, ὑπός The cases used are genitive and 
accusative each with διά, μετά, περί; ablative and accusative with 
ὑπέρ and ὑπό. In the case of περί some of the examples can be 
explained as ablative (from around), while ὑπό seems, like ὑπέρ, to 
use the ablative (cf. Latin sub) and possibly the genitive also. 

3. Those with Three Cases. Only four prepositions (as against 
eight) retain three cases: ἐπί, κατά, παρά, πρός, unless περί, ὑπέρ and 
ὑπό have both ablative and genitive. Κατά in Mt. 8 : 92, ὥρμησεν 
κατὰ TOD κρημνοῦ, is used with the ablative. Πρός indeed only has 
the genitive once (Ac. 27:34) and that is due to the literary influ- 
ence on the N. T.1 If πρός drops out, only three prepositions 
still use three cases, barring περί, ὑπέρ and ὑπό. Of these παρά is 
not very common (gen. 78, acc. 60, loc. 50), still less κατά, while 
ἐπί is still frequent (acc. 464, gen. 216, loc. 176). 

4. Possibly Four with ἐπί. In the case of ἐπί indeed we may 
have to admit four cases, if there are examples of the pure dative 
like Mt. 18: 26, μακροθύμησον ἐπ᾽ ἐμοί. But at any rate ἐπί and παρά 
alone show the old freedom in the use of the cases. 

(ὃ Each PreposiTion IN A Case. Like other adverbs the 
prepositions are fixed case-forms, some of which are still apparent. 
Thus ἀντί is in the locative case, like é(i), ἐπί, περί. Cf. also προτί 
(πρός). The forms διαί and ὑπαί occur also (datives). The old dative 
mapat occurs, while παρά is instrumental. So ἀνά, διά, κατά, μετά are 

1 Moulton, Prol., p. 106. - 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEIS) 571 


in the instrumental case. What ὑπό is we do not know. But the 
case in which the preposition may be itself has no necessary bear- 
ing on the case with which it is used. It is Just a part of the word’s 
own history, but still it is always worth observing. 

VII. Proper Prepositions in the N. T. 

(a) ᾿Ανά. The case of ava is not clear. Originally it was ἄνα - 
and may be the same as the Lesbian, Thessalian and Cyprian 
ὄν. Cf. English ‘‘on.”? It may be compared with the Old Per- 
sian and Gothic ana, the Latin and German an. One may com- 
pare the Greek ἄν and Sanskrit απα. The fundamental idea seems 
to be “fon,” “upon,” “along,” like German auf, and this grows 
easily to ‘‘up”’ like ἄνω in contrast with κατά (κάτω). Homer uses 
the adverb ἄνα as an ellipsis to mean “‘up.”’? The locative was 
once used with ἀνά, but in the N. T. only the accusative occurs. 
The distributive use may be up and down a line or series, and 
MSS. give κατά in several of these instances (a common use of 
κατά also). While ava is very common in composition with verbs 
in the N. T. (over ten pages of examples in Moulton and. Geden’s 
Concordance), only thirteen examples of the preposition alone 
occur in the N. T. One of these (Lu. 9 : 3) is absent from W. H. 
(Nestle retains it), while in Rev. 21:21 (ἀνὰ eis) the word is 
merely adverb (cf. Homer), not preposition.?, Of the remaining 
eleven instances, four are examples of ἀνὰ μέσον with the genitive, 
a sort of compound prepositional phrase with the idea of ‘‘be- 
tween”’ (like Mt. 18 : 25), similar to the modern Greek ἀνάμεσα, 
and found in the LXX, Polybius, etc. One (1 Cor. 14 : 27, ava 
μέρος, Means ‘in turn,’? whilé the remaining six are all examples 
of the distributive use, like ἀνὰ δύο (Lu. 10:1). The distributive 
use is In Xenophon. For examples in papyri and inscriptions 
see Radermacher, p. 15. Cf. our “‘analogy.” In Ac. 8:30, γινώ- 
σκεις ἃ ἀναγινώσκεις, the point turns on ἀνα--, but it is not clear 
how dava—turns “know” to ‘‘read.” See Ac. 10 : 20 ἀναστὰς κατά- 
βηθι for contrast between ava and κατά. Abbott, Johannine Gr., 
pp. 222 ff., argues at length to show that the one example in John 
(2 : 6) is distributive. ᾿Ανά does not survive in modern Greek ver- 
nacular (Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 366). In the papyri ava shows 
some new compounds not in the N. T., like ἀναπορεύομαι (Mayser, 


1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 486; K.-G., I, p. 473. On the N. T. prep. see 
also Tycho Mommsen, Beitr. zu d. Lehre von d. griech. Priip. (1895). 

2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 178, cites some late Gk. exx. of ἀνά as adv. Clearly 
not a Hebraism. Deiss., B.S8., p. 139. 

8 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 122, cites Polyb. 


572 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Gr. d. Griech. Pap., p. 486). Delbriick, Vergl. Syntaz, I, p. 734, con- 
siders ἀνά, like ἀντί, one of the “proethnic” prepositions. It is 
rare in the papyri and the inscriptions (Radermacher, Ν. 7. Gr., 
is strangely like Ac. 17: 6 οἱ τὴν otk. ἀναστατώσαντες. 

(b)’Avtt. This preposition is in the locative case of ἄντα. Cf. 
Sanskrit dnti, Latin ante, Lithuanian ant, Gothic and, German 
ant (-ent), Anglo-Saxon andlang, and-swerian (‘answer’). The root- 
idea is really the very word “end.” Brugmann (Griech. Gr., Ὁ. 437) 
thinks it may mean ‘“‘front.’’ If so, “in front of’’ would be the 
idea of the word in the locative. Cf. ante-room, ἀντίος, ἀντάω (ἀπ--, 
im), ἐναντίος, ‘at the end’ (ἀντί). Suppose two men at each end of a 
log facing each other. That gives the etymological picture, ‘‘face 
to face.’ The case used with it was originally the genitive and na- 
turally so, though in modern Greek the accusative has displaced 
it... It is obviously the real adnominal genitive and not ablative 
(cf. Sanskrit adverb dnti) that we have with ἀντί and is like the 
genitive with the adverbs ἄντα, ἀντίον, ἀντία, and the adjective 
ἀντίος, etc.2. In Homer indeed ἀντί has just begun to be used in 
composition with verbs so that it barely escapes the list of the 
“improper” prepositions.? Blass* calls it “one of the preposi- 
tions that are dying out,” but as a matter of fact it survives in 
modern Greek. In the N. T. it is used in composition with twenty- 
two verbs (single compounds) and occurs twenty-two times also 
with nouns and pronouns. It is not therefore very flourishing in 
the N. T. It does not occur often in the indices to the papyri 
volumes, and Mayser® gives papyri support for some of the N. T. 
compounds like ἀνθομολογέω, ἀντίκειμαι, ἀντιλαμβάνομαι. It is absent 
from the inscriptions of Magnesia and Pergamon (Radermacher, 
N. T. Gr., p. 115). In some of the compounds the original idea 
of the preposition comes out finely. Thus in ἀντ-οφθαλμεῖν τῷ 
ἀνέμῳ (Ac. 27:15) the preposition merely carries on the idea of 
the ὀφθαλμός. The boat could not look at (‘eye, face to face’) or 
face the wind. This root-idea is always present in ἀντί and is the 
basis from which to discuss every example. It is equally plain in 
a word like ἀντι-παρ-ῆλθεν (Lu. 10: 31f.). The priest and Levite 
passed along on the other side of the road, facing (ἀντί) the wounded 
traveller. Note ἀντι-βάλλετε ἴῃ Lu. 24:17, where the two dis- 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 368. Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 740. 
2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 437; Monro, Hom. Gr., pp. 126, 149 f. 

§ Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 150. 

4 Gr. of Ni Gry pn. 24 5 Gr. ἃ. griech. Pap., p. 487. 


PREPOSITIONS (ΠΡΟΘΕΣΕΙΣ) 573 


ciples were exchanging words (casting them from one to the other 
as they faced each other, ἀντί) with one another, an intimate and 
vivid picture of conversation. Cf. also the contrast between ἀντί 
and κατά in ἑνὸς ἀνθέξεται (‘cleave to,’ ‘cling to,’ ‘hold one’s self face 
to face with’) καὶ τοῦ ἑτέρου καταφρονήσει (Mt. 6 : 24). In the double 
compound συν-αντι-λαμβάνεται TH ἀσθενείᾳ ἡμῶν (Rom. 8: 26; ef. Lu. 
10 : 40) the fundamental meaning is obvious. The Holy Spirit 
lays hold of our weakness along with (σύν) us and carries his part 
of the burden facing us (ἀντί) as if two men were carrying a log, 
one at each end. Cf. ἀντι-λαμβάνεσθαι in Ac. 20:35. The English 
word “antithesis” preserves the idea also. Note κατηντήσαμεν ἄντι- 
κρυς Χίου (Ac. 20 : 15) where in both verb and preposition the idea 
of face-to-face appears. So ἀπ-αντήσει (Mk. 14:18), ἀντί-περα (Lu. 
8 : 26), ἐν-αντί-ον (20 : 26). Now the various resultant ideas grow 
out of this root-idea because of different contexts. Take the notion 
of opposition (against). The word does not mean that in itself. 
The two disciples were talking in a friendly mood (ἀντι-βάλλετε), but 
if a man makes himself king he ἀντι-λέγει τῷ Καίσαρι (Jo. 19 : 12) 
in a hostile sense. It is the atmosphere of rivalry that gives the 
colour of hostility. We see it also in the word ἀντί-χριστος (1 Jo. 
2:18), ἀντι-πίπτετε τῷ πνεύματι (Ac.7: 51). In Lu. 21:15 three 
instances occur: ἀντι-στῆναι, ἀντ-ειπεῖν, ἀντι-κείμενοι. Cf. ἀντί-δικος 
(Mt. 5:25). There is no instance of the uncompounded preposi- 
tion in this sense. The idea of ‘‘in the place of’ or “‘instead’”’ comes 
where two substantives placed opposite to each other are equiva- 
lent and so may be exchanged. The majority of the N. T. ex- 
amples belong here. In ὀφθαλμὸν ἀντὶ ὀφθαλμοῦ (Mt. 5: 38; cf. 
also ἀντὶ ὀδόντος) there is exact equivalence like “tit for tat.’”’? So 
also κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ (Ro. 12:17; 1 Th. 5:15; 1 Pet. 3 : 9), λοιδορίαν 
ἀντὶ λοιδορίας (1 Pet. 3:9). None the less does the idea of exchange 
(ef. ἀνττάλλαγμα, Mk. 8 : 37) result when a fish and a snake are 
placed opposite each other, ἀντὶ ἰχθύος ὄφιν (Lu. 11:11) or one’s 
birthright and a mess of pottage (Heb. 12:16). In Mt. 17: 27, 
ἀντὶ ἐμοῦ καὶ σοῦ, there is a compression of statement where the 
stater strictly corresponds to the tax due by Christ and Peter 
rather than to Christ and Peter themselves. But in λύτρον ἀντὶ 
πολλῶν (Mt. 20 : 28; Mk. 10 : 45) the parallel is more exact. These 
important doctrinal passages teach the substitutionary conception 
of Christ’s death, not because ἀντί of itself means “instead,” which 
is not true, but because the context renders any other resultant 
idea out of the question. Compare also ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων by 
Paul (1 Tim. 2 : 6) where both ἀντί and ὑπέρ combine with λύτρον 


574 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


in expressing this idea. Cf. ἀντί-τυπος (Heb. 9 : 24). In Mt. 2 : 22 
ἀντὶ τοῦ πατρός the substitution takes the form of succession as 
son succeeds father on the throne. Cf. ἀνθ-ύπατος (Ac. 18:7). In 
Jas. 4:15 ἀντὶ rod λέγειν the result is also substitution, the points 
of view being contrasted. In Heb. 12:2 the cross and the joy 
face each other in the mind of Jesus and he takes both, the cross 
in order to get the joy. The idea of exchange appears also 
in 1 Cor. 11:15 ἡ κόμη ἀντὶ περιβολαίου. Blass! considers χάριν 
ἀντὶ χάριτος (Jo. 1 : 16) as “peculiar,” but Winer? rightly sees the 
original import of the preposition. Simcox® cites from Philo χάριτας 
νέας ἀντὶ παλαιοτέρων ἐπιδίδωσιν as clearly explaining this ‘‘remark- 
able” passage. But really has not too much difficulty been made 
of it? As the days come and go a new supply takes the place of 
the grace already bestowed as wave follows wave upon the shore. 
Grace answers (ἀντί) to grace. The remaining examples are five 
of ἀνθ᾽ ὧν in the sense of ‘because’ (‘therefore’), when two clauses 
or sentences correspond to each other, one the reason for the other. 
This is indeed classical enough (LXX also). Similar is ἀντὶ τούτου 
(Eph. 5:31) where the LXX (Gen. 2 : 24), which Paul does not 
quote, has ἕνεκεν τούτου (cf. Mk. 10:7; Mt. 19:4). There is yet 
another idea that comes out in composition like ἀντ-απο-δίδωμι 
(Lu. 14:14) where ἀπό has the meaning of ‘back’ and ἀντί of 
‘in return’ (cf. “in turn”). Cf. ἀντ-απο-κρίνομαι (Lu. 14 : 6) and 
ἀνθ-ομολογέω (Lu. 2:38). In Col. 1 : 24, ἀντ-ανα-πληρόω, Paul uses 
ἀντί in the sense of ‘in his turn’ (answering over to Christ). As 
Christ, so Paul fills up the measure of suffering. One may remark 
that prepositions in composition often best show their original 
import. he 

(c) ᾿Από. The etymology of this preposition is very simple. 
We note the Sanskrit dpa, Latin ab, Gothic af, English of, off. 
Some of the older dialects used the form amv (Arcad., Cypr., Thess.) 
and the Epic ἀπαί is to be noted.47 We may compare ἄψ (a7-s) 
with Latin aps (ab; cf. ἐκ, ἐξ). The case of ἀπό cannot be deter- 
mined, but observe ἀπαί above. In the Arcadian and Cyprian 
ἀπύ is found with the locative, but in the literary Greek only the 
ablative is used with ἀπό, a case in perfect harmony with the 
meaning of the word. The nominative ἀπὸ ὁ ὧν in Rev. 1:4 is, 


᾿ Grioe Nee Gk on. 124: 2 W.-Th., p. 364. 

3 Lang. of the N. T., p. 187. Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 225f. The vague 
word ἀντίλημψις (1 Cor. 12 : 28) is frequent in petitions to the Ptolemies (pap.). 
Cf. P. Par. 26 (B.c. 163-2). 

4 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 437. Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, pp. 666 ff. 


PREPOSITIONS (ΠΡΟΘΕΣΕΙΣ) 575 


of course, for a theological purpose, to accent the unchangeable- 
ness of God. It is one of the most tenacious of the prepositions, 
being extremely frequent in the N. T. both with nouns and in 
composition with verbs. Jannaris! gives an interesting sketch 
of the history of ἀπό in the later Greek. In the modern Greek it 
is used with the accusative (the ablative only in set phrases). 
This accusative usage is found as early as Hermas.? ᾿Εκ finally 
vanished before ἀπό (cf. ἐν before eis), but in the modern Greek 
ἀπό also supplants to some extent ἀνά, πρός and ὑπό. The expla- 
nation of ἀπό is somewhat complicated therefore’ since the increase 
of its use is due partly to the general tendency regarding prepo- 
sitions (cf. ἀπό with ablative instead of the “partitive genitive’’) 
and partly to its supplanting other prepositions like ἐκ, παρά, ὑπό. 

1. Original Significance. It can be easily perceived in the N. T. 
It is clear enough in ἀπο-κόπτω, for instance, ‘to cut off,’ as ἀπ-έκοψεν 
Πέτρος τὸ ὠτίον (Jo. 18 : 26). Cf. ἀπο-καλύπτω, ‘to take the veil off,’ 
‘unveil’ (cf. Mt. 10: 26 for contrast between καλύπτω and ἀποκαλ.). 
So ἀπο-θήκη, ‘a treasure-house for putting things away’ (Mt. 3:12). 
Cf. ἀπ-εδήμησεν (Mt. 21:33) for ‘a man off from home.’ So az- 
ἐβλεπεν in Heb. 11:26 and ἀφ-ορῶντες in 12:2. It is needless to 
multiply examples from the compound words?‘ like ἀπο-χωρέω. 
Moulton® seems right against Blass® in considering ὡς ἀπὸ σταδίων 
δεκαπέντε (JO. 11:18) not a real Latinism, but a mere accidental 
parallel to a millibus passuum duobus. The same idiom occurs in 
Jo. 11:18; 21:8 and Rev. 14:20. It is indeed rather late Greek 
(Strabo, Diodorus and Plutarch), but it is not such a manifest 
Latinism as Jannaris’ supposes. It is not the meaning of ἀπό 
that is unusual here, but merely the position. We say ten miles 
off, not off ten miles. Cf. ἀπὸ ὥρας 6’, ‘at 9 o’clock,’ P. Oxy. 523 
(ii/A.D.). The idea of “‘off”’ or “away from” is enough to explain the 
bulk of the N. T. passages. The context as a rule does not alter 
this simple idea. Thus ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας (Mt. 3:18), ἀπὸ τοῦ 
ὕδατος (3:16), ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν (2:1), βάλε ἀπὸ σοῦ (5:29), ἀπὸ τοῦ 
πονηροῦ (6:18), ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου (Lu. 24: 2), ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ (Mt. 7: 23), 
κατέπαυσεν ἀπὸ πάντων (Heb. 4 : 4), ἀπὸ τῆς ὥρας ἐκείνης (Mt. 9 : 22), 
ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν (Mt. 1 : 21), ἄφαντος ἔγένετο ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν (Lu. 24:31), 
ἀνάθεμα ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Rom. 9:3). Here the ablative case and 


1 Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 369 ff. 2'Ib., p..373. 
3 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 137. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 369. 
4 Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 487. ΠΡ ΤΟΙ ik Oz: 


6 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 95. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 227, also sees Lat. influence 
here. 7 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 371. 


576 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the root-idea of the preposition make all clear. The question of 
place, time, person or abstract relations cuts very little figure 
in the matter. Wherever the ablative case is natural in Greek, 
there ἀπό may appear to make clearer the case-idea of source 
or separation. Conybeare and Stock (p. 84) consider the idiom 
ἀπὸ ᾿Αβραὰμ ἕως Δαυείδ (Mt.1:17) a Hebraism. The construction 
is in the LXX, but there is nothing un-Greek about it. For 
ἀπό in expressions of time take ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἡμέρας (Col. 1:9). In Mt. 
7:16, ἀπὸ τῶν καρπῶν ἐπιγνώσεσθε, the notion of source is the real 
idea. Cf. διελέξατο αὐτοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν γραφῶν (Ac. 17: 2). In Ac. 16: 
33, ἔλουσεν ἀπὸ τῶν πληγῶν, it seems at first as if the stripes were 
washed from Paul and Silas and not, as here, Paul and Silas 
washed from the stripes. Winer! suggests the addition in thought 
of “‘and cleansed.” Cf. καθαρίσωμεν ἑαυτοὺς ἀπὸ παντὸς μολυσμοῦ (2 
Cor. 7:1), which idiom Deissmann (Bible Studies, p. 216) illus- 
trates from the inscriptions, and on p. 227 he further cites from the 
inscriptions three examples of λούομαι ἀπό in illustration of Ac. 
16:33. Cf. ἀπ-ενίψατο τὰς χεῖρας (Mt. 27: 24). In Ac. 15: 38, τὸν 
ἀποστάντα an’ αὐτῶν ἀπὸ Παμφυλίας, no difficulty should be found in 
the threefold use of ἀπό, since the Greek, unlike the English, loves 
to repeat words in varying relations. Here we have ἀπό in com- 
position, with persons, with place. See ᾿Αθῷος ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος (Mt. 
27: 24). Certainly there was never any reason for thinking καθαρὸς 
ἀπὸ Tod αἵματος (Ac. 20 : 26) a Hebraism, since it is the pure abla- 
tive idea, and the usage is continuous from Demosthenes to late 
Greek writers and papyri.2, We even find πλατὺς ἀπὸ τῶν ὦὥμων, 
Pap. Par. 10, 20 (Radermacher, p. 116). The Pastor Hermae 
shows ἀπό after ἔγκρατεύομαι, καθαρίζομαι, παύομαι, φυλάσσομαι (Ra- 
dermacher, p. 113). Many similar examples of this simple use of 
ἀπό occur in the N. T. Cf. the mere ablative with ἀφίστατο (Lu. 
2:37) and then with ἀπό (4:18). Cf. ἀπεθάνετε ἀπό (Col. 2: 
20), μετανόησον ἀπό (Ac. 8: 22), etc. Like other prepositions ἀπό 
may occur with adverbs, like ἀπὸ τότε (Mt. 4 : 17). 

2. Meaning ‘Back. We see it clearly in ἀπο-δίδωμι, ‘give 
back’. (Mt. 10 : 27). But even here the point of view is simply 
changed. The giver gives from himself to the recipient. In the 
case of a debt or reward from the recipient’s point of view he is 
getting back what was his due. This idea appears in ἀπολαμβάνω 
as in Lu. 6:34. A particularly good example is found in ἀπ- 


1 W.-Th., p. 372. 
2 Deiss., B. S., p. 196, for numerous exx.; Moulton, Prol., p. 102. Cf. 
Kuhring, De Praep. in Usu, p. 54. 


PREPOSITIONS (ΠΡΟΘΕΣΕῚΙΣ) 577 


ἐχουσιν τὸν μισθὸν αὐτῶν (Mt. 6:2). Cf. ἀπ-ἔχει (Mk. 14: 41). 
This notion of receipt in full is common (‘in countless instances,”’ 
Deissmann) for ἀπέχω in the ostraca, papyri and inscriptions. 
Cf. Deissmann, Light fr. the Anc. East, pp. 110 ff. Cf. τὰν τειμὰν 
ἀπέχω πᾶσαν (i/A.D., Delphi Inscr., Bull. de Corr. Hell., 22, Ὁ. 58), 
‘I have received the whole price’ for the slave’s manumission. 
Cf. ἀπέλαβεν τὰ τροφεῖα, P. Oxy. 37 (a.p. 49). Cf. ἐξεδόμην τὴν ἀπο- 
δοχήν, P. Oxy. 1133, 16 (a.p. 396). This idiom seems to be confined 
to composition (cf. ἀπότκριμα, 2 Cor. 1:9) and ἀπ-αρχή (Ro. 8: 23). 

3. “Translation-Hebraism” in φοβεῖσθαι ἀπό. Cf. Lu. 12: 4.1 
In Mt. 10 : 28, φοβεῖσθε τὸν δυν., we have the usual accusative, and 
in verse 26 we even see φοβηθῆτε αὐτούς; but verse 28 again shows 
φοβεῖσθε ἀπό. In Lu. 12 : 1, προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς ζύμης, we have 
the usual ablative as above. Cf. βλέπω ἀπό in ΜΚ. 8:15. ᾿Από 
in the LXX was used to translate the Hebrew ‘2,2 but not all the 
examples in the LX X are necessarily pure Hebraisms, as Cony- 
beare and Stock imply.’ Besides, the papyri show βλέπε σατὸν ἀπὸ 
τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων, B.G.U. 1079 (a.p. 41), the first reference to the 
Jews as money-lenders. Some of the N. T. examples are merely 
for the so-called ‘“partitive genitive.’ Thus ἐκλεξάμενος ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν 
δώδεκα (Lu. 6:18), ἐνέγκατε ἀπὸ τῶν ὀψαρίων (Jo. 21:10), ἐκχεῶ ἀπὸ 
τοῦ πνεύματος (Ac. 2:17), ἐσθίει ἀπὸ τῶν ψιχίων (Mt. 15:27), πίω 
ἀπὸ τοῦ γενήματος (Lu. 22 : 18), τίνα ἀπὸ τῶν δύο (Mt. 27 : 21), ete. 
The point is not that all these phrases occur in the older Greek, 
but that they are in perfect harmony with the Greek genius in 
the use of the ablative and in the use of ἀπό to help the abla- 
tive. Moulton (Prol., p. 246) cites ὦ ἀπὸ τῶν Χριστιανῶν, Pelagia 
(Usener, p. 28) as fairly parallel with oval — ἀπὸ τῶν σκανδάλων 
(Mt. 18:7). The partitive use of the ablative with ἀπό does 
come nearer to the realm of the genitive (cf. English of and the 
genitive), but the ablative idea is still present. One may note 
τὸν ἀπὸ Ἱζελτῶν φόβον in Polybius XVII, 11, 2 (Radermacher, 
N. T. Gr., p. 116). Cf. ἔνδυμα ἀπὸ τριχῶν (Mt. 8 : 4) with the old 
genitive of material. . 

4. Comparison with ἐκ. But ἀπό needs to be compared more 
particularly with ἐκ which it finally displaced save‘ in the Epirot 
ax or ὀχ. But the two are never exactly equivalent. ᾿Εκ means 
‘from within’ while ἀπό is merely the general starting-point. ᾿Από 
_ does not deny the ‘“within-ness”’; it simply does not assert it as 
ἐκ does. Thus in Mk. 1:10 we read ἀναβαίνων ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος When 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 102. 3 Sel., etc., p. 83. 
2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 126. 4 Moulton, Prol., p. 102. 


578 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the assertion is made by ἐκ that Jesus had been in the water (cf. 
κατά --- eis, ava — ἐκ in Ac. 8:38 f.). But in Mt. 3:16 we merely 
read ἀνέβη ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος, a form of expression that does not deny 
the ἐκ of Mark. The two prepositions are sometimes combined, as 
ἐξελθεῖν am’ αὐτῆς (Ac. 16 : 18) and ἀφοριοῦσιν ἐκ μέσου (Mt. 13:49). 
Even with the growth in the use of ἀπό it still falls behind ἐκ in the 
N. T.1. Both ἀπὸ and ἐκ are used of domicile or birthplace, but not 
in exactly the same sense.2 Thus in Jo. 1:44 see ἦν δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος 
ἀπὸ Βηθσαιδά, ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ’Avdpéov, Where ἀπό corresponds closely 
with the German von and French de which came to be marks 
of nobility. So in verse 45, Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἀπὸ Ναζαρέτ, where (in 
both verses) no effort is made to express the idea that they 
came from within Nazareth. That idea does appear in verse 46, 
ἐκ Ναζαρέτ. In Lu. 2:4 both ἀπὸ and ἐκ are used for one’s 
home (ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἐκ πόλεως Ναζαρέτ). Indeed ἐκ in this sense 
in the Ν. T. seems confined to πόλις.5 Both appear again in Jo. 
11:1. Cf. also Jo. 7: 41 f., ἐκ τῆς Γαλιλαίας, ἀπὸ Βηθλεέμ, where the 
two prepositions are reversed. The Latin versions render both 
amo.and ἐκ here by α.. Cf. ἀπὸ ‘Apipabaias (Jo. 19:38). Abbott® 
is clear that John does not mean to confuse the two prepositions, 
but uses each in its own sense, though ἀπό is not found in the older 
writers for domicile. The sense of variety, as in English, may have 
led to the use of now one, now the other, since at bottom either 
answers. So Luke in Ac. 23:34 has ἐκ ποίας ἐπαρχείας, but ἀπὸ 
Κιλικίας. Cf. Ac. 1:4. Blass® notes that outside of John the N. T. 
writers use ἀπό for one’s country. So even Luke in Ac. 24: 18, 
ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ασίας. The MSS. indeed vary in some instances between 
ἀπό and ἐκ as in Ac. 16:39 with τῆς πόλεως. Cf. MS. variation be- 
tween ἀπό and rapa in Mk. 16:9. Cf. also Ac. 18 : 80 for ἐκ --- ἀπό. 
In a case like of ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας (Heb. 13 : 24) the preposition does 
not determine whether the persons are still in Italy or are outside 
of Italy. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 237. But Deissmann (Light, etc., 
p. 186) thinks that ἀπό here means ‘in,’ like ἀπὸ ®uad in an ostra- 
con from Thebes, a.p. 192. Cf. τῶν ἀπ’ ᾿᾽Οξυρύγχων πόλεως, P. Oxy. 
38, A.D. 49. ᾿Από is also, like ἐκ (Ac. 10:45, etc.), used for mem- 
bers of a party in Ac. 12 : 1, τινας τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, an un-Attic 
usage. But on the whole the two prepositions can be readily dis- 
tinguished in the N. T. 
5. Comparison with mapa. ΑΒ to παρά, it suggests that one has ~ 
1 Moulton, Prol., p. 102. 4 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 228. 


2 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 227 f. 5 Tb.,’ p. 229. 
8 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 125. ¢ Grol. ΝῸ ΠῚ Ἢ 125: 


PREPOSITIONS (ΠΡΟΘΕΣΕΙΣ) 579 


been by the side of the one from whom he comes. In relation to 
God we find ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον (Jo. 8 : 42), παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐξῆλθον 
(16 : 27), ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθες (16 : 80). Cf. πρὸς τὸν θεόν ([ο. 1 :1). It 
would be overrefinement to insist on a wide and radical difference 
here between ἀπό, ἐκ and παρά; and yet they are not exactly syn- 
onymous. In the older Greek παρά was the common preposition 
for the conscious personal departure! But in N. T. ἀπό occurs 
also with persons. So ἀκηκόαμεν am’ αὐτοῦ (1 Jo. 1:5), μαθεῖν ad’ 
ὑμῶν (Gal. 3:2), παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου (1 Cor. 11: 23). One 
must not, however, read too much into ἀπό, as in Gal. 2 : 12, 
where τινὰς ἀπὸ ᾿Ιακώβου does not mean ‘with the authority of 
James,’ though they doubtless claimed it. Cf. Mk. 15:45; 1 
Th. 3:6. One doubts if we are justified in insisting on a radical 
distinction between παρὰ τοῦ πατρός (Jo. 10 : 18) and ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου 
(1 Cor. 11: 23) save as etymology throws light on the πηϑύζοι.3 

6. Compared with ὑπό. The MSS. of ancient writers,? as of the 
N. T., varied often between ἀπό and ὑπό. As instances of this va- 
riation in the N. T. take Mk. 8 : 31; Ac. 4:36; 10:17; Ro. 13: 1. 
The MSS. often vary where ἀπό is the correct text. The use of 
ἀπό with the agent is not precisely like ὑπό, though one has only 
to compare ἀπό with Latin ab and English of to see how natural 
it is for ἀπό to acquire this idiom. Observe κατενεχθεὶς ἀπὸ τοῦ 
ὕπνου (Ac. 20:9). So in Jas. 1:13, ἀπὸ θεοῦ πειράζομαι, we trans- 
late ‘tempted of God.’ The temptation, to be sure, is presented 
as coming from God. Cf. also ὁ μισθὸς ὁ ἀφυστερημένος ad’ ὑμῶν 
(Jas. 5:4), where the keeping back of the reward is conceived 
as coming from you. Cf. Ac. 4:36. In Mt. 16:21, παθεῖν ἀπὸ 
τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, ‘at the hands of,’ is a free rendering of the idea of 
agency or source. In Lu. 16 : 18, ἀπολελυμένην ἀπὸ ἀνδρός, note the 
repetition of ἀπός This idea of removal is present in ἰαθῆναι ἀπό 
(Lu. 6:17) and in ἐνοχλούμενοι ἀπό (6:18) it is agency. There may 
be a zeugma in the last clause. In Lu. 9:22, ἀποδοκιμασθῆναι ἀπὸ τῶν 
πρεσβυτέρων, we have the same construction as in 16:18 above 
(cf. 17:25). Cf. ἡτοιμασμένον ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ (Rev. 12: 6) and Ac. 2: 
22 ἀποδεδειγμένον ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ. The use of ἀπό after substantives 
throws some light on this matter. Thus τὴν ἀπὸ σοῦ ἐπαγγελίαν 
(Ac. 23 : 21), ἀπὸ σοῦ σημεῖον (Mt. 12:38). This use of ἀπό after 
passive verbs came to be the rule in the later writers. Cf. Wilhelm, 
ΠΧ ΤΙ ΟΣ 20. 

But it is not alone a form of agency that ἀπό comes to express. 


1 W.-Th., p. 370. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 125. 
2 Cf. W.-Th., p. 370. 8 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 138. 


580 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


It may also be used for the idea of cause, an old usage of ὑπό. 
For instance, take ἀπὸ τῆς χαρᾶς αὐτοῦ ὑπάγει (Mt. 13 : 44), ἀπὸ τοῦ 
φόβου ἔκραξαν (14 : 26), οὐαὶ τῷ κόσμῳ ἀπὸ τῶν σκανδάλων (18:7), 
κοιμωμένους ἀπὸ τῆς λύπης (Lu. 22 : 45), οὐκέτι ἴσχυον ἀπὸ τοῦ πλήθους 
(Jo. 21:6), οὐκ ἐνέβλεπον ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης (Ac. 22:11). Cf. further 
Lu. 19:3; 24:41; Ac. 12:14; 20:9; Heb. 5:7, ete. The LXX 
gives abundant illustration of the same idiom,! the causal use of 
ἀπό. Asa matter of sound see ἐφ᾽ ὅν and ἀφ᾽ ἧς in Heb. 7: 13. 

(d) Διά. Delbriick? says: “Of the origin of διά I know nothing 
to say.’’ One hesitates to proceed after that remark by the master 
in syntax. Still we do know something of the history of the word 
both in the Greek and in other Indo-Germanic tongues. The form 
διά may be in the instrumental case, but one must note διαί (dative) 
in the lyric passages of Atschylus, not to say the Thessalian διέ. 
But there is no doubt about διά being kin to δύο, δίς. Sanskrit 
ἄνα, dvi (ef. trayas, trr), dvis; Latin duo, bis (cf. Sanskrit dvis, 
Greek δίς, b=v or v); German zwei; English two (fem. and neut.), 
twain (masc.), twi-ce, twi-light, be-tween, two-fold, etc. 

1. The Root-Idea. It is manifest in δια-κόσιοι, δισ-χίλιοι, δί-δραχμα, 
δι-πλοῦς (cf. ἁ-πλοῦς). The etymology of the word is ‘two,’ δύο, as 
shown in these three words as well as in δίς, δι-πλόω, all of which 
occur in the N. T. Thus it will be seen how persistent is the ety- 
mological force in the word. Cf. Mk. 6:37; Rev. 18:6; Mk. 5: 
13. See also δὶς μυριάδες (Text. Rec., δύο μ. Rev. 9 : 16), δί-λογος 
(1 Tim. 3 : 8), 6t-crouos (Heb. 4:12), δί-ψυχος (Jas. 1:8), δί-δραχμον 
(Mt. 17: 24), Δί-δυμος (Jo. 11:16). Cf. ἐσχίσθη εἰς δύο (Mt. 27: 51). 

2. ‘By Twos’ or ‘Between.’ But the preposition has advanced a 
step further than merely “two” to the idea of by-twain, be-tween, 
in two, in twain. This is the ground-meaning in actual usage. 
The word δι-θάλασσος originally meant ‘resembling two seas’ (cf. 
Euxine Sea, Strabo 2, 5, 22), but in the N. T. (Ac. 27: 41) it ap- 
parently means lying between two seas (Thayer). The notion of 
interval (be-tween) is frequent in the N. T. both in composition 
and apart from composition. Thus in ἡμερῶν δια-γενομένων τινῶν (Ac. 

25:18), ‘some days came in between’ (διά). Cf. δια-γνώσομαι τὰ καθ᾽ 
ὑμᾶς (Ac. 24:22) with Latin di-gnosco, dis-cerno and Greek-English 
dia-gnosis (διάτγνωσιν, Ac. 25:21). Δια-θήκη is an arrangement or 
covenant between two (Gal. 3:17). See δι-αιροῦν (1 Cor. 12 : 11); 
δια-δίδωμι (Lu. 11:22) ‘divide’; οὐθὲν δι-έκρινεν μεταξὺ ἡμῶν τε καὶ αὐτῶν 
(Ac. 1: 0) where μεταξύ explains διά. Cf. διά-κρισις (Heb. 5 :14), ‘dis- 


1 C. and S., p. 83. 2 Vergl. Synt., I, p. 759. 
δ. K.-BL, II, p. 250. Cf. karat, παραί, bral. 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEI) 581 


crimination’; δια-λείπω (Lu. 7: 45), ‘intervals of delay’; δια-λύω (Ac. 
5 : 36), ‘dis-solve’; dia-wepifw (Ac. 2 : 45), ‘dis-tribute’; δια-ρήγνυμι 
(Lu. 8:29), ‘rend asunder’; δια-τσκορπίζω (Jo. 11:52), opposed to συν- 
ay, ‘di-sperse’; δια-σπάω (Mk. 5:4), ‘rend in two’; δια-σπείρω (Ac. 
8:1)=‘scatter abroad’; δια-σπορά (Jo. 7: 35), ‘dispersion’; δια-στέλλω 
(Heb. 12: 20), ‘divide’; διά-στημα (Ac. 5: 7), ‘distance’ or ‘interval’; 
ERE (L-Cor. 14:7), ‘distinction’; δια-τίθεμαι (Lu. 22: 29), ‘dis- 
pose’; δια-τφέρω (Ac. 27:27, Mt. 6: 26), ‘bear apart,’ ‘differ’; διά- 
φορος (Ro. 12:6), ‘different’; δι-χάζω (Mt. 10:35), ‘set at δὰ ΚΝ. 
(‘cleave asunder’). These numerous examples ought to be suffi- 
cient to show what the real meaning of the word in itself is. A 
particularly noticeable instance appears in ut 24:51, where we 
have 6t-€oTn ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν. 

The N. T. preserves this notion of interval in expressions of 
time and so it is hardly “peculiar only to literary style.”! Thus 
in Mk. 2:1 δι᾿ ἡμερῶν means ‘interval of days,’ ‘days between,’ 
‘after some days,’ though surely no one would think that διά 
really means ‘after.’ Cf. Mt. 26:61, διὰ τριῶν ἡμερῶν (cf. ἐν, 27: 
AO); δι᾿ ἐτῶν πλειόνων, Ac. 24:17; Gal. 2:1, διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν. 
Cf. Ac.5:7. In Ac. 1: 8, 60’ ἡμερῶν τεσσεράκοντα ὀπτανόμενος, the 
appearance of Jesus was at intervals within the forty days. But 
see opposition to this idea in Abbott, Johannine Grammar, p. 
255 f. In the phrase διὰ νυκτός (Ac. 5:19; 16:9, etc.), ‘by night,’ 
διά adds little to the genitive itself. It is the real adnominal 
genitive. The preposition is very common in the N. T., especially 
with the genitive (gen. 382, acc. 279),? though the accusative be- 
comes dominant later. 

3. ‘Passing Between’ or ‘Through.’ The idea of interval between 
leads naturally to that of passing between two objects or parts of 
objects. ‘Through’ is thus not the original meaning of διά, but 
is a very common one. The case is usually the genitive, though 
in Homer? the accusative is common also, as we find it once in the 
N. T. (Lu. 17:11), διά μέσον Σαμαρίας (cf. διὰ μέσου, 4: 30), and even 
here note the genitive after μέσον. Some MSS. in Jo. 8: 59 read also 
διὰ μέσου. Blass* wrongly calls the accusative an “inadmissible 
reading’ in view of Homer and the growing use of the accusative 
in the vernacular with all prepositions (cf. modern Greek). This 
use of ‘through’ or ‘thorough’ is common in composition and 
sometimes has a “perfective” idea (‘clear through’) as in δια-καθαριεῖ 
τὴν ἅλωνα (Mt. 3:12), ‘will thoroughly cleanse.’ Cf. also δια-βαίνω 


1 Jann., Hist. Gr. Gk., p. 374. 3 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 145. 
2 Moulton, Prol., p. 105. 4 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 182. 


582 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(Heb. 11:29), δια-βλέπω (Mt. 7:5), διταγγέλλω (Lu. 9:60), δια-γρηγορέω 
(Lu. 9 : 32), διτάγω (1 Tim. 2:2), δια-δέχομαι (Ac. 7:45), δια-κατε- 
λέγχομαι (Ac. 18 : 28), δια-μάχομαι (Ac. 23 : 9), δια-μένω (Lu. 1 : 22), 
δια-νυκτερεύω (Lu. 6 : 12), διτανύω (Ac. 21:7), δια-παρατριβή (1 Tim. 
6:5); δια-σείω (Lu. 3 : 14), δια-σώζω (Lu. 7: 3), δια-φυλάσσω (4 : 10). 
This sense of διά is used with words of place, time, agent or ab- 
stract word. In all of these relations the root-idea of the preposi- 
tion is easily perceived. Thus in Mt. 12 : 48, διέρχεται δι’ ἀνύδρων 
τόπων, διὰ ξηρᾶς (Heb. 11: 29), διὰ τῆς Σαμαρίας (Jo. 4 : 4), διὰ 
πυρὸς (1 Cor. 3 : 15), δι “ἐσόπτρου (1 Cor. 13:12). Cf. Ac. 13 : 49; 
2 Cor.8:18. In Ro. 15 : 28, ἀπελεύσομαι δι᾽ ὑμῶν εἰς Σπανίαν, Winer 
(Winer-Thayer, p. 378) takes δι᾽ ὑμῶν to be ‘through you,’ i.e. 
‘through your city,’ ‘through the midst of you.’ In all these exam- 
ples the idiom runs just as in the older Greek. The use of διά with 
expressions of time was never very common and gradually was 
transferred! to εἰς. But some examples occur in the N. T. like δι᾽ 
ὅλης νυκτός (Lu. 5: 5), which may be compared with διὰ παντὸς τοῦ 
ζῆν (Heb. 2:15) and the common phrase διὰ παντός (Mk. 5: δ). 
Here the idea of through is applied to time. Rouffiac (Recherches, 
p. 29) cites διὰ rod χειμῶνος ὅλου from inscriptions of Priene 112, 
98 and 99 (i/B.c.). The agent may also be expressed by διά. This 
function was also performed in the ancient Greek, though, when 
Means or instrument was meant, the instrumental case was com- 
monly employed.? Διά is thus used with inanimate and animate 
objects. Here, of course, the agent is conceived as coming in be- 
tween the non-attainment and the attainment of the object in 
view. One may compare γράψαντες διὰ χειρὸς αὐτῶν (Ac. 18 : 28) 
with δύο ἐπιστολὰς, διὰ Νηδύμου μίαν, διὰ Κρονίου μαχαιροφόρου μίαν, 
B.U. 1079, a.p. 41 (Milligan, Greek Pap., p. 39). So οὐ θέλω διὰ 
μέλανος καὶ καλάμου σοι γράφειν (3 Jo. 13), διὰ γλώσσης (1 Cor. 14:9), 
τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος (2 Cor. ὅ : 10), διὰ τῶν ὅπλων (2 Cor. 6:7), μήτε διὰ 
πνεύματος μήτε διὰ λόγου μήτε δι’ ἐπιστολῆς (2 Th. 2: 2). In 2 Pet. 
3:5 note the difference between ἐξ ὕδατος and δι’ ὕδατος. Abstract 
ideas are frequently so expressed, as σεσωσμένοι διὰ πίστεως (Eph. 
2:8), διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ (Eph. 1: 1), διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (1 Cor. 4 : 15), 
διὰ νόμου (Ro. 3 : 27), δι’ ἀποκαλύψεως (Gal. 1:12). Cf. 1 Cor. 6 : 14. 
When διά occurs with the personal agent, he is regarded as the in- 
termediate agent. Sometimes the immediate agent is also ex- 
pressed by ὑπό. So ὑπὸ Κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου (Mt. 1 : 22, etc.). 
Cf. also διὰ τῆς γυναικός --- ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ (1 Cor. 11 : 12), where source 
and mediate agent are distinguished. In Gal. 1: 1, az’ ἀνθρώπων --- 
1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 374. 2 Ib., p. 375. 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEI2) 583 


δι᾿ ἀνθρώπου, Paul takes pains to deny both ideas. In 1 Cor. 8 :6, 
ἐξ ov — δι’ od, the first refers to God the Father as the source of all 
things and the second refers to Jesus as the mediate agent by 
whom all things come into existence. Cf. Col. 1:16. Indeed 
God himself may be regarded as source, mediate agent, and ulti- 
mate object or end, as Paul does in his noble doxology in Ro. 
11:36, ὅτι ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ eis αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα. There are 
other instances also where God is looked upon as the intervening 
cause or agent. So δι᾿ οὗ (Heb. 2:10; 1 Cor. 1:9). But διά is 
often used with Christ in regard to our relation to God (cf. Paul’s 
use of &v). Thus Ro. 1: 8; 5:1, etc. Cf. 6’ ἐμοῦ in Jo. 14:6, 
διὰ πολλῶν μαρτύρων (2 Tim. 2 : 2), δι᾿ ἀγγέλων (Heb. 2:2). The 
intermediate idea of διά appears well in 1 Cor. 8 : ὅ διάκονοι δι᾿ ὧν 
ἐπιστεύσατε, Heb. 3:16 διὰ Μωυσέως, Ro. 5:5 διὰ πνεύματος. In 
1 Th. 4:2, τίνας παραγγελίας ἐδώκαμεν ὑμῖν διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ’Inaod, the 
matter seems turned round, but, as Paul was the speaker, he con- 
ceives Jesus as also making the commands. Abbott, Johannine 
Grammar, p.236, rightly argues in favour of ‘through him’ (not ‘it’) 
in Jo. 1:7. It is important to note διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Eph. 1: 5), 
pregnant with meaning. Cf. Schettler, Die paulinische Formel 
_ “Durch Christus,” pp. 28 ff. This use of διά occurs in the papyri 
(Wenger, Die Stellvertretung im Rechte der Papyri, 1906, p. 9 f.). 
Christ is conceived as our representative (Deissmann, Light, etc., 
p. 340). It is not far from the notion of means like διά πίστεως to 
that of manner like διὰ παραβολῆς (Lu. 8:4). Indeed the two shade 
off into one another as δι᾿ ὁράματος (Ac. 18:9). Note also δι᾽ 
ἀγάπης (Gal. 5:6), δι᾽ ἐπαγγελίας (Gal. 3:18), διὰ βραχέων (Heb. 
13 : 22), dv’ ὀλίγων (1 Pet. 5:12), δι΄ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος (1 Jo. 5 : 6), 
διὰ γράμματος καὶ περιτομῆς (Ro. 2 : 27), διὰ προσκόμματος (14 : 20), διὰ 
δόξης (2 Cor. 3:11), bu’ ὑπομονῆς (Heb. 12:1), διὰ πολλῶν δακρύων 
(2 Cor. 2:4). Cf. Rom. 2:27. But here also the notion of 
between is always present. This is true even in a case like διὰ 
τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ (Ro. 12:1). Cf. also διὰ τῆς χάριτος in Ro. 
12:3 with διὰ τὴν χάριν in 18 : 15. 

4. ‘Because of.’ With the accusative διά comes to be used with 
the idea of ‘because of,’ ‘for the sake of,’ ‘on account of.’ The 
notion of between is still present. Take Mt. 27:18, διὰ φθόνον παρέ- 
δωκαν αὐτόν. Envy is the reason that prompted the betrayal and 
so came in between and caused the act. The accusative (exten- 
sion) is natural and helps also to distinguish this idiom from the 
others. For instance, in Heb. 2:10, δι᾿ ὃν τὰ πάντα καὶ δι’ οὗ τὰ 
πάντα, the two ideas are distinguished entirely by means of the 


584. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


cases. One may note also διὰ τὴν γυναῖκα and διὰ τῆς γυναικός (1 
Cor. 11:9, 12). Cf. διὰ τὴν χάριν above. In Ro. 8:11 the MSS. 
vary between διὰ τὸ ἐνοικοῦν and διὰ τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος (W. H., Nestle). 
Note also the difference between διὰ πίστεως and διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν 
in Ro. 3:25. Cf. also the common διὰ τὸ ὄνομα (Mt. 10: 22), διὰ 
τὴν πολλὴν ἀγάπην (Eph. 2:4), διὰ τὸν λόγον (Jo. 15:3), διὰ τὸν 
χρόνον (Heb. 5:12). Cf. Heb. 5:14; Rev. 12:11. The personal 
ground is common also as in ἔγὼ ζῶ διὰ τὸν πατέρα (Jo. 6 : 57), δι᾽ 
οὕς (Heb. 6:7), ete. Cf. 1 Jo. 4:9 ζήσωμεν δι’ αὐτοῦ. The aim 
(usually expressed by ἕνεκα) may be set forth by διά also. So τὸ 
σάββατον διὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐγένετο Kal οὐχ 6 ἄνθρωπος διὰ τὸ σάββατον In 
Mk. 2:27. Cf.talso δι eué and δι ὑμας in Jo. 12:30. νι" 
18 : 20: Ph.3:7. Moulton (Prol., p. 105) cites ἵνα διὰ σὲ βασιλεῦ 
τοῦ δικαίου τύχω, M.P.16 and 20 (111.8.6.), in illustration of Jo. 6: 57. 
The Pauline phrase διὰ Ἰησοῦν (2 Cor. 4:5) is illustrated by διὰ 
τὸν Κύριον in a Berlin Museum papyrus letter (ii/A.D.) which Deiss- 
mann (Light, pp. 176 ff.) thinks curiously illumines the story of 
the Prodigal Son in Lu. 15. In the modern Greek γιά (διά) this 
notion of aim or purpose with the accusative is the usual one.! 
A common idiom in the Greco-Roman and Byzantine Greek? is 
the use of διὰ τό and the infinitive in the sense of ἵνα. It is practi- . 
cally equivalent in the N. T. to ὅτι and the indicative and is fre- 
quent. In Jo. 2:24 f. we have both constructions parallel, διὰ τὸ 
αὐτὸν γινώσκειν πάντας, Kal ὅτι οὐ χρείαν εἶχεν. In the modern Greek 
we actually have γιὰ νά (διὰ ἵνα) with the subjunctive. Cf. English 
“for that.”” The use of διὰ τί does not differ practically from τί 
alone. 

(ec) "Ev. Inasmuch as εἰς (év-s) is merely a later variation of év3 
it will be treated after ἐν. There is an older form évi (locative case), 
ἔνι, and in Homer εἰνί or εἰν for metrical reasons. But some of the 
dialects (Arcadian, Cretan) wrote iv like the Latin in. But compare 
Latin en-do, Umbrian en, (Latin inter), German in (ein), English 
in (en-). 

1. Old Use of ἐν with Accusative or Locative. Originally ἐν was 
used with either locative or accusative, not to say genitive in a 
case like εἰν Atéao which Brugmann‘ does not consider mere ellipsis. 
He cites also ἐμποδών as being really ἐν ποδῶν. But there is no man- 
ner of doubt as to the accusative and the locative. The inscrip- 
tions of many of the dialects show abundant illustrations of ἐν 

1 Thumb, Handb., p. 104. 


2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 374. 3 K.-G., I, p. 468. 
4 Griech. Gr., p. 439. Cf. Brug., Kurze vergl. Gr., II, p. 465. 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEI2) 585 


with the accusative such as the Thessalian, Boeotian, Northwest 
Greek, Arcadian, etc.! Cf. ἐν τάγμα, ἐν ὁπλίτας, etc.2 So iv τὰ Epya,? 
etc. Indeed in Cypriote Greek ἐν usually has the accusative.*| In 
North Arcadian é alone appears (not é-s, eis) and with either 
locative or accusative like Latin in. Besides in Homer we have 
ἐν-ῶπα, not to mention the common compound verbs like ἐμ-βάλλω, 
éu-Baivw, where one might look for els. Cf. ἐμβάντι εἰς πλοῖον 
(Mt. 8 : 23), 6 ἐμβάψας ἐν τῷ τρυβλίῳ (Mt. 26 : 23). This so-called 
pregnant use of ἐν seems very natural after all. It is only in com- 
position that the old usage is preserved in the N. T. or a case like 
ἐν τῷ τρυβλίῳ above after a verb of motion where εἰς might at first 
seem more natural. Cf. Lu. 9:46; 1 Cor. 11:18; Ro. 1:25. In 
Ro. 1:24 & occurs with παρέδωκεν, but εἰς in verse 26. Indeed 
(Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 130) we find ἐν with δίδωμι, ἵστημι and 
τίθημι. Remnants of this early usage survive in the N. T., as 
διδόντι ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ (2 Cor. 8:16), δέδωκεν ἐν τῇ χειρί (Jo. 3:35), 
ἀπέθετο ἐν φυλακῇ (Mt. 14: 8). Cf. the spurious verse Jo. 5: 4 
κατέβαινεν ἐν τῇ κολυμβήθρᾳ; Par. P. 10, 2 (iii/A.D.) ἀνακεχώρηκεν 
ἐν ᾿Αλεξανδρείᾳ; Epict. (1, 11, 32) ἀνέρχῃ ἐν Ῥώμῃ; Tob. 5:5 πορευ- 
θῆναι ἐν Ῥάγοις. Cf. Blass-Debrunner, p. 131. The LXX shows 
similar examples. Cf. Conybeare and Stock, p. 89. But it was 
only by degrees that ἐν came to be associated exclusively with 
the locative case and εἰς with the accusative as a result of the 
triumph of the Ionic-Attic Greek. In Homer indeed ἐν appears 
as an adverb.’ In origin therefore we are not to associate ἐν 
primarily with the locative any more than in Latin, though ulti- 
mately that came to be true. Other examples of é in composi- 
tion in the N. T. with verbs of motion are ἐμβατεύω (Col. 2 : 18), 
ἐμβιβάζξω (Ac. 27:6), ἐμπίπτω (Lu. 10:36 followed by eis). The 
word therefore evidently expresses the idea of ‘within,’ whether 
of rest or of motion depending on the context. Compare verna- 
cular English, ‘‘Come in the house.”’ Note in Ac. 26 : 20 that ἐν 
is not repeated with ᾿Ιεροσολύμοις. 

2. Ἔν Older than eis. It seems certain that originally ἐν stood 
alone without εἰς, whereas in the modern Greek vernacular ἐν 


1 Tb., p. 438. 2 Meister, Die griech. Dial., Bd. I, p. 284. 

3 Solmsen, Inscr. Graecae, p. 4. 

4 Meister, Gr. Dial., Bd. II, p. 283 f. 

5 Hoffmann, Gr. Dial., Bd. II, p. 591. Beoeotian also knows only ἐν with 
either loc. or ace. Cf. Claflin, Synt. of Boeotian Dial. Inscr., p. 56f. Pindar 
shows é with acc. 

6 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 438. 7 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 147. 


586 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


has entirely disappeared before εἰς which uses only the accusa- 
tive.! There is once more unity, but not exactly on the same terms. 
In the Greek N. T. this process of absorption is going steadily on 
as in the κοινή generally. There is rarely much doubt as to the 
significance of ἐν, whereas εἰς has already begun to resume its old 
identity with ἐν, if indeed in the vernacular it ever gave it up.? 
We may compare ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ in Mt. 24:18 with εἰς τὸν ἀγρόν in 
Mk. 13:16. Cf. ἐπέσχεν χρόνον eis τὴν ᾿Ασίαν (Ac. 19 : 22), τηρεῖσθαι 
els Καισαρίαν (25:4), εἰς οἶκόν ἐστιν (some MSS. in Mk.2:1). Cf. 
ΠΟΙ 15: 

In the Ν. T. ἐν is so frequent (2698 instances) that it is still 
the most common preposition. Indeed Moulton? thinks that its 
ultimate disappearance is due to the fact that it had become too 
vague as “‘a maid of all work.” 

3. Place. The simplest use is with expressions of place, like ἐν 
τῇ ἀγορᾷ (Mt. 20 : 3), ἐν δεξιᾷ (Heb. 1: 3), ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ (Rev. 3 : 21), 
ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ (Mt. 4 : 21), ἐν τῇ πόλει (Lu. 7: 37), ἐν τῷ ᾿Ιορδάνῃ ποταμῷ 
(Mt. 3:6), ἐν ὕδατι (3:11), & τῇ ἀμπέλῳ (Jo. 15:4). Cf. also 
ἐξῆλθεν ὁ λόγος ἐν τῇ ᾿Ιουδαίᾳ (Lu. 7:17) and ἐν τῷ γαζοφυλακίῳ (Jo. 
8:20). For the “pregnant” construction of ἐν after verbs of 
motion cf. chapter XI, x, (ὃ. Cf. examples given under 1. In 
these and like examples ἐν indeed adds little to the idea of the 
locative case which it is used to explain. See also ἐν rots (Lu. 2: 
49) in the sense of ‘at the house of’ (cf. εἰς τὰ ἴδια, Jo. 19 : 27) for 
which Moulton? finds abundant illustration in the papyri. Cf. ἐν 
tots ᾿Απολλωνίου, R.L. 38? (iii/B.c.). The preposition in itself 
merely states that the location is within the bounds marked 
by the word with which it occurs. It does not mean ‘near,’ but 
‘in,’ that is ‘inside.’ The translation of the resultant idea may 
be indeed in, on, at, according to the context, but the preposition 
itself retains its own idea. There is nothing strange about the 
metaphorical use of ἐν in expressions like ἐν βασάνοις (Lu. 16 : 23), 
ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ (1 Jo. 3: 14), ἐν δόξῃ (Ph. 4:19), ἐν μυστηρίῳ (1 Cor. 
25241), δύο! 

4. Hxpressions of Time. ’Ev may appear rather oftener than 
the mere locative. Cf. ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ in Jo. 6:44, but τῇ 
ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ In 6 : 54, while in 6:40 the MSS. vary. By ἐν τρισὶν 
ἡμέραις (Jo. 2: 19) it is clear that Jesus meant the resurrection 


1 'V. and D., Mod. Gk., p. 109 f. 2 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 142. 

3 Prol., p. 103. In the Ptol. papyri, Rossberg (Priip., p. 8) finds 2245 
examples of ἐν and it is the most common preposition. 

4 Prol., p. 103. On the retreat of ἐν before εἰς see Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 380. 


‘PREPOSITIONS (ΠΡΟΘΕΣΕΙΣ) 587 


will take place within the period of three days. Cf. τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ 
(never with ἐν in the N. T.) in Mt. 16: 21.1. More common ex- 
pressions are ἐν σαββάτῳ (Mt. 12: 2), ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ (Jo. 11: 9), ἐν 
τῇ νυκτί (11 : 10), ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ (Ac. 7:18), ἐν τῷ καθεξῆς (Lu. 8:1), 
ἐν τῷ μεταξύ (Jo. 4:31), ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις (Μύ. 8 : 1), ἐν τῇ 
παρουσίᾳ (1 Th. 2 : 19), ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει (Mk. 12 : 23), ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως 
(Mt. 10:15), ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ σάλπιγγι (1 Cor. 15 : 52), ete. Cf. Lu. 
1:7. Another temporal use of é is & @ in the sense of ‘while’ 
(Mk. 2:19). Cf. also ἐν οἷς in Lu. 12:1. The frequent use, espe- 
cially in Luke (cf. ἐν τῷ ὑποστρέφειν, ὃ : 40), of ἐν τῷ with the infin- 
itive calls for a word. Examples of this idiom occur in the ancient 
Greek (16 in Xenophon, 6 in Thucydides, 26 in Plato)? and the 
papyri show it occasionally. Cf. ἐν τῷ λογίζεσθαι, Par. P. 63 
(ii/B.c.). But in the LXX it is a constant translation of 2 and 
is much more abundant in the N. T. as a result of the LXX 
profusion. 

5. ‘Among.’ With plural nouns ἐν may have the resultant 
idea of ‘among,’ though, of course, in itself it is still ‘in,’ ‘within.’ 
Thus we note ἐν γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν (Mt. 11:11), ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν (Ac. 
2:29), ἦν ἐν αὐτοῖς (4:34), ev ὑμῖν (1 Pet. 5:1), ἐν rots ἡγεμόσιν 
Ἰούδα (Mt. 2:6). This is a common idiom in the ancient Greek. 
Not very different from this idea (cf. Latin apud) is the use ἐν 
ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν (Mt. 21:42), like Latin coram. One may note also 
ἐν ὑμῖν in 1 Cor. 6:2. Cf. ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (Gal. 1:16). See also 2 
Gor, 4:3; 8: 1. 

6. ‘In the Case of,’ ‘in the Person of’ or simply ‘in.’ A fre- 
quent use is where a single case is selected as a specimen or 
striking illustration. Here the resultant notion is ‘in the case 
of,’ which does not differ greatly from the metaphorical use of év 
with soul, mind, ete. Cf. Lu. 24:38. Thus with ἀποκαλύπτω note 
ἐν ἐμοί (Gal. 1 : 16), εἰδὼς ἐν ἑαυτῷ (Jo. 6 : 61), γένηται ἐν ἐμοί (1 Cor. 
9:15), ἐν τῷ ξηρῷ τί γένηται (Lu. 28 : 31), ἐν ἡμῖν μάθητε (1 Cor. 4: 
6), ἐν τῇ κλάσει (Lu. 24 : 35). One may note also ἐν τῷ ᾿Αδὰμ πάντες 
ἀποθνήσκουσιν (1 Cor. 15 : 22), ἐν τῷ ᾿]ησοῦ καταγγέλλειν (Ac. 4 : 2), 
ἡγιασμένη ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ (Ro. 15:16), ἡγίασται ἐν τῇ γυναικί (1 
Cor. 7: 14), etc. Paul’s frequent mystical use of ἐν κυρίῳ (1 Cor. 
9 : 1), ἐν Χριστῷ (Ro. 6 : 11, 23, etc.) may be compared with Jesus’ 
own words, μείνατε ἐν ἐμοί, κἀγὼ ἐν ὑμῖν (Jo. 15:4). Cf. also ἐν τῷ 


1 See especially Field’s valuable note on this verse showing how impossible 
it is for the resurrection to have occurred on the fourth day. Cf. also Abbott, 
Joh. Gr., p. 255 f. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 215. 8 Ib., p.14. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 379. 


588 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


θεῷ in Col. 3:3. The LXX usage is not quite on a par with this 
profound meaning in the mouth of Jesus and Paul, even if “‘ex- 
tremely indefinite” to the non-Christian.1. But Moulton? agrees 
with Sanday and Headlam (Ro. 6:11) that the mystic indwelling 
is Christ’s own idea adopted by Paul. The classic discussion of 
the matter is, of course, Deissmann’s Die Neutestamentliche For- 
mel “in Christo Jesu’”’ (1892), in which by careful study of the 
LXX and the N. T. he shows the depth and originality of Paul’s 
idea in the use of ἐν Χριστῷ. Moulton* doubts if even here the 
N.T. writers make an innovation, but the fulness of the Christ- 
ian content would amply justify them if they did have to do so. 
See ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα (Col. 1 : 16). As further examples cf. 
Ro. 9:1; 14:14; Ph. 3:9; Eph. 4:21. 

7. As a Dative? One may hesitate to say dogmatically that in 
1 Cor. 14:11, ὁ λαλῶν ἐν ἐμοὶ βάρβαρος, we have ἐν used merely as 
the dative (cf. εἰς in modern Greek). But τῷ λαλοῦντι βάρβαρος in 
the same verse looks that way,* and Moulton® cites rots ἐν θεῷ 
πατρὶ ἠγαπημένοις (Ju. 1) and reminds us of the common ground 
between the locative and dative in Sanskrit where the locative 
appears with verbs of speaking. Cf. also ἐν ἐμοί in Ph. 1: 26. 
Note also ἐν ἐμοὶ κύριε in late LX X books (Thackeray, Gr., p. 14). 
One may compare ἐποίησαν ἐν αὐτῷ (Mt. 17:12). There seems 
no doubt that ὁμολογέω ἐν (Mt. 10 : 32; Lu. 12 : 8) is due® to 
literal translation of the Aramaic. The use of ἐν with ὀμνύναι 
(Mt. 5 : 34) is similar to the Hebrew 3. 

8. Accompanying Circumstance. It is needless to multiply un- 
duly the various uses of ἐν, which are “innumerable” in the LX X7 
where its chief extension is due to the imitation of the Hebrew 3.8 
But by no means all these uses are Hebraic. Thus & for the idea 
of accompanying circumstance is classical enough (cf. ἐν ὅπλοις 
εἶναι, Xen. Anab. 5. 9, like English “The people are up in arms’), 
though the LXX abounds with it. It occurs also in the papyri. 
Cf. Tb.P. 41 (119 B.c.). Here ἐν draws close to μετά and σύν in 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 181. Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 144, con- 
siders this an “extra-grammatical”’ point. 

2 Prol., p. 103. With this cf. rovem ἐν (Mt. 17:12; Lu. 23 : 31), an idiom 
paralleled in the LXX. Cf. ἐξελέξατο ἐν ἐμοί (1 Chron. 28 : 4), ἠρέτικα ἐν αὐτῷ 
(1 Chron. 28 : 6). 

2 Proky, Ρ. 103. 5 Prol., p. 103. 

4 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 181. © Tb. 

7 C. and S., Sel., ete., p. 82. Cf. Thack., Gr., p. 47, for the frequent use 
of ἐν of accompanying circumstance in the LXX. 

8 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 130. 


PREPOSITIONS (ΠΡΟΘΕΣΕΙΣ) 589 


usage. Note, for instance, ἐν δέκα χιλιάσιν ὑπαντῆσαι (Lu. 14 : 31), 
ἦλθεν ἐν ἁγίαις μυριάσιν αὐτοῦ (Ju. 14), ἐν πᾶσιν ἀναλαβόντες (Eph. 
6:16), ἐν στολαῖς περιπατεῖν (Mk. 12:38), ἔρχονται ἐν ἐνδύμασιν 
προβάτων (Mt. 7:15), ἐν λευκοῖς καθεζομένους (Jo. 20:12), μετεκα- 
λέσατο --- ἐν ψυχαῖς (Ac. 7: 14), εἰσέρχεται ἐν αἵματι (Heb. 9 : 25), ἐν 
τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἐν τῷ αἵματι (1 Jo. 5:6), ἐν ῥάβδῳ ἔλθω (1 Cor. 4:21), 
ἐν πληρώματι (Ro. 18 : 29), ἐν κελεύσματι (1 Th. 4:16), περιβαλεῖται 
ἐν ἱματίοις (Rev. 8: ὅ; οἵ. Mt. 11:8). Note also ἐν μυστηρίῳ λαλοῦμεν 
(1 Cor. 2:7) where ‘in the form of’ is the idea. These examples 
show the freedom of the preposition in this direction. Somewhat 
more complicated is a passage like ἄνθρωπος ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ 
(Mk. 1: 23), which Blass! properly compares with πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον 
ἔχει (Mk. 3:30), and the double use in Ro. 8:9, ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἐστὲ 
ἐν capki ἀλλὰ ἐν πνεύματι, εἴπερ πνεῦμα θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν (followed 
by πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ οὐκ ἔχει). The notion of manner is closely al- 
lied to this idiom as we see it in ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ (Ac. 17: 31), ἐν παρρη- 
cia (Col. 2:15), ἐν τάχει (Lu. 18 : 8, cf. ταχύ and ταχέως). Cf. Mt. 
6:18 and Jo. 18 : 20. 

9. ‘Amounting to,’ ‘Occasion,’ ‘Sphere.’ Moulton? considers 
Mk. 4 : 8, ἔφερεν εἰς τριάκοντα καὶ ἐν ἑξήκοντα καὶ ἐν ἑκατόν (note sim- 
ilarity here between eis and ἐν), as showing that ἐν sometimes is 
used in the sense of ‘amounting to.’ Cf. also Ac. 7:14 (LXX). 
The idiom is present in the papyri. Moulton cites προῖκα ἐν dpax- 
‘pats ἐννακοσίαις, B.U. 970 (ii/A.D.), τὴν πρώτην δόσιν ἐν δραχμαῖς τεσ- 
σαράκοντα, O.P. 724 (ii/B.c.). He (Prol., p. 76) quotes Hb. P. 42 
(iii/B.c.), δώσομεν ἐν ὀφειλήματι, as “predicative” use of ἐν. He 
compares Eph. 2 : 15, ἐν δόγμασιν, ‘consisting in decrees.’ Certain 
it is that in Rev. 5:9 ἠγόρασας ἐν τῷ αἵματί cov we have price® indi- 
cated by ἐν. Cf. Ro. 3 : 25; Ac. 20:28. In afew examples ἐν gives 
the occasion, as ἔφυγεν ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τούτῳ (Ac. 7: 29), ἐν τῇ πολυλογίᾳ 
αὐτῶν εἰσακουσθήσονται (Mt. 6:7), ἐν τούτῳ (Jo. 106 : 80). Note also 
λατρεύω ἐν τῷ πνεὐματί μου ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ (Ro. 1: 9) where the 
second ἐν suggests ‘in the sphere of.’ Cf. ἐν μέτρῳ (ph. 4 : 16), 
ἐν τούτοις ἴσθι (1 Tim. 4 : 15), ἐν νόμῳ ἥμαρτον (Ro. 2:12). In simple 
truth the only way to know the resultant meaning of & is to note 
carefully the context. It is so simple in idea that it appears in 
every variety of connection. 

10. Instrumental Use of ἐν. See previous discussion under 
Cases. Blass‘ considers it due to Hebrew influence as does Jan- 

1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 131. 2 -Prol., p. 103. 


3 Rare and possibly Hebraistic. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 380. 
4 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 130. 


590 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


naris.1. The ancient Greek writers did use ἐν with certain verbs, 
as the N. T. καίω ἐν πυρί (Rev. 17:16, some MSS.), ἀποκαλύπτω ἐν 
πυρί (1 Cor. 3:18), ἁλίζω ἐν τίνι (Mt. 5 : 18), μετρέω ἐν ᾧ μέτρῳ (Mt. 
7:2).2 The construction in itself is as old as Homer.’ Cf. ἐν 
ὀφθαλμοῖς Ειδέσθαι (1]. 1. 587), ἐν πυρὶ καίειν (Il. xxiv. 38). It is ab- 
normally frequent in the LXX under the influence of the Hebrew 
2,4 but it is not so common in the N. T. Besides, the papyri 
show undoubted examples of it. Moulton finds Ptolemaic ex- 
amples of ἐν μαχαίρῃ, Tb.P. 16 al.; διαλυόμεναι ἐν τῷ λιμῷ Par. P. 
28 (ii/B.c.), while 22 has τῷ λιμῷ διαλυθῆναι and note τοὺς éverxn- 
μένους ἔν τισιν ἀγνοήμασιν, Par. P. 63 (ii/B.c.). We can only say, 
therefore, that the LXX accelerated the vernacular idiom in this 
matter. The Aramaic probably helped it on also. The blending 
of the instrumental with the locative in form facilitated this 
usage beyond a doubt,® and the tendency to use prepositions 
abundantly helped also.7 But even so one must observe that all 
the N. T. examples of ἐν can be explained from the point of view 
of the locative. The possibility of this point of view is the reason 
why é was so used in the beginning. I pass by examples like 
βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι, βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί (Mt. 3:11) as 
probably not being instances of the instrumental usage at all. 
But there are real instances enough. Take Lu. 22:49 εἰ za- 
τάξομεν ἐν μαχαίρῃ; Here the smiting can be regarded as lo- 
cated in the sword. To be sure, in English, we translate the 
resultant idea by ‘with,’ but é in itself does not mean ‘with.’ 
That resultant idea can only come in the proper context. So ἐν 
τῷ Βεεζεβοὺλ ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιμονίων ἐκβάλλει (Mt. 12 : 24). Here the 
casting out is located in the prince of demons. Cf. κρίνω ἐν ἀνδρί 
(Ac. 17:31), ἐν βραχίονι (Lu. 1:51), ἐν δόλῳ (Mk. 14:1), ἐν φόνῳ 
paxaipns (Heb. 11:37). The Apocalypse has several examples, like 
πολεμήσω ἐν τῇ ῥομφαίᾳ (2:16), ἀποκτεῖναι ἐν. ῥομφαίᾳ καὶ ἐν λιμῷ καὶ 
ἐν θανάτῳ (6:8), ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀποκτενεῖ (18:10). In Rev. 14: 15, 
κράζων ἐν φωνῇ, we do not necessarily have to explain it in this 
manner,: Cf) Ro. 25163. 20528 e110 220.05 +0) aSe ee Oem nee 
whole there is little that is out of harmony with the vernacular 
κοινή in the N. T. use of ἐν, though Abbott® thinks that the ex- 


1 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 379. But see Deiss., B. S., p. 119 f. 

2 W.-Th., p. 388. 

3 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 144. 

4 Crandios pp. 5.2. lhackaip a7. 

δ Moulton, Prol., pp. 12, 61, 104, 234f. 7 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 379. 
cL Deaths 8 Joh. Gr., p. 256. 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPO@EZEIS) 591 


amples of Deissmann and Moulton do not exactly parallel the 
N. T. instrumental use. For repetition of ἐν see 2 Cor. 6 : 4 ff. 

(f) Eis. There is nothing to add to the etymology of eis as com- 
pared with that of ἐν save that εἰς is known to be really é-s as we 
find it in the inscriptions of Argos, Crete, etc. So és ᾿Αθαναίαν.ἷ 
This s seems to have been added to ἐν by analogy to €£.2 Usually 
with the disappearance of ν the form was eis, but Thucydides, like 
the Ionic and Doric writers and the poets, preferred és which was 
current in the inscriptions before 334 B.c.2 So is appears in a Phry- 
gian Christian inscription.4. But the Avolic εἰς gradually drove out 
all the other forms.’ Originally, therefore, ἐν alone existed with 
either locative or accusative, and εἰς appears nowhere else save in 
the Greek. The classic use of εἰς Αἵδου (some MSS. in Ac. 2 : 27, 
31 and reading in Is. 14:15) is the true genitive, according to 
Brugmann (Griech Gr., p. 489), ‘in the sphere of Hades.’ 

1. Original Static Use. In Homer εἰσ-κεῖσθαι means merely to 
lie within. But, though εἰς really means the same thing as ἐν, it 
was early used only with the accusative, and gradually special- 
ized thus one of the usages of ἐν. The locative with ἐν, however, 
continued to be used sometimes in the same sense as the accusa- 
tive with eis. The accusative indeed normally suggests motion 
(extension), and that did come to be the common usage of eis plus 
the accusative. The resultant idea would often be ‘into,’ but 
this was by no means always true. Eis is not used much in 
composition in the N. T. and always where motion is involved 
save in the case of eic-axotw where there seems little difference 
between eis and ἐν (cf. 1 Cor. 14:21; Mt. 6:7). In itself εἰς 
expresses the same dimension relation as ἐν, viz. 7n.° It does 
not of itself mean into, unto, or to. That is the resultant idea 
of the accusative case with verbs of motion. It is true that in 
the later Greek this static use of eis with the idea of rest (in) is 
far more common than in the earlier Greek. This was naturally 
SO, since in the vernacular εἰς finally drove ἐν out entirely and did 
duty for both, just as originally ἐν did. The only difference is 
that εἰς used the one case (accusative), whereas ἐν used either ac- 


1 Solmsen, Inscr. Graecae, p. 46. 

2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 488. He treats é and εἰς together. 

= Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 376. 

4 Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, II, p. 525. Cf. also Psichari, 
Etudes de Philol., 1892, p. v. 

5 Cf. H. W. Smyth, p. 80, Transactions of Am. Philol. Assoc. for 1887. 
J. Fraser (Cl. Quarterly, 1908, p. 270) shows that in Cretan we have és ὀρθόν 
(before vowel), but és τόν (before consonant). 6 K.-G., I, p. 468. 


592 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


cusative or locative. But! then the accusative was once the only 
case and must be allowed large liberty. And even in the classic 
writers there are not wanting examples. These are usually ex- 
plained? as instances of “‘pregnant”’ construction, but it 1s possible 
to think of them as survivals of the etymological idea of εἰς (év-s) 
with only the general notion of the accusative case. Certainly 
the vernacular laid less stress on the distinction between eis and 
ἐν than the literary language did. Though eis falls behind ἐν in the 
N. T. in the proportion of 2 to 3, still, as in the papyri® and the 
inscriptions and the LX X,‘ a number of examples of static εἰς oc- 
cur. Some of these were referred to under ἐν, where the “ pregnant”’ 
use of ἐν for εἰς occurs. Hatzidakis gives abundant examples of 
ἐν as eis and eis as ἐν. Cf. εἰς ᾿Αλεξάνδρειάν ἐστι, B.U. 11. 385; εἰς τύνβον 
κεῖμαι, Kaibel Epigr. 134; κινδυνεύσαντος eis θάλασσαν, B.U. 423 (ii/ 
A.D.). Deissmann (Light, p. 169) notes Paul’s κινδύνοις ἐν θαλάσσῃ 
and that the Roman soldier in the last example writes ‘more vul- 
garly than St. Paul.’”? In these examples it is not necessary nor 
pertinent to bring in the idea of ‘into.’ Blass’ comments on the 
fact that Matthew (but see below) has no such examples and John 
but few, while Luke has most of them. I cannot, however, follow 
Blass in citing Mk. 1:9 ἐβαπτίσθη eis τὸν ᾿Ιορδάνην as an example. 
The idea of motion in Barrifw suits εἰς as well as ἐν in Mk. 1: 5. 
Cf. νίψαι eis (Jo. 9:7). But in Mt. 28:19, βαπτίζοντες eis τὸ 
ὄνομα, and Ro. 6:3 f., εἰς Χριστόν and εἰς τὸν θάνατον, the notion 
of sphere is the true one. The same thing may be true of Bar- 
τισθήτω εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν (Ac. 2 : 38), where only the context 
and the tenor of N. T. teaching can determine whether ‘into,’ 
‘unto’ or merely ‘in’ or ‘on’ (‘upon’) is the right translation, a 
task for the interpreter, not for the grammarian. One does not 
need here to appeal to the Hebrew twa dav as Tholuck does 
(Beitrige zur Spracherklérung des N. T., p. 47f.). Indeed the 
use of ὄνομα for person is common in the papyri (Deissmann, Bible 
Studies, p. 196 f.). Deissmann gives examples of εἰς ὄνομα, ἐπ’ 
ὀνόματος, and the mere locative ὀνόματι, from the papyri. The 
static use of εἰς is seen in its distributive use like ἐν in Mk. 4:8, εἰς 
τριάκοντα καὶ ἐν ἑξήκοντα καὶ ἐν ἑκατόν. But there are undoubted 
examples where only ‘in,’ ‘on’ or ‘at’ can be the idea. Thus 


& Jann., Hist. Gk, Gr.,’p.'376: 

2 Ib., p. 577. Cf. Mullach, Gr. d. griech. Vulgarsp., p. 380. Blass, Gr. of 
N. T. Gk., p. 123, calls it a “provincialism.” Cf. further Hatz., Einl., p. 210 f.; 
Moulton, Prol., p. 234 f. § Moulton, Prol., p. 62 f. 

4 C. and §., Sel., p. 81. ΠΥ ΟΝ ΓΟ 128, 


ae 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEI2) 593 


κηρύσσων eis Tas συναγωγάς (Mk. 1:39) where there is some excuse 
for the “pregnant”’ explanation because of ἦλθεν. So ἐλθὼν κατῴκη- 
σεν εἰς πόλιν (Mt. 2:23; 4:13), but note only παρῴκησεν εἰς γῆν 
(Heb. 11:9) and εὑρέθη εἰς "Λζωτον (Ac. 8: 40). Cf. καθημένου εἰς 
τὸ ὄρος (Mk. 18 : 8), ὁ εἰς τὸν ἀγρόν (Mk. 13 : 16), τοῖς εἰς τὸν οἶκον 
(Lu. 9 : 61), εἰς τὴν κοίτην εἰσίν (Lu. 11 : 7), ἔγκαταλείψεις εἰς ἄδην (Ac. 
2:27; cf. verse 31), τοῖς εἰς μακράν (2 : 39), εἰς χολήν --- ὄντα (Ac. 
8 : 23), ἐπέσχεν χρόνον εἰς τὴν ᾿λσίαν (Ac. 19 : 22), ἀποθανεῖν εἰς 
Ἰερουσαλήμ (Ac. 21 : 13), εἰς Ρώμην μαρτυρῆσαι (Ac. 23 : 11), τηρεῖσθαι 
εἰς Katoapiay (Ac. 25:4), ὁ ὧν εἰς τὸν κόλπον (Jo. 1:18), οἱ τρεῖς εἰς 
τὸ ἕν εἰσιν (1 Jo. ὅ : 8), εἰς ἣν στῆτε (1 Pet. ὅ : 12). . Nor is this quite 
all. In some MSS. in Mk. 2:1 we have εἰς οἶκόν ἐστιν (NBDL 
ἐν οἴκῳ). In Ac. 2:5 the MSS. vary between eis and ἐν as in Mk. 
10:10. Another instance is found in Eph. 3 : 16, κραταιωθῆναι eis 
Tov ἔσω ἄνθρωπον. Cf. Jo. 20:7; Mk. 13:9. But in ἔστη εἰς τὸ 
μέσον (Jo. 20 : 19, 26) we have motion, though ἔστη els τὸν αἰγιαλόν 
(Jo. 21:4) is an example of rest. Jo. 17:23 is normal. In Mt. 
10:41 f., εἰς ὄνομα προφήτου (μαθητοῦ, δικαίου) one can see little dif- 
ference between eis and ἐν. Certainly this is true of Mt. 12 : 41, 
μετενόησαν eis κἠρυγμα ᾿Ιωνᾶ, where it 15 absurd to take eis as ‘into’ or 
‘unto’ or even ‘to.’ See also συνηγμένοι εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα (Mt. 18: 20). 

2. With Verbs of Motion. But the usual idiom with εἰς was 
undoubtedly with verbs of motion when the motion and the 
accusative case combined with εἰς (‘in’) to give the resultant 
meaning of ‘into,’ ‘unto,’ ‘among,’ ‘to,’ ‘towards’ or ‘on,’ 
‘upon,’ according to the context. This is so common as to call 
for little illustration. As with ἐν so with eis, the noun itself gives 
the boundary or limit. So els τὴν οἰκίαν (Mt. 2:11), εἰς τὸ ὄρος 
(5 : 1), εἰς τὸ πραιτώριον (27 : 27), εἰς θάλασσαν (17 : 27), εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν 
(Rev. 10 : 5), eis ἔθνη (Ac. 22 : 21), εἰς πειρασμόν (Mt. 6 : 13), els τὸ 
μνημεῖον (Jo. 11:38), εἰς τὴν ὁδόν (Mk. 11:8), εἰς τοὺς μαθητάς (Lu. 
Θ : 20), εἰς τοὺς λῃστάς (Lu. 10: 36), εἰς κλίνην (Rev. 2 : 22), εἰς 
τὰ δεξιά (Jo. 21:6), εἰς τὴν κεφαλήν (Mt. 27:30), εἰς τὰς ἀγκάλας 
(Lu. 2 : 28), εἰς ὅλον τὸν κόσμον (Mk. 14 : 9), εἰς ὑμᾶς (1 Th. 2:9). 
These examples fairly illustrate the variety in the use of εἰς with 
verbs of motion. For idea of ‘among’ see Jo. 21:23. It will 
be seen at once, if one consults the context in these passages, that 
the preposition does not of itself mean ‘into’ even with verbs of 
motion. That is indeed one of the resultant meanings among 
many others. The metaphorical uses do not differ in princi- 
ple, such as εἰς θλίψιν (Mt. 24:9), συνάγειν eis ἕν (Jo. 11:52), εἰς 
τὴν conv (Mt. 18:8), εἰς κρίσιν (Jo. 5:24), εἰς ὑπακοήν (2 Cor. 


594. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


10 : 5), es χεῖρας (Mt. 17 : 22), etc. For many interesting exam- 
ples of ἐν and eis see Theimer, Die Prdpositionen eis, ἐν, im N.T., 
Beitrage zur Kenntnis des Sprachgebrauches im N. T., 1896. 

3. With Expressions of Time. Here eis marks either the limit 
or accents the duration expressed by the accusative. Thus in 
2 Tim. 1:12 we find φυλάξαι eis ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν Where ‘until’ 
suits as a translation (cf. ‘against’). Cf. Ph. 1: 10, es juépar 
Χριστοῦ. Not quite so sharp a limit is εἰς τὴν αὔριον (Mt. 6 : 34). 
Cf. 1 Pet. 1:11. There is little that is added by the preposition 
to the accusative in such examples as εἰς τὸ μέλλον (Lu. 13 : 9), 
els τὸν αἰῶνα (Mt. 21:19), eis γενεὰς καὶ γενεάς (Lu. 1: 50), εἰς τὸ 
διηνεκὲς (Heb. 7: 3), etc. Cf. Lu. 12:19. But a more definite 
period is set in cases like εἰς τὸν καιρόν (Lu. 1 : 20), εἰς τὸ μεταξὺ 
σάββατον (Ac. 13 : 42). 

A. Like a Dative. It is not strange to see eis used where 
disposition or attitude of mind is set forth. Indeed already εἰς 
and the accusative occur where the dative alone would be suffi- 
cient. This is especially true in the LX X, but the papyri show 
examples also. Cf. οἱ eis Χριστόν (Mart. Pauli, 11). Moulton (Prol., 
p. 246) cites Tb. P. 16, οὐ λήγοντες τῆι [eis] αὐτοὺς αὐθαδίᾳ, ‘where els 
actually stands for the possessive genitive.’? One must remember 
the complete disappearance of the dative in modern Greek! ver- 
nacular. Note τῆς λογίας τῆς eis τοὺς ἁγίους (1 Cor. 16:1), πλουτῶ 
els πάντας (Ro. 10: 12), πλεονάζω eis (Ph. 4 : 17), ἐλεημοσύνας ποιήσων 
εἰς TO ἔθνος (Ac. 24 : 17), λειτουργὸν εἰς τὰ ἔθνη (Ro. 15 : 16), ἀποβλέπω 
eis (Heb. 11 : 26), λέγει εἰς (Ac. 2 : 25), ὀμνύω eis (Mt. 5: 84 f.), τὸ 
αὐτὸ εἰς ἀλλήλους (Ro. 12 : 16), πιστεύειν εἰς (Mt. 18 : 6), χρηστὸς εἰς 
(Eph. 4 : 32), ἀγάπην eis (Ro. 5:8), etc. If one entertains hostile 
feelings the resultant idea with eis will be ‘against,’ though the 
word does not of itself mean that. So in Lu. 12:10 εἰς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ 
ἀνθρώπου (cf. κατά in Mt. 12 : 32) and εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα βλασφη- 
μήσαντι, βλάσφημα eis (Ac. 6: 11), ἐπιβουλὴ εἰς (Ac. 29 : 80), ἁμαρτάνειν 
εἰς (Lu. 15 : 18), ete. As a matter of fact all that εἰς really accent- 
uates here is the accusative case (with reference to) which happens 
to be in a hostile atmosphere. But that is not true of such ex- 
amples as ἠθέτησαν eis ἑαυτούς (Lu. 7:30), εἰς τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ 
θεοῦ (Ro. 4 : 20), etc. For ὄψονται εἰς in Jo. 19:37 see Abbott, 
Johannine Grammar, p. 245. In the modern Greek eis has dis- 
placed the dative in the vernacular. 

5. Aim or Purpose. Sometimes indeed eis appears in an at- 
mosphere where aim or purpose is manifestly the resultant idea. 

1 Moulton, Prol., p. 63; C. and S., p. 82; W.-Th., p. 396 f. 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOESEI=) 595 


Thus we may note ἐλθὼν eis τὴν Τρῳάδα εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (2 Cor. 
2:12). Here the second εἰς suggests the purpose of his coming. 
Cf. also τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν (1 Cor. 11: 24), where 
εἰς does not mean ‘for,’ though that is clearly the resultant idea. 
So with eis μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς (Mt. 8:4). Take Ro. 11:36, for in- 
stance, where eis αὐτόν is set over against ἐξ αὐτοῦ. Cf. again eis 
δόξαν θεοῦ in Ph. 1:11, εἰς φόβον in Ro. 8:15, εἰς ἔνδειξιν in Ro. 
3:25, els ζωὴν αἰώνιον in Jo. 6:27. One may not doubt also that 
this is the idea in Mt. 26 : 28, τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν 
ἁμαρτιῶν. But it by no means follows that the same idea is ex- 
pressed by els ἄφεσιν in Mk. 1:4 and Ac. 2 : 38 (cf. Mt. 10:41), 
though that may in the abstract be true. It remains a matter 
for the interpreter to decide. One must not omit here also the 
frequent use of εἰς τὸ and the infinitive to express design. Cf. eis 
τὸ ἐμπαῖξαι in Mt. 20 : 19, εἰς τὸ σταυρωθῆναι in 26 : 2. See chapter on 
Verbal Nouns for further discussion. Cf. also εἰς τοῦτο (Mk. 1: 38), 
eis αὐτὸ τοῦτο (2 Cor. 5:5), ayopatw εἰς (Jo. 13 : 29), eis ἀπάντησιν 
(Mt. 25 : 6), els ὑπάντησιν αὐτῷ (Jo. 12:13).1 Cf. ξύλων εἰς EXardvas 
μου (Fay. P., 50 a.p.), ‘sticks for my olive-gardens’ (Deissmann, 
Light, etc., p. 157), εἰς ἵππον ἐνοχλούμενον (P. Fl.-Pet., ii. xxv, 226 
B.c.), ‘for a sick horse’ (Deissmann, B. S., p. 118). Radermacher 
(N. T. Gr., p. 112) cites φκοδόμησεν --- εἰς ἑαυτόν (83 N. Chr. Wadd. 
Inscr., 2614). 

6. Predicate Use. But there remains one more use of eis which, 
though good κοινή, was greatly accelerated by the influence of the 
LXX.2 This is where εἰς occurs in the predicate with εἰμί or 
γίνομαι, κτλ. Radermacher (N. 7. Gr., p. 16 f.) quotes ἵνα μὴ εἰς 
ψωμίον γένηται, P.Fay. 119, 276 (100 a.p.); Heliod., 4thiop. VI, 
14, τὴν πήραν eis καθέδραν ποιησαμένη; and even the Attic author 
/Mneas 114, 5 H, γυναῖκας ὁπλίσαντες ws és ἄνδρας. Thus in Lu. 3: 5, 
ἔσται Ta σκολιὰ εἰς εὐθείας (Is. 40 : 4). So ἔσεσθε μοι εἰς υἱοὺς καὶ θυγα- 
τέρας (2 Cor. 6 : 18, LXX); ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν (Mt. 19 : 5; 
ef. Gen. 2 : 24); ἡ λύπη ὑμῶν εἰς χαρὰν γενήσεται (Jo. 16: 20). Cf. 
Lu. 13:19. As already remarked, this predicate use of εἰς ap- 
pears in the papyri® and in the Apostolic Fathers,* but not with 

1 This can no longer be called a Hebraism, since the pap. have it. Moulton, 
Prol., p.14. Cf. eis ἀπάντησιν, Th. P. 43 (ii/B.c.). Rouffiac (Recherches, p. 28) 
finds εἶναι εἰς φυλακήν in inscr. of Priene 50, 39 (1i/B.c.). 2 C. and &., p. 81 f. 

3 Moulton, Prol., p. 71 f. Cf. K.P. 46 (i/a.p.) ἔσχον παρ᾽ ὑμῶν δά (νειον) 
σπέρματα, ‘for a loan.’ Cf. our “to wife.’ Moulton (Prol., p. 67) cites M. 
Aurelius, VI, 42. 


4 C.and §., p. 81. Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 143, cites an ex. from 
Theogn. . 


596 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the frequency that we find it in the LXX. Cf. pp. 481 f. Blass? 
credits eis in ὕπαγε els εἰρήνην (Mk. 5 : 34) to the Hebrew through 
the LXX (cf. 1 Sam. 1:17). Cf. also εἰς διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων (Ac. 
7:53) where εἰς is much like ἐν. In general therefore, as with ἐν 
so with εἰς we must hark back to first principles and work out to the 
resultant idea by means of the context and the history. 

7. Compared with ἐπί, παρά and πρός. The growth in the use 
of εἰς is shown by its appearance where ἐπί or πρός would be ex- 
pected in the older Greek. Cf. ἔρχεται eis πόλιν (Jo. 4 : 5), where 
the point is not ‘into,’ but ‘to. So 11: 31, ὑπάγει εἰς τὸ μνημεῖον. 
In 11:38 D has ἐπί, not εἰς. Soin Mk. 9 : 7, ἀνεχώρησεν πρὸς τὴν 
θάλασσαν, DHP have eis. Cf. Mk. 2: 13, & has εἰς for παρά and 
in 7:31 NBD have εἰς, not πρός. 

(g) Ἔκ (ἐξ). The etymology of this word is simple. Cf. Latin 
ex (e), Gallic ex, Old Irish ess, Cymric eh. In the Greek the form 
varies thus ἐκ (ἐξ before vowels), éy (assimilation), ἐ (Locrian, cf. 
Latin 6), és or ἐσς like Old Irish (Arcadian, Boeotian, Thessalian). 
The original form was ἐξ, then ἐκ like Latin ex, 6. Cf. Brugmann, 
Griech Gr., p. 147. 

1. Meaning. The word means ‘out of,’ ‘from within,’ not 
like ἀπό or παρά. It stands in contrast to ἐν (é-s).2- In the modern 
Greek vernacular ἀπό has displaced ἐκ except in the Epirot ax or 
ὀχ. But in the N. T. ἐκ 15 still ahead of ἀπό. The indifference 
of the scribes‘ as to which they used is shown in the MS. variations 
between ἐκ and ἀπό as in Mt. 7:4; 17:9; Mk. 16:3. The writings 
of John (Gospel, Epistles, Revelation) use ἐκ more frequently than 
any other N. T. books.6 In the late Greek (eighth century A.D.) 
we find the accusative with éx, and this was the last usage to sur- 
vive. Brugmann? indeed thinks that ἐκ may even rarely use the 
genuine genitive besides the ablative, but I doubt this. But it is 
certain that ἐκ used the locative in Arcadian, Cypriotic and Pam- 
phylian dialects after analogy of ἐν (Buck, Greek Dialects, p.101f.).8 

2. In Composition. It is very common and sometimes with 
the “perfective” idea. So we note ἐξ-απορούμενοι contrasted with 
ἀπορούμενοι In 2 Cor. 4 : 8.9 Cf. also ἐκ-δαπανάω (2 Cor. 12:15), 


1. Gr ΟΝ Te Gk. 2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 440. 

8 Moulton, Prol., p. 102. On p. 246 he cites Psichari as saying that ἐκ 
τόν is still “‘une forme vivante.”’ 

4 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 145. 6 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 381. 

5 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 126. 7 Griech. Gr., p. 440. 

8 Delbriick, Die Grundl., p. 129; Meister, Griech. Dial., I, pp. 285, 307. 

9 Moulton, Prol., p. 237. ᾿ 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEIS) 597 


ἐκ-διηγέομαι (Ac. 18 : 41), ἐκ-θαμβέω (Mk. 9:15), ἐκ-θαυμάζω (Mk. 
12 : 17), ἐκεκαθαίρω (2 Tim. 2 : 21), ἐξ-εραυνάω (1 Pet. 1:10). The 
other uses in composition follow the root-idea of the word closely, 
meaning ‘out of,’ ‘away,’ etc., like ἐξέρχομαι, ἐκβάλλω, etc. ᾿Εκ 
has a causative force in composition sometimes as in ἐξαμαρτάνω, 
“cause to sin’ (LX X), and ἐκφοβεῖν (2 Cor. 10: 9). 

3. Place. The preposition naturally is common with expres- 
sions of place. The strict idea of from within is common, as in 
φωνὴ ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν (Mt. 3:17), ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ (Lu. 6 : 42), ἐκ τῶν 
μνημείων (Mt. 8 : 28), ete. Often it appears in contrast with εἰς as 
in ἐκ τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν (Jo. 4:47), τοῦ ἐκ σκότους ὑμᾶς καλέ- 
σαντος εἰς τὸ φῶς (1 Pet. 2:9), where the metaphorical follows the 
literal usage. In Lu. 6 : 42 ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ is set in opposition to 
ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλμῷ. In Ac. 8: 38 f. we have both εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ and ἐκ τοῦ 
ὕδατος. So in Mk. 1:10 ἀναβαίνων ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος a previous presence 
ἐν τῷ ὕδατι is implied. Ina case like καταβαινόντων ἐκ τοῦ ὄρους (Mt. 
17: 9: parallels in Mk. and Lu. ἀπό) we are not to suppose that 
they had been in a cave, but merely up in the mountain (cf. Eng- 
lish idiom), the term ‘‘mountain” including more than the earth 
and rock. Cf. εἰς τὸ ὄρος in Mt. 5:1. But in Mt.8:1 we merely 
have ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄρους. Note likewise θρὶξ ἐκ τῆς κεφαλῆς (Lu. 21:18), 
ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν (Ac. 12 : 7). Thus we explain also κρεμάμενον τὸ θηρίον 
ἐκ τῆς χειρὸς αὐτοῦ (Ac. 28 : 4), ἐκ δεξιῶν (Mt. 20 : 21), ἐξ ἐναντίας 
(Mk. 15 : 39), etc. It is not necessary to record all the verbs with 
which ἐκ occurs. In Lu. 5: 8 ἐδίδασκεν ἐκ τοῦ πλοίου the teaching 
is represented as proceeding out of the boat (Jesus was in the 
boat). One may compare with this ἐγείρεται ἐκ τοῦ δείπνου (Jo. 13 : 
4), ἀναλύσῃ ἐκ τῶν γάμων (Lu. 12 : 36), ἀποκυλίειν τὸν λίθον Ex τῆς θύρας 
(Mk. 16 : 8), διασωθέντα ἐκ τῆς θαλάσσης (Ac. 28 : 4). 

4. Time. With expressions of time ἐκ gives the point of de- 
parture, like ἐκ νεότητος (Mk. 10 : 20), ἐξ ἀρχῆς (Jo. 6 : 64), ἐξ ἱκανῶν 
χρόνων (Lu. 28 : 8), ἐκ rod. αἰῶνος (Jo. 9:32), ἐκ πολλῶν ἐτῶν (Ac. 
24 : 10), ἐκ τούτου (Jo. 6 : 66). In cases where succession is involved 
the point of departure is really present. Thus with ἐκ δευτέρου 
(Jo. 9:24), ἐκ τρίτου (Mt. 26 : 44), ἡμέραν ἐξ ἡμέρας (2 Pet. 2: 8). 
Other adverbial phrases have a similar origin as with ἐκ μέρους 
(1 Cor. 12 : 27), ἐκ μέτρου (Jo. 8 : 34), ἐξ ἀνάγκης (2 Cor. 9: 7), ἐκ 
συμφώνου (1 Cor. 7:5). Cf. ἐκ πάλαι. 

5. Separation. The use of ἐκ for the idea of separation is merely 
the fuller expansion of the ablative. Thus with ἐλεύθερος ἐκ πάντων 
(1 Cor. 9 : 19), ἀναπαήσονται ἐκ τῶν κόπων (Rev. 14: 18), ὑψωθῶ ἐκ 
τῆς γῆς (Jo. 12 : 32), ὑποστρέψαι ἐκ τῆς ἐντολῆς (2 Pet. 2 : 21), ἄρῃς ἐκ 


598 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


τοῦ κόσμου (Jo. 17:15). Cf. Jo. 17: 6. Abbott! doubts if in the 
LXX and John ἐκ always implies previous existence in the evils 
from which one is delivered when used with σώζω and τηρέω. Cer- 
tainly in Jo. 17 ἐκ occurs rather frequently, but τηρήσῃς ἐκ τοῦ 
πονηροῦ (17: 15) may still imply that the evil one once had power 
over them (cf. Jesus’ prayer for Peter). Certainly in Jo. 12 : 27, 
σῶσόν με ἐκ τῆς ὥρας Ta’Tys, Jesus had already entered into the hour. 
Cf. δυνάμενον σώζειν ἐκ θανάτου (Heb. 5:7) where ἐκ may accentuate 
the power of God (δυνάμενον), though he had not yet entered into 
death. In Rev. 3:10 τηρήσω ἐκ τῆς ὥρας τοῦ πειρασμοῦ we seem to 
have the picture of general temptation with the preservation of 
the saints. Cf. ἔκβασις in 1 Cor. 10:13. So in Mt. 18:41 συλλέ- 
Eovow ἐκ τῆς βασιλείας the idea is ‘out from among,’ just as cheat or 
cockle grows in among the wheat in the same field. The two 
kingdoms coexist in the same sphere (the world). The notion of 
separation is common with a number of verbs like ἐξολεθρευθήσεται 
ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ (Ac. ὃ : 28), ἤγειρεν ἐκ νεκρῶν (Jo. 12:1), ἡ ἀνάστασις ἐκ 
νεκρῶν (Lu. 20: 35), ἐξελεξάμην ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου (Jo. 15:19), etc. This 
all seems simple and clear. Not quite so apparent is νικῶντας ἐκ 
τοῦ θηρίου (Rev. 15:2). Thayer and Blass both take it like τηρέω 
ἐκ, ‘victorious over’ (by separation). Cf. μετενόησαν ἐκ τῶν ἔργων 
(Rev. 16:11) and Jo. 8 : 25, ζήτησις ἐκ. 

6. Origin or Source. Equally obvious seems the use of ἐκ for the 
idea of origin or source. Thus ἐξῆλθον ἐκ τοῦ πατρός (Jo. 16 : 28), οὐκ 
εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου (17: 14, 16), ἐκ τῶν λίθων τούτων ἐγεῖραι τέκνα (Mt. 
3:9. Naturally this usage has a wide range. Cf. ἐκ Ναζαρέτ (Jo. 
1:46 f.), ἐκ πόλεως (Jo. 1:44), ἐκ τῆς Σαμαρίας (Jo. 4:7), ᾿Εβραῖος 
ἐξ "EGpaiwy (Ph. 3: 5), ἐκ τῆς γῆς (Jo. ὃ : 31), ἐκ θεοῦ (Ph.°3 : 9), 
ἐξ ἐθνῶν (Gal. 2:15), ἐκ πλάνης (1 Th. 2 : 8), ἐκ πολλῆς θλίψεως (2 
Cor. 2:4), τῇ €& ἡμῶν. ἐν ὑμῖν ἀγάπῃ (2 Cor. 8:7). Cf. Lu. 12: 
15. This list is by no means exhaustive, but it is at least sug- 
gestive. One may note here στέφανον ἐξ ἀκανθῶν (Mt. 27:29), 
where the material is expressed by ἐξ. 

7. Cause or Occasion. Closely allied to the above is the notion 
of cause or occasion which may also be conveyed by ἐκ. Thus 
note τὸ ἐξ ὑμῶν in Ro. 12:18, ἐμασῶντο ἐκ τοῦ πόνου (Rev. 16 : 10), 
δικαιωθέντας ἐκ πίστεως (Ro. 5:1), ἐξ ἔργων (Gal. 3:10), ἐκ τοῦ 
εὐαγγελίου ζῆν (1 Cor. 9 : 14), ἐξ ἀσθενείας (2 Cor. 18 : 4), ἐκ τοῦ μα- 
μωνᾶ (Lu. 16:9). Cf. also ἀπέθανον ἐκ τῶν ὑδάτων (Rev. 8:11). 
Perhaps here belongs ἐπληρώθη ἐκ τῆς ὀσμῆς (Jo. 12:3). Cf. γεμίζω 
ἐκ in Jo. 6:13 (Abbott, Johannine Gr., p. 253). At any rate a 

Joh Gry pr colds 


PREPOSITIONS (ΠΡΟΘΕΣΕΙΣ) 599 


number of verbs use ἐκ in this general sense like ὠφελέω (Mk. 
7:11), ζημιοῦσθαι (2 Cor. 7:9), ἀδικεῖσθαι (Rev. 2:11), πλουτέω 
(Rev. 18 : 3), χορτάζεσθαι (Rev. 19 : 21), κοπιάζω (Jo. 4 : 6), Saw (Ro. 
1:17), ete. Cf. ἐβλασφήμησαν τὸν θεὸν ἐκ τῆς πληγῆς (Rev. 16 : 21). 
Indeed ἐκ with the notion of price does not differ radically from 
this idiom. Thus ἠγόρασαν ἐξ αὐτῶν τὸν ἀγρόν (Mt. 27:7), ἐκτήσατο 
ἐκ μισθοῦ (Ac. 1:18), συμφωνήσας ἐκ δηναρίου (Mt. 20 : 2). ᾿Εκ δια- 
rays, ‘by order,’ was a regular formula in the papyri (Deissmann, 
Light, etc., p. 87). Deissmann, Bible Studies, Ὁ. 248, finds the 
idiom ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων ἀνέμων (Mk. 13 : 27) in the papyri as well as 


in «Zech. 11:6. 


8. The Partitive Use of ἐκ. It is not infrequent, marking an in- 
crease over the earlier idiom.! Thus in Jo. 16:17 ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν 
is even used as the subject of εἶπαν. Cf. Ac. 21:16 without ἐκ. 
See also Jo. 7:40. John is specially fond of the partitive use of 
ἐκ (Radermacher, N. 7. Gr., p. 115) and the inscriptions and papyri 
have it also. Cf. ἀνὴρ ἐκ τῶν πρωτευόντων, Petersen-Luschan, Reisen, 
p. 113, xviii. A. 5. Further examples are ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων 
(Jo. 3:1), μή τις ἐκ τῶν ἀρχόντων (Jo. 7:48), ἐκ τοῦ ὄχλου ἀκούσαντες 
(Jo. 7: 40), θανατώσουσιν ἐξ ὑμῶν (Lu. 21:16), ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀποκτενεῖτε 
(Mt. 28 : 34), βλέπουσιν ἐκ τῶν λαῶν (Rev. 11 : 9), διηκόνουν ἐκ τῶν 
ὑπαρχόντων (Lu. 8:3), ἐξ αὐτοῦ φάγῃ (Jo. 6:50), ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος 
δέδωκεν (1 Jo. 4 : 13), πίνων ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος (Jo. 4 : 13), οὐδεὶς ἐξ αὐτῶν 
(Jo. 17: 12), etc.2 In Heb. 158 :10 it is what is on the altar that 
is eaten. The use of ἐκ with a class or for a side or position may 
as well be mentioned here also. Thus ὁ ὧν ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας (Jo. 
18 : 37), οἱ ἐκ νόμου (Ro. 4 : 14), ὁ ἐκ πίστεως (Ro. 3 : 26), of ἐκ περι- 
τομῆς (Ac. 11: 2), of ἐκ ἐριθίας (Ro. 2:8), etc. The partisan use is 
allied closely to the partitive. Cf. Ph. 4:22 of ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος 
oixias. See further ch. XI, Cases. 

9. Ἐκ and ἐν. <A word in conclusion is needed about the so- 
called blending of ἐκ with ἐν. Blass* doubts if this classic idiom 
appears in the N. T. The passages that seem to have it are μὴ 
καταβάτω ἄραι Ta ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας αὐτοῦ (Mt. 24:17) where ἐν might in- 
deed have been employed, but ἐκ coincides in idea with ἄραι. Cf. 
Mk. 13:15, where ἐκ does not have τά before it. In Lu. 11: 
13 6 πατὴρ ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ δώσει πνεῦμα ἅγιον W. H. bracket ὁ before 
ἐξ, and with ὁ the sending of the Holy Spirit by the Father has 


1 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 145. 

2 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 100. 

3 Tb., p. 258. Cf. also Field, Ot. Norv., Pars III, Mk. 5 : 30, on τὴν ἐξ αὐτοῦ 
δύναμιν. 


600 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


caused ἐξ to displace é which would otherwise have been regular. 
In Jo. 3:18 some MSS. add ὁ ὧν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ to 6 vids Tod ἀνθρώπου, 
thus making Jesus in heaven at that moment when he was speak- 
ing to Nicodemus. In Col. 4 : 10, τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικίας, the ἐκ assumes, 
-of course, that an Epistle had been sent to Laodicea, and suggests 
that the Colossians get it from (é) them. Cf. Ro. 3:25 ἢ. for 
examples of διά, ἐν, eis, πρός, ἐκ. See ἀπό and παρά. 

(h) Ἐπί. See Sanskrit ἀρὶ (locative case), Zend aipi, Latin ob, 
Lithuanian pr. 

1. Ground-Meaning. It is ‘upon’ as opposed to ὑπό. It differs 
from ὑπέρ in that ἐπί implies a real resting upon, not merely over. 
But the very simplicity of this idea gives it a manifoldness of re- 
sultant uses true of no other preposition. Sometimes indeed in 


the causal and ethical usages the root-idea seems dim,” but none ἡ 


the less it is there. The only safety consists in holding on to the 
root-idea and working out from that in each special context. It 
marks a delicate shade of difference from ἐν, as 15. seen In ws ἐν 
οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς (Mt. 6 : 10). 

2. In Composition in the Ν. 1΄. It is very common, always re- 
taining the root-idea (cf. ἐπ-εν-δύω, 2 Cor. 5 : 2), though sometimes 
the perfective idea is clear. Thus with ἐπ-αιτέω in Lu. 16:3, ἐπι- 
γινώσκω in 1 Cor. 18 : 12,3 ἐπί-γνωσις in Col. 1 : 9, ἐπι-τελέω in 2 
ΦΟΡΈΣ 

3. Frequency in Ν. Τ. In the N. T. ἐπί is still in constant use, 
though it ultimately dropped out of the vernacular’ before ἐπάνω. 
Note ἕως ἐπὶ διαλ[ογισ]μός, P. Oxy. 294 (Α.Ὁ. 22) like ἀνὰ εἷς, ete. 
But in the N. T. it is the one preposition still used freely with 
more than two cases (acc. 464, gen. 216, dat. and loc. 176). Most 
of the examples called dative in the lexicons and grammars are 
really locatives, but some of them are possibly true datives.® So 
then ἐπί really has four cases still in the N. T. In Homer ἔπι often 
stands alone for ἔπτεστι. Farrar,’ quoting Donaldson, finds in 
the locative with ἐπί the idea of absolute superposition, while the 
genitive expresses only partial superposition and the accusative 
implies motion with a view to superposition and the dative would 
be superposition for the interest of one. There is some truth in 
this distinction and the case-idea must always be observed. But 


1 K.-G., I, p. 495. ΣΤ} 3 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 113. 
4 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 383; Mullach, Vulg., p. 381. 

5 Moulton, Prol., p. 107. 

6 K.-G., I, p. 495; Delbriick, Grundl., p. 130; Vergl. Synt., I, p. 676f. 
7 Greek Synt., p. 102. 


a 


PREPOSITIONS (ΠΡΟΘΕΣΕῚΣ) 601 


the growth of the accusative in the later language at the expense 
of the other cases caused some confusion in the usage according 
to the standard of the earlier Greek. Simcox! considers it ‘“al- 
most a matter of indifference” whether in the N. T. one uses 
locative, genitive or accusative. This is somewhat true, but even 
so it does not follow that there was no difference in the cases. The 
locative accentuated mere location, the genitive brought out rather 
the kind or genus, while the accusative would present the general 
idea of extension modified by the fact that the accusative tended 
to absorb the other cases without insisting on the distinct case- 
idea. Thus sometimes either case with ἐπί would give substan- 
tially the same idea, though technical differences did exist. For 
instance, in Ac. 5 : 9 note ἐπὶ τῇ θύρᾳ, while in verse 23 we have ἐπὶ 
τῶν θυρῶν. So compare ἐγγύς ἐστιν ἐπὶ θύραις (Mk. 13: 29) with ἕστηκα 
ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν (Rev. 8 : 20). Here the notion of rest exists with all 
three cases, though in Rev. ὃ : 20 καὶ κρούω may have some effect 
on the presence of the accusative. Once more observe καθίσῃ ἐπὶ 
θρόνου and καθήσεσθε ἐπὶ δώδεκα θρόνους in Mt. 19: 28. Rev. 4: 2 
gives us ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον καθήμενος, verse 9 (marg. of W. H., text of 
Nestle) τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ, while verse 10 has rod καθημένου 
ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου, three cases with the same verb. It would be over- 
refinement to insist on too much distinction here. But the cases 
afford variety of construction at any rate. In Rev. 14:9 the 
single verb λαμβάνει has ἐπὶ τοῦ μετώπου αὐτοῦ ἢ ἐπὶ τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ 
(cf. Ac. 27:44). Compare also λίθος ἐπὶ λίθον in Mt. 24 : 2 with 
λίθος ἐπὶ λίθῳ in Lu. 21:6. In Ph. 2:27 the MSS. vary between 
λύπην ἐπὶ λύπην and λύπην ἐπὶ λύπῃ. Cf. also ἐπ᾽ ὀλίγα and ἐπὶ 
πολλῶν in Mt. 25:21. The use of πιστεύω ἐπί with locative or 
accusative has already been discussed. The accusative suggests 
more the initial act of faith Gntrust) while the locative implies 
that of state (trust). We find εἰς also used with this verb as well 
as dative (both common in John). Once we have πιστεύω ἐν 
(Mk. 1:15). See Moulton, Prol., p. 68. But, after all is said, 
the only practical way to study ἐπί is from the point of view of 
the cases which it supplements. 

4. With the Accusative. As already noted, it is far in excess 
of the other cases combined. It is hardly necessary to make mi- 
nute subdivision of the accusative usage, though the preposition 
with this case follows the familiar lines. With expressions of place 
it is very common and very easy to understand. So ἐλθεῖν ἐπὶ τὰ 
ὕδατα (Mt. 14 : 28), περιεπάτησεν ἐπὶ τὰ ὕδατα (14 : 29), ἀναπεσεῖν ἐπὶ 

1 Lang. of the N. T., p. 146. 


Γὰ 


002 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


τῆν γῆν (Mt. 18 : 85), σκότος ἔγένετο ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τῆν γῆν (Mt. 27: 45), 
πορεύου ἐπὶ τὴν ὁδόν (Ac. ὃ : 26), ἐπέβαλον τὰς χεῖρας ἐπὶ τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν 
(Mt. 26:50), ἀναπεσὼν ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος (Jo. 18 : 25). The meta- 
phorical use is in harmony with this idiom. Thus φόβος ἐπέπεσεν 
ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν (Lu. 1:12), κατέστησας αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὰ ἔργα (Heb. 2:7), Ba- 
σιλεύσει ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον (Lu. 1 : 33), ἵνα ἐπισκηνώσῃ ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ ἡ δύναμις τοῦ 
Χριστοῦ (2 Cor. 12:9). Cf. 2 Cor. 1 : 28, ἐπικαλοῦμαι ἐπὶ τὴν ἐμὴν 
ψυχήν. But not all the accusative uses are so simple. In a case 
like Mt. 7: 24, φκοδόμησεν ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν, Some idea of motion may 
be seen. But that is not true of Mt. 13:2, πᾶς ὁ ὄχλος ἐπὶ τὸν 
αἰγιαλὸν ἱστήκει. Cf. also καθήμενον ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον (Mt. 9 : 9) and 
others given above. So ἐπὶ τὸ προσκεφάλαιον καθεύδων (ΜΚ. 4 : 38), 
πνεῦμα ἦν ἅγιον ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν (Lu. 2 : 25), ἔμεινεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν (Jo. 1 : 32), 
ἐπέστησαν ἐπὶ τὸν πυλῶνα (Ac. 10:17), ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς ἀναπαύεται (1 Pet. 
4 : 14), κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν κεῖται (2 Cor. 3:15), ἔσονται ἀλήθουσαι 
ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό (Lu. 17:35). Here it is hard to think of any idea of 
‘whither.’! Sometimes indeed ἐπί seems not to imply strictly 
‘upon,’ but rather ‘as far as.’ So with ἔρχονται ἐπὶ τὸ μνημεῖον (Mk. 
16 : 2), κατέβησαν ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν (Jo. 6:16), ἦλθον ἐπί τι ὕδωρ (Ac. 
8 : 36). The aim or purpose is sometimes expressed by ἐπί, as ἐπὶ 
τὸ βάπτισμα (Mt. 3:7), ἐφ᾽ ὃ πάρει (Mt. 26:50). It may express 
one’s emotions as with πιστεύω ἐπί (Ro. 4 : 24), ἐλπίζω ἐπί (1 Pet. 
1:13), σπλαγχνίζομαι ἐπί (Mt. 15:32). Cf. ἐφ᾽ dv γεγόνει in Ac. 4: 
22 and the general use of ἐπί in Mk. 9:12 γέγραπται ἐπὶ τὸν υἱὸν 
τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. In personal relations hostility is sometimes sug- 
gested, though ἐπί in itself does not mean ‘against.’ Thus as 
ἐπὶ λῃστὴν ἐξήλθατε (Mt. 26:55). In Mt. 12 : 26 ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἐμερίσθη 
is used side by side with μερισθεῖσα καθ᾽ ἑαυτῆς in the preceding 
verse. Cf. also Mk. 3 : 26, ete. Abbott? notes that John shows 
this usage only once (19:33). For ἐπί with the idea of degree 
or measure see ἐφ᾽ ὅσον (Ro. 11:18). Cf. ἐπὲ τὸ αὐτό in the sense 
of ‘all together’ (Ac. 1:15). With expressions of time ἐπί may 
merely fill out the accusative, as with ἐπὶ ἔτη τρία (Lu. 4: 25, 
marg. of W. H.), ἐπὶ ἡμέρας πλείους (Ac. 13:31), ἐφ᾽ ὅσον χρόνον 
(Ro. 7:1), or a more definite period may be indicated, as with 
ἐπὶ τὴν ὥραν τῆς προσευχῆς (Ac. 8 : 1),2 ἐπὶ τὴν αὔριον (Lu. 10:35). 
It is common with adverbs like ἐφ᾽ ἅπαξ, ἐπὶ τρίς, ete. 

5. With the Genitive. The genitive with ἐπί has likewise a 
wide range of usages. Usually the simple meaning ‘upon’ sat- 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 186. For LXX ex. of rest see C. and S., p. 85. 
2 Joh. Gr., p. 259. 
3 A postclassical usage, Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 147. 


a ee αὶ 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEIZ) 603 


isfies all requirements, as in ἐπὶ κλίνης (Mt. 9 : 2), ἐφ᾽ οὗ φκοδόμητο 
(Lu. 4:29), κηρύξατε ἐπὶ τῶν δωμάτων (Mt. 10 : 27), ἐρχόμενον ἐπὶ 
νεφελῶν (Mt. 24 : 30), ἔθηκεν ἐπὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ (Jo. 19 : 19), καθίσας ἐπὶ 
τοῦ βήματος (Ac. 12 : 21), ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς (Jo. 20 : 7), ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης 
(Rev. ὅ : 18), ἐπὶ ξύλου (Ac. 5:30). In Mk. 12 : 26, ἐπὶ τοῦ βάτου, 
an ellipsis in thought occurs in the passage about the bush. 
Sometimes, indeed, as with the accusative, so with the genitive, 
ἐπί has the idea of vicinity, where the word itself with which it is 
used has a wide meaning. Thus in Jo. 21:1 ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης seems 
to mean ‘on the sea-shore,’ and so ‘by the sea.’ Se with ἐπὶ τῆς ὁδοῦ 
(Mt. 21 : 19), the fig-tree being not on the path, but on the edge 
of the road. Abbott! notes how Matthew (14 : 25 f.) has ἐπὶ τὴν 
θάλασσαν which is not ambiguous like the genitive in Jo. 6:19. 
Cf. Ac. 5 : 23 ἐπὶ τῶν θυρῶν. The classic idiom with ἐπί and the 
genitive in the sense of ‘towards’ is not so common in the N. T., 
though it has not quite disappeared as Simcox? thinks. Cf. ἐγένετο 
τὸ πλοῖον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (Jo. 6 : 21), καθιέμενον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (Ac. 10:11), 
βαλοῦσα τὸ μύρον ἐπὶ τοῦ σώματος (Mt. 26:12), ἔπιπτεν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς 
(Mk. 14 : 85), γενόμενος ἐπὶ τοῦ τόπου (Lu. 22 : 40), τὸν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς 
ἐρχόμενον (Heb. 6 : 7), πεσὼν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (ΜΚ. 9 : 20). In these ex- 
amples we see just the opposite tendency to the use of the accusa- 
tive with verbs of rest. Cf. πεσεῖται ἐπὶ τῆν γῆν (Mt. 10 : 29) with 
Mk. 9:20 above and βαλεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν (Mt. 10:34) with Mk. 
4:26. With persons ἐπί and the genitive may yield the resultant 
meaning of ‘before’ or ‘in the presence of.’ Thus ἐπὲ ἡγεμόνων 
(Mk. 13:9), κρίνεσθαι ἐπὶ τῶν ἀδίκων (1 Cor. 6:1), ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ 
δύο ἢ τριῶν μαρτύρων (1 Tim. 5:19), ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πειλάτου (1 Tim. 
6 : 18), ἐπὶ σοῦ (Ac. 23 :80), ἐπ᾽ ἐμοῦ (25:9). Blass* observes how 
in Ac. 25: 10 ἑστὼς ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος Καίσαρος the meaning is ‘before,’ 
while in verse 17 the usual idea ‘upon’ is alone present (καθίσας ἐπὶ 
τοῦ Bnuatos). Cf. ἐπὶ Τίτου in 2 Cor. 7:14. With expressions of 
time the result is much the same. ‘Thus ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου τῶν χρόνων 
(1 Pet. 1:20) where ἐπί naturally occurs (cf. Ju. 18). With ἐπὶ 
τῶν προσευχῶν μου (Ro. 1:10) we have period of prayer denoted 
simply by ἐπί. Cf. ἐπεύχομαι ἐπί (Magical papyrus, Deissmann, 
Inght, ete., p. 252). There is no difficulty about ἐπὶ τῆς μετοι- 
κεσίας (Mt. 1:11). With persons a fuller exposition is required, 
since ἐπὶ Κλαυδίου (Ac. 11:28) is tantamount to ‘in the time of 
Claudius’ or ‘during the reign of Claudius.’ Cf. also ἐπὲ ἀρχιερέως 
"Avva (Lu. 3 : 2), ἐπὶ ᾿Ελισαίου (4 : 27), ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιάθαρ ἀρχιερέως (Mk. 
1 Joh. Gr., p. 261. | | 
2 Lang. of the N. T., p. 147. SUGroreN se. . Gk pale7i 


604 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


2:26). Cf. ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς in Heb. 7:11. The idea of basis is a natural 
metaphor as in ἐπ᾿ ἀληθείας (Lu. 4 : 25), ἃ ἐποίει ἐπὶ τῶν ἀσθενούντων 
(Jo. 6:2), ὡς ἐπὶ πολλῶν (Gal. 3:16), ἐπὶ στόματος (Mt. 18 : 16). 
One of the metaphorical uses is with the resultant idea of ‘over,’ 
growing naturally out of ‘upon.’! Thus καταστήσει ἐπὶ τῆς θεραπείας 
(Lu. 12 : 42), though in Mt. 25 : 21, 23 both genitive and accusa- 
tive occur. Cf. also βασιλείαν ἐπὶ τῶν βασιλέων (Rev. 17:18), ὁ ὧν 
ἐπὶ πάντων (Ro. 9 : 5), ete. 

6. With the Locative. Here ἐπί is more simple, though still 
with a variety of resultant ideas. Blass? observes that with the 
purely local sense the genitive and accusative uses outnumber the 
locative with ἐπί. But still some occur like ἐπὶ πίνακι (Mt. 14 : 8), 
ἐπὶ τῇ πηγῇ (Jo. 4:6), ἐπὶ ἱματίῳ παλαιῷ (Mt. 9:16), ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ 
πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω (Mt. 16:18; cf. some MSS. in Mk. 2:4, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ 
κατέκειτο), ἐπὶ Tots κραβάττοις (Mk. 6 : 55), ἐπὲ τῷ χόρτῳ (Mk. 6 : 39), 
ἐπ’ ἐρήμοις. τόποις (Mk. 1:45), ἐπέκειτο ἐπ’ αὐτῷ (Jo. 11:38), ἐπὶ 
σανίσιν (Ac. 27: 44: cf. also ἐπί τινων). In Lu. 23 : 88, ἐπιγραφὴ ἐπ’ 
αὐτῷ, the resultant idea is rather that of ‘over,’ Mt. 27:37 having 
ἐπάνω τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ. As with the accusative and genitive, so 
with the locative the idea of contiguity sometimes appears, as 
in ἐπὶ θύραις (Mt. 24 : 33), ἐπὶ τῇ προβατικῇ (Jo. 5:2), ἐπὶ τῇ στοᾷ 
(Ac. 3:11). Here the wider meaning of the substantive makes 
this result possible. Cf. also ἐπὶ τῷ ποταμῷ (Rev. 9:14). ᾿Ἐπί is 
used very sparingly with the locative in expressions of time. Cf. 
ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων (Heb. 9:26). The use of ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ 
μνείᾳ ὑμῶν (Ph. 1 : 8), οὐ συνῆκαν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἄρτοις (Mk. 6 : 52), θερίζειν 
ἐπὶ εὐλογίαις (2 Cor. 9 : 6) wavers between occasion and time. Cf. 
also ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ διαθήκῃ (Heb. 9:15). The notion of ἐπὶ τρισὶν μάρ- 
τυσιν (Heb. 10 : 28) is rather ‘before,’ ‘in the presence of.’ Cf. 
ἐπὶ νεκροῖς (Heb. 9:17). All these developments admit of satis- 
factory explanation from the root-idea of ἐπί, the locative case 
and the context. There are still other metaphorical applica- 
tions of ἐπί. Thus in Mt. 24:47, ἐπὶ πᾶσιν, ‘over’ is the resul- 
tant meaning. So also in Lu. 12:44 ἐπὶ τοῖς ὑπάρχουσι. The 
notion of basis is involved in én’ ἄρτῳ μόνῳ in Mt. 4:4, ἐπὶ τῷ 
ῥήματί σου in Lu. 5:5, ἐλεύσονται ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί wou in Mt. 24:5, 
ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι in Ac. 2 : 26, etc. Ground or occasion likewise may be 
conveyed by ἐπί. Thus note ἐπὲ τούτῳ in Jo. 4 : 27 and in particular 
ἐφ᾽ @, like ἐπὲ τούτῳ ὅτι, in Ro. 5:12 and 2 Cor. 5:4. Cf. ἐφ᾽ ᾧ 
ἐφρονεῖτε (Ph. 4: 10) where ‘whereon’ is the simple idea. See 


1 For él τοῦ Εὐεργέτου in Prol. to Sirach see Deiss., B. S., p. 339 f. 
2 Gr. of N.T..Gks pol8Z: 


PREPOSITIONS (ΠΡΟΘΕΣΕΙΣ) 605 


also ἐπὶ παροργισμῷ ὑμῶν (Eph. 4 : 26), οἵ. 2 Cor. 9:15. The idea 
of aim or purpose seems to come in cases like ἐπὶ ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς 
(Eph. 2:10), ἐφ᾽ ᾧ καὶ κατελήμφθην (Ph. 3:12). Note also Gal. 
5:18, ἐπ᾽ ἐλευθερίᾳ; 1 Th. 4 : 7, οὐκ ἐπ’ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ (cf. ἐν ἁγιασμῷ), ἐπὶ 
καταστροφῇ (2 Tim. 2:14). Cf. ἐπ’ ἐλευθερίαι inser. at Delphi ii/s.c. 
(Deissm., Light, p. 327). The notion of model is involved in 
ἐκάλουν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι (Lu. 1: 59) and ἐπὶ τῷ ὁμοιώματι (Ro. 5: 
14). Many verbs of emotion use ἐπί with the locative, as ἔχαιρεν 
ἐπὶ πᾶσι (Lu. 13 : 17), θαυμάζοντες ἐπί (Lu. 2 : 33), ete. But some of 
the examples with these verbs may be real datives, as is possibly 
the case with the notion of addition to, like προσέθηκεν καὶ τοῦτο ἐπὶ 
πᾶσιν (Lu. 3 : 20). 

7. The True Dative. As we have seen, it was probably some- 
times used with ἐπί. The N. T. examples do not seem to be very 
numerous, and yet some occur. So I would explain διὰ τὴν ὑπερ- 
βάλλουσαν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν (2 Cor. 9:14). This seems a clear 
case of the dative with ἐπί supplementing it. The same thing may 
be true of ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν in 1 Th. 3:7 and Ro. 16:19. Cf. also πεποιθό- 
tas ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς In Lu. 18 : 9 and μακροθύμησον ἐπ᾽ ἐμοί in Mt. 18 : 26 f. 
So Lu. 1:47 ἐπὶ τῷ 66. In Lu. 12:52 f., τρεῖς ἐπὶ δυσίν, δύο ἐπὶ 
τρισίν, vids ἐπὶ πατρί (cf. also ἐπὶ θυγατέρα), the resultant sense is 
‘against.’ Cf. also προφητεῦσαι ἐπὶ λαοῖς in Rev. 10:11. In 
Jo. 12 : 16, ἦν ἐπ’ αὐτῷ γεγραμμένα, and Ac. 5 : 85, ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις 
τούτοις, the idea is rather ‘about’ or ‘in the case of.’ Cf. also 
τῆς γενομένης ἐπὶ Στεφάνῳ (Ac. 11:19). Here the personal relation 
seems to suit the dative conception better than the locative. The 
notion of addition to may also be dative. Cf. Lu. 3:20 above 
and Col. 3:14, ἐπὶ πᾶσιν δὲ τούτοις; Heb. 8:1, ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις. 
In Eph. 6 : 16 the best MSS. have ἐν. It is possible also to regard 
the use of ἐπί for aim or purpose as having the true dative as in 
teh. 4: '7. 

(i) Κατά. There is doubt about the etymology of this prepo- 
sition. In tmesis it appears as κάτα, and in Arcadian and Cypriote 
Greek it has the form xarv. It is probably in the instrumental 
case,! but an apparently dative form καταί survives a few times. 
Brugmann? compares it with Old Irish céf, Cymric cant, Latin 
com-, though this is not absolutely certain. 

1. Root-Meaning. Brugmann* thinks that the root-meaning 
of the preposition is not perfectly clear, though ‘down’ (cf. ἀνά) 
seems to be the idea. The difficulty arises from the fact that we 


1 Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 342. 
2 Griech. Gr., p. 448. Cf. also Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 759f. 8 Ib. 


606 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


sometimes find the ablative case used when the result is down from, 
then the genitive down upon, and the accusative down along. But 
‘down’ (cf. κάτω) seems always to be the only idea of the preposi- 
tion in itself. In the N. T. three cases occur with κατά. 

2. Distributive Sense. Kara came to be used in the distribu- 
tive sense with the nominative, like ava and σύν, but chiefly as 
adverb and not as preposition.’ Hence this usage is not to be 
credited to the real prepositional idiom. Late Greek writers have 
it. So εἷς κατὰ εἷς in Mk. 14:19 (and the spurious Jo. 8 : 9), 
τὸ καθ᾽ eis in Ro. 12:5. The modern Greek uses καθείς or καθένας 
as a distributive pronoun.? Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 138 f., 
considers also εἷς καθ᾽ ἕκαστος (A Lev. 25 : 10) merely the adverbial 
use of κατά. But see καθ᾽ ἕνα in 1 Cor. 14:31, κατὰ δὲ ἑορτήν (Mt. 
DAY: 

3. Kara in Composition. It is true to the root-idea of ‘down,’ 
like κατέβη in Mt. 7 : 25, καταγαγεῖν in Ro. 10:6. But the various 
metaphorical uses occur also in composition. Often κατά occurs 
with “perfective” force.2 So, for instance, observe καταρτίσει 
(1 Pet. 5:10), κατηγωνίσαντο (Heb. 11 : 33), κατεδίωξεν (Mk. 1 : 36), 
καταδουλοῖ (2 Cor. 11 : 20), κατακαύσει (Mt. 8 : 12), καταμάθετε (Mt. 
Θ : 28), κατανοήσατε (Lu. 12 : 24), κατέπαυσαν (Ac. 14:18), κατα- 
πίνοντες (Mt. 28 : 24), κατασκευάσει (Mk. 1:2), κατεργάζεσθε (Ph. 
2:12), κατέφαγεν (Mt. 13 : 4), καθορᾶται (Ro. 1 : 20). This preposi- 
tion vies with διά and σύν in the perfective sense. Karéyw in Ro. 
1:18 is well illustrated by ὁ κατέχων τὸν θυμόν from an ostracon 
(Deissmann, Light, p. 308). In the magical texts it means to 
‘cripple’ or to ‘bind,’ ‘hold fast.2. But in Mk. 14 : 45, κατεφίλησε, 
the preposition seems to be weakened, though the A. 8.V. puts 
‘kissed him much” in the margin. Cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 
Nov., 1907, p. 220. 

4. With the Ablative. This construction is recognised by Brug- 
mann,* Monro,® Kiihner-Gerth,® Delbriick.?7 There are some ex- 
amples of the ablative in the N. T., where ‘down’ and ‘from’ 
combine to make ‘down from.’ Thus, for instance, is to be ex- 
plained ἔβαλεν κατ᾽ αὐτῆς ἄνεμος τυφωνικός (Ac. 27: 14), where αὐτῆς 
refers to Κρήτην, and the meaning (cf. American Standard Revi- 
sion) is manifestly ‘down from’ Crete. In 1 Cor. 11:4, προφητεύων 
κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων, we have ‘down from’ again, the veil hanging 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 178. 5 Hom. Gr., p. 145. 
2 Ib.; Moulton, Prol., p. 105. or etl as 
+ Cirib;fppsLion,. 7 Vergl. Synt., I, p. 760. 


4 Griech. Gr., p. 443. 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEI®) 607 


down from the head. In Mk. 5:18 we find ὥρμησεν ἡ ἀγέλη κατὰ 
τοῦ κρημνοῦ (cf. Mt. 8 : 32; Lu. ὃ : 33) where ‘down from the cliff’ 
is again the idea. 

5. With the Genitive. It is more usual with κατά than the abla- 
tive in the N. T. as in the earlier Greek.! The idea is ‘down upon,’ 
the genitive merely accenting the person or thing affected. A 
good example of this sense in composition followed by the genitive 
appears in κατακυριεύσας ἀμφοτέρων (Ac. 19: 16). Some MSS. in 
Mk. 14:3 have κατά with τῆς κεφαλῆς, but without it κατέχεεν 
means ‘pour down on’ the head. In 2 Cor. 8:2, ἡ κατὰ βάθους 
πτωχεία, the idea is ‘down to’ depth. But with the genitive the 
other examples in the N. T. have as resultant meanings either 
- ‘against,’ ‘throughout’ or ‘by.’ These notions come from the 
original ‘down.’ Luke alone uses ‘throughout’ with the geni- 
tive and always with ὅλος. The earlier Greek had καθ᾽ ὅλου 
(also alone in Luke in the N. T., Ac. 4:18), though Polybius 
employed xara in this sense. Cf. in Lu. 4:14 καθ᾽ ὅλης τῆς περι- 
χώρου; Ac. 9:31 καθ᾽ ὅλης τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας (so 9:42; 10:37). The 
older Greek would have used the accusative in such cases. But 
οἵ. Polyb. iii, 19, 7, κατὰ τῆς νήσου διεσπάρησαν. The notion of 
‘against’ is also more common? in the κοινή. But in the modern 
Greek vernacular κατά (κά) is confined to the notions of ‘toward’ 
and ‘according to,’ having lost the old ideas of ‘down’ and 
‘against’ (Thumb, Handb., p. 105f.). Certainly the preposition 
does not mean ‘against.’ That comes out of the context when 
two hostile parties are brought together. Cf. English vernacular 
“down on” one. This κατά then is ‘down upon’ rather literally 
where the Attic usually had ἐπί and accusative. Among many 
examples note κατὰ τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ μαρτυρίαν (Mk. 14 : 55), νύμφην κατὰ 
πενθερᾶς (Mt. 10:35), κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος (Mt. 12:32), κατὰ τοῦ 
Παύλου (Ac. 24 : 1), ete. Cf. Ro. 8:33. Sometimes μετά and κατά 
are contrasted (Mt. 12:30) or κατά and ὑπέρ (Lu. 9 : 50; 1 Cor. 
4:6). The other use of κατά and the genitive is with verbs of 
swearing. The idea is perhaps that the hand is placed down on 
the thing by which the oath is taken. But in the N. T. God him- 
self is used in the solemn oath. So Mt. 26: 63, ἐξορκίζω σε κατὰ Tod 
θεοῦ. Cf. Heb. 6:13, 16. In 1 Cor. 15:15 ἐμαρτυρήσαμεν κατὰ τοῦ 
θεοῦ may be taken in this sense or as meaning ‘against.’ 

6. With the Accusative. But the great majority of examples 

1 Delbriick, ib., p. 761. 


2 Jebb, in V. and D., Handb., etc., p. 3138. 
3 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 1338. 


608 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


in the N. T. use the accusative. Radermacher (NV. T. Gr., p. 116) 
notes the frequency of the accusative in the papyri where περί 
would appear in the older Greek. Farrar! suggests that κατά with 
the genitive (or ablative) is perpendicular (‘down on’ or ‘down 
from’) while with the accusative it is horizontal (‘down along’). 
Curiously enough John has only some ten instances of κατά and 
several of them are doubtful. On the whole, the N. T. use of the 
accusative with xara corresponds pretty closely to the classic 
idiom. With a general horizontal plane to work from a number of 
metaphorical usages occur. But it appears freely in local expres- 
sions like ἀπῆλθε καθ᾽ ὅλην τὴν πόλιν κηρύσσων (Lu. ὃ : 39), διήρχοντο 
κατὰ τὰς κώμας (Lu. 9 : 6), κατὰ τὴν ὁδόν (Lu. 10 : 4), ἔγένετο λιμὸς κατὰ 
τὴν χώραν (Lu. 15 : 14), κατὰ τὴν Κιλικίαν (Ac. 27 : 5), βλέποντα κατὰ 
λίβα (Ac. 27 : 12), κατὰ μεσημβρίαν (Ac. 8 : 26), κατὰ πρόσωπον (Gal. 
2:11), κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμούς (Gal. 8 : 1), κατὰ σκοπόν (Ph. 3:14). The no- 
tion of rest may also have this construction as κατ᾽ οἶκον (Ac. 2:46). 
Cf. τὴν κατ᾽ οἶκον αὐτῆς ἐκκλησίαν (Col. 4:15). Cf. Ac. 11:1. In 
Ac. 18:1 arather ambiguous usage occurs, κατὰ τὴν οὖσαν ἐκκλησίαν 
προφῆται. But this example may be compared with τῶν κατὰ ’Lov- 
δαίους ἐθῶν (Ac. 26 : 3), of καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς ποιηταί (Ac. 17: 28, some MSS. 
καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς), νόμου τοῦ καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς (Ac. 18:15). This idiom is common 
in the literary κοινὴ and is one of the marks of Luke’s literary 
style. But this is merely a natural development, and κατά with 
the accusative always expressed direction towards in the ver- 
nacular.4| Schmidt (de οἶος. Joseph., p. 21 f.) calls κατά a sort of 
periphrasis for the genitive in late Greek. Cf. τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμέ (Ph. 
1:12). It is more than a mere circumlocution for the genitive® 
in the examples above and such as τὴν Ka’ buds πίστιν (Eph. 1 : 15), 
τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμέ (Ro. 1:15), τὸ κατὰ σάρκα (Ro. 9: 5), τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμέ (Eph. 
6 : 21: cf. Ac. 25 : 14), ἀνδράσιν τοῖς κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν (Ac. 25 : 23; cf. par 
excellence). Kara is used with expressions of time like κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον 
τὸν καιρόν (Ac. 12 : 1), κατὰ τὸ μεσονύκτιον (Ac. 16 : 25), καθ᾽ ἑκάστην 
ἡμέραν (Heb. 3:18), κατὰ πᾶν σάββατον (Ac. 13:27). The notion 
of distribution comes easily with κατά, as in κατὰ πόλιν (Lu. 8: 1), 
κατὰ Tas συναγωγάς (Ac. 22:19), κατ᾽ ἔτος (Lu. 2:41), καθ᾽ ἡμέραν 
(Ac. 2 : 46), καθ᾽ ἕνα πάντες (1 Cor. 14 : 51), κατ᾽ ὄνομα (Jo. 10 : 8), 
etc. See Mt. 27. 15=Mk. 15. .6. Cf. kara οὐ Ps) Oxy. (586 
(iii/A.D.). As a standard or rule of measure κατά is very common 


1 Gk. Synt., p. 100. 2 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 266. 
3 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 149; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 133. 
4 Jann., Hist: Gk. Gr., p. 384. 

5 Blass, Gr. of N; T. Gk.) p. 138: 


PREPOSITIONS (ΠΡΟΘΕΣΕΙΣ) 609 


and also simple. So κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (Ro. 16 : 25) with which 
compare the headings! to the Gospels like κατὰ Ma6@atov, though 
with a different sense of εὐαγγέλιον. Here the examples multiply 
like κατὰ νόμον (Lu. 2 : 22), κατὰ φύσιν (Ro. 11 : 21), κατὰ χάριν (Ro. 
4 : 4), κατὰ θεόν (Ro. 8: 27), κατὰ τὴν πίστιν (Mt. 9 : 29), κατὰ δύναμιν 
(2 Cor. 8:3), καθ’ ὑπερβολήν (Ro. 7:13), κατὰ συνγνώμην (1 Cor. 
7:6), ete. Various resultant ideas come out of different connec- 
tions. There is no reason to call κατὰ πᾶσαν αἰτίαν (Mt. 19 : 3) 
and κατὰ ἄγνοιαν (Ac. 3:17) bad Greek. If there is the idea of 
cause here, so in 1 Tim. 6:38, κατ᾽ εὐσέβειαν, the notion of tend- 
ency or aim appears. We must not try to square every detail 
in the development of κατά or any Greek preposition with our 
translation of the context nor with classic usage, for the N. T. is 
written in the κοινή. This preposition is specially common in 
Acts and Hebrews. Kar’ ἰδίαν (Mt. 14:18) is adverbial. But 
κατὰ πρόσωπον is not a mere Hebraism, since the papyri have it 
(Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 140). As a sample of the doubling 
up of prepositions note συνεπέστη κατ᾽ αὐτῶν (Ac. 16 : 22). 

(j) Μετά. Most probably μετά has the same root as μέσος, Latin 
medius, German mit (midi), Gothic mip, English mid (ef. a-mid). 
Some scholars indeed connect it with ἅμα and German samt. 
But the other view is reasonably certain. The modern Greek uses 
a shortened form μέ, which was indeed in early vernacular use.? 
Some of the Greek dialects use πεδά. So the Lesbian, Boeotian, 
Arcadian, etc. Μετά seems to be in the instrumental case. 

1. The Root-Meaning. It is (‘mid’) ‘midst.’ This simple idea 
lies behind the later developments. Cf. μεταξύ and ἀνάμεσα. We 
see the root-idea plainly in μετεωρίζω (from per-éwpos, in mid-air’). 
In the N. T. we have a metaphorical example (Lu. 12 : 29) which 
is intelligible now in the day of aeroplanes and dirigible balloons. 
The root-idea is manifest also in μέττωπον (Rev. 7:3), ‘the space 
between the eyes.’ 

2. In Composition. The later resultant meanings predominate 
in composition such as “with” in μεταδίδωμι (Ro. 12:8), μεταλαμ- 
βάνω (Ac. 2 : 46), μετέχω (1 Cor. 10 : 30); “after” in μεταπέμπω (Ac. 
10 : 5); or, as is usually the case, the notion of change or transfer 
is the result as with μεθίστημι (1 Cor. 13 : 2), μεταβαίνω (Mt. 8 : 34), 
μεταμορφόω (Ro. 12:2), μεταμέλομαι (Mt. 27:3), μετανοξω (Mt. 
5.2): 

3. Compared with σύν. Μετά is less frequent in composition than 


1 Ib. 2 Jann., Hist. Gr. Gk., Ὁ. 388; Hatz., Einl., Ὁ. 153. 
3 Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 342. 


610 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


σύν, though far more common as a preposition. Simcox! thinks 
that it is useless to elaborate any distinction in meaning between 
μετά and σύν. The older grammars held that σύν expressed a more 
intimate fellowship than μετά. But in the N. T. μετά has nearly 
driven σύν out. 

4, Loss of the Locative Use. Mera was originally used with the 
locative. It is common in Homer, but even with him the genitive 
has begun to displace it.2, Homer uses the locative with collective 
singulars and plurals. Mommsen*‘ indeed considers that in Hesiod 
ἅμα, μετά and σύν all use the instrumental case and with about 
equal frequency, while μετά with the genitive was rare. But in the 
N. T. μετά, along with περί and ὑπό, has been confined to the gen- 
itive and accusative, and the genitive use greatly predominates 
(361 to 100). The idea with the locative was simply ‘between.’ ® 
With several persons the notion of ‘among’ was present also.” 

5. With the Genitive. In Homer it occurs only five times and 
with the resultant idea of ‘among.’ So once (/liad, 13. 700, μετὰ 
Βοιωτῶν ἐμάχοντο), where indeed the idea is that of alliance with 
the Beeotians. In Rev. 2:16, etc., μετά occurs with πολεμέω in a 
hostile sense, a usage not occurring in the older Greek, which 
Simcox® considers a Hebraism. But the papyri may give us ex- 
amples of this usage any day. And Thumb (Hellenismus, p. 125; 
cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 106) has already called attention to the 
modern Greek use of μέ with πολεμέω. Deissmann (Light, p. 191) 
finds μετὰ στρατιώτου with οἰκέω in an ostracon (not in hostile 
sense) and possibly with ἀντιλογέω, ‘elsewhere.’ In Jo. 6:43 
μετά occurs In a hostile sense with yoyyifw and probably so with 
ζήτησις in Jo. 3 : 25, though Abbott® argues for the idea of alli- 
ance here between the Baptist’s disciples and the Jews to incite 
rivalry between the Baptist and Jesus. In 1 Cor. 6:6 f. we have 
the hostile sense also in legal trials, ἀδελφὸς μετὰ ἀδελφοῦ κρί- 
vera. Cf. Jo. 16:19. This notion gives no difficulty to English 
students, since our ‘‘with” is so used. But Moulton! admits 
a translation Hebraism in Lu. 1: 58, ἐμεγάλυνεν Κύριος τὸ ἔλεος 
αὐτοῦ per’ αὐτῆς. But what about ὅσα ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς per’ αὐτῶν 

1 Lang. of the N. T., p. 149. Cf. Thayer, under σύν. 

2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 444. 3 K.-G., I, p. 505. 

4 T. Mommeen, Die Priip. σύν und μετά bei den nachhomerischen Epikern, 


1879, p. 1f. Cf. also Mommsen, Beitr. zu der Lehre von der griech. Priip., 
1895. 


5 Moulton, Prol., p. 105. 8 Lang. of the N. T., p. 150. 
δ᾽ Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 741 f. ® Joh. Gr., p. 267. 
7 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 136. 20° Prolog. 06: 


a 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEIS) 611 


(Ac. 14: 27) and τετελείωται ἡ ἀγάπη μεθ’ ἡμῶν (1 Jo. 4:17)? 
Simcox! again finds a Hebraism in ‘‘the religious sense’? which 
appears in Mt. 1: 238; Lu. 1:28; Jo. 3:2, etc. But the notion 
of fellowship is certainly not a Hebraism. Mera has plenty of ex- 
amples of the simple meaning of the preposition. Thus τὸν ζῶντα 
μετὰ τῶν νεκρῶν (Lu. 24 : 5), ἦν μετὰ τῶν θηρίων (Mk. 1: 13), wera τῶν 
τελωνῶν (Lu. 5 : 30), μετὰ ἀνόμων ἔλογίσθη (Lu. 22: 37), an idiom not 
common to σύν and found in the classical poets.? Cf. also σκηνὴ τοῦ 
θεοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων (Rev. 21: 3), μετὰ διωγμῶν (Mk. 10: 80), ἔμιξεν 
μετὰ τῶν θυσιῶν (Lu. 13:1), οἶνον μετὰ χολῆς (Mt. 27: 84). It is not 
far from this idea to that of conversation as in μετὰ γυναικὸς ἐλάλει 
(Jo. 4 : 27), and general fellowship as with eipnvebw (Ro. 12 : 18), 
συμφωνέω (Mt. 20:2), κοινωνίαν ἔχω (1 Jo. 1:3), συναίρω λόγον 
(Mt. 18 : 23), etc. Perhaps the most frequent use of μετά is with 
the idea of accompaniment. So with ἀκολουθέω (Lu. 9 : 49), λαμ- 
βάνω (Mt. 28 : 8), παραλαμβάνω (Mt. 12:45), ἔρχομαι (Mk. 1 : 29), 
avaxwpew (Mk. 8 : 7), etc. Cf. Mt. 27:66. So with εἰμί (Mk. ὃ : 14), 
but sometimes the notion of help or aid is added as in Jo. 3 : 2; 
8:29, etc. Cf. also ἡ χάρις μεθ’ ὑμῶν (Ro. 16:20) and often. 
The notion of fellowship may develop into that of followers or 
partisans as in Mt. 12:30. Sometimes the phrase of per’ αὐτοῦ 
with the participle (Jo. 9 : 40) or without (Mt. 12 : 4) means one’s 
attendants or followers (companions). The idea of accompani- 
ment also occurs with things as in ἐξήλθατε μετὰ μαχαιρῶν (Lu. 22: 
52), μετὰ τῶν λαμπάδων (Mt. 25:4), μετὰ σάλπιγγος (Mt. 24:31), 
μετὰ βραχίονος ὑψηλοῦ (Ac. 13:17), some of which approach the 
instrumental idea. Cf. μετὰ ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν (1 Tim. 4: 14), 
where the idea is rather ‘simultaneous with,’ but see μετὰ ὅρκου 
(Mt. 14:7), μετὰ φωνῆς μεγάλης (Lu. 17:15).. Still in all these 
cases accompaniment is the dominant note. See also μηδέν(α) 
ἀπολελύσθαι τῶν μετὰ σίτου (‘in the corn service’), B.U. 27 (ii/a.p.). 
Certainly it is not a Hebraism in Lu. 1 : 58, for Moulton (Prol., p. 
246) can cite A.P. 195 (i/A.D.) τί δὲ ἡμεῖν συνέβη μετὰ τῶν ἀρχόντων; 
In later Greek the instrumental use comes to be common with 
μετά (cf. English “with’’).2 In Lu. 10:37 ὁ ποιήσας τὸ ἔλεος per’ ab- 
τοῦ Debrunner (Blass-Deb., p. 184) sees a Hebraism. But see 
Herm. ὃ. V. 1, 1, ἐποίησε wer’ ἐμοῦ. The metaphorical use for the 
idea of accompaniment occurs also like μετὰ δυνάμεως καὶ δόξης (Mt. 
24:30), wera σπουδῆς (Mk. 6:25), μετὰ δακρύων (Heb. 12:17), μετὰ 


1 Lang. of the N. T., p. 150. 2* Blass, στοῦ ΝΟ Gk., p. 183 f. 
3. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 387. For μετά compared with παρά see Abbott, 
Joh. Gr., p. 268. 


612 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


φόβου καὶ τρόμου (2 Cor. 7:15), παρρησίας (Ac. 2 : 29), θορύβου (Ac. 
24 : 18), etc. Deissmann (Bible Studies, pp. 64, 265) finds in the 
papyri examples of μετὰ καί like that in Ph. 4:3. Cf. Schmid, 
Der Atticismus, III, p. 338. In the modern Greek vernacular μέ 
is confined to accompaniment, means or instrument and manner. 
Time has dropped out (Thumb, Handb., p. 103 f.). 

6. With the Accusative. At first it seems to present more dif- 
ficulty. But the accusative-idea added to the root-idea (‘‘midst’’) 
with verbs of motion would mean “into the midst”’ or ‘‘among.” 
But this idiom does not appear in the N. T. In the late Greek ver- 
nacular μετά with the accusative occurs in all the senses of μετά 
and the genitive,! but that is not true of the N. T. Indeed, with 
one exception (and that of place), μετὰ τὸ δεύτερον καταπέτασμα (Heb. 
9:3), in the N. T. μετά with the accusative is used with expres- 
sions of time. This example in Hebrews is helpful, however. The 
resultant notion is that of behind or beyond the veil obtained 
by going through the midst of the veil. All the other examples 
have the resultant notion of ‘after’? which has added to the root- 
meaning, as applied to time, the notion of succession. You pass 
through the midst of this and that event and come to the point 
where you look back upon the whole. This idea is “after.” Cf. 
μετὰ δύο ἡμέρας (Mt. 26:2). In the historical books of the LXX 
μετὰ ταῦτα (cf. Lu. 5 : 27) is very common.? Simcox? treats οὐ μετὰ 
πολλὰς ταύτας ἡμέρας (Ac. 1:5) as a Latinism, but, if that is not 
true of πρό, it is hardly necessary to posit it of μετά. Cf. μετὰ 
ἡμέρας εἴκοσι Herm. Vis. 1V,1,1. The litotesiscommon. Jannaris‘4 
comments on the frequency of μετὰ τό with the infinitive in the 
LXX and N. T. So μετὰ τὸ ἀναστηναι (Acts 10:41). Cf. 1 Cor. 
11:25; Heb. 10: 26, etc. This comes to be one of the common 
ways of expressing a temporal clause (cf. ἐπεί or ὅτε). Cf. μετὰ 
βραχύ (Lu. 22:58), μετὰ μικρόν (Mk. 14 : 70), adverbial phrases. 

(k) Παρά. 

1. Significance. Delbriick® does not find the etymology of παρά 
clear and thinks it probably is not to be connected with pdra 
(Sanskrit), which means ‘distant.’ Brugmann® connects it with the 
old word purd@ like Latin por—, Gothic fawira, Anglo-Saxon fore (cf. 
German vor). Giles’ thinks the same root furnishes παρός (gen.), 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 387. 3 Lang. of the N. T., p. 151. 
2 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 266. 4 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 386. 

5 Vergl. Synt., I, pp. 755, 761. 

6 Kurze Vergl. Gr., II, p. 474; Griech. Gr., p. 446. 

7 Comp. Philol., p. 342. 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEI=) 613 


mapa (instr.), mapai (dat.), περί (loc.). He also sees a kinship in 
these to πέραν, πέρα, πρός. : 

2. Compared with πρός. In meaning! παρά and πρός do not 
differ essentially save that παρά merely means ‘beside,’ ‘along- 
side’ (cf. our ‘‘parallel’’), while πρός rather suggests ‘facing one 
another,’ an additional idea of contrast. This oldest meaning 
explains all the later developments.” Radermacher (N. T. Gr., 
p. 116) thinks that the N. T. shows confusion in the use of παρά 
(διελογίζοντο map’ [marg. of W. H. and Nestle, ἐν in text] ἑαυτοῖς, 
Mt. 21:25) and διελογίζοντο πρὸς ἑαυτούς (Mk. 11:31). But is 
it not diversity the rather? 

3. In Composition. The preposition is exceedingly common in 
composition, though with nouns it falls behind some of the others 
a good deal. Παρά does not survive in modern Greek vernacular 
save in composition (like ἀνά and éx) and some of its functions go 
to ἀπό and εἰς.5 All the various developments of παρά appear in 
composition, and the simplest use is very common. Thus zapa- 
Born (Mk. 18 : 28) is a ‘placing of one thing beside another.’ So 
παρα-θαλάσσιος (Mt. 4:13) is merely ‘beside the sea.’ Cf. also 
παρα-θήκη (2 Tim. 1:14), παρα-καθεσθείς (Lu. 10:39), παρα-καλέω 
(Ac. 28 : 20), παρά-κλητος (Jo. 14:16), παρα-λέγομαι (Ac. 27:8), 
παρ-άλιος (Lu. 6:17), παρα-μένω (Heb. 7 : 23; cf. μενῶ καὶ παρα-μενῶ 
Ph. 1 : 25), παρα-πλέω (Ac. 20: 16), παρα-ρρέω (Heb. 2:1), παρα- 
τίθημι (Mk. 6 : 41), πάρ-ειμι (Lu. 13: 1), etc. A specially noticeable 
word is πάρτ-οινος (1 Tim. 3:3). Cf. also ἀντι-παρ-ῆλθεν in Lu. 
10:31f. Sometimes παρά suggests a notion of stealth as in παρ- 
ειστάγω (2 Pet. 2:1), παρ-εισ-δύω (Ju. 4), map-eio-axros (Gal. 2 : 4), 
but in παρ-εισ-έρχομαι in Ro. 5 : 20 this notion is not present. Cf. 
Mt. 14:15, ἡ ὥρα ἤδη παρῆλθεν, ‘the hour is already far spent’ (‘gone 
by’). Note also the Scotch ‘‘far in” like modern Greek παραμέσα 
(Moulton, Prol., p. 247). A few examples of the ‘perfective’ use 
occur as in παροξύνω (Ac. 17 : 16), παρα-πικραίνω (Heb. 3 : 16), παρά- 
onuos (Ac. 28:11), παρα-τηρέω (Gal. 4:10, but in Lu. 14:1 the 
idea of envious watching comes out). With παρα-φρονέω the no- 
tion is rather ‘to be beside one’s self,’ ‘out of mind.’ Cf. also παρα- 
πίπτω in Heb. 6:6, found in the ostraca (Wilcken, i. 78f.) as a 
commercial word ‘to fall below par.’ For παρενοχλεῖν (Ac. 15 : 19) 
see παρενοχλεῖν ἡμᾶς, P. Tb. 36 (11/B.c.). Tapa occurs in the N. T. 
with three cases. The locative has 50 examples, the accusative 60, 
the ablative 78.4 

1 K.-G., I, p. 509. 3 Thumb., Handb., p. 102. 
2 Delbriick, Die Grundl., p. 130. 4 Moulton, Prol., p. 106. 


614 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


4. With the Locative. Tapa with the locative is nearly confined 
to persons. Only one other example appears, ἱστήκεισαν παρὰ τῷ 
σταυρῷ (Jo. 19°: 25). This confining of παρά to persons is like the 
usual Greek idiom, though Homer! used it freely with both. 
Homer used it also as an adverb and in the shortened form 
πάρ. The only instance in the N. T. of the locative with παρά 
after a verb of motion is in Lu. 9:47, ἔστησεν αὐτὸ παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ, 
though here D reads ἑαυτόν. The locative with παρά leaves the 
etymological idea unchanged so that we see the preposition in its 
simplest usage. Cf. ὃν ἀπέλειπον παρὰ Κάρπῳ (2 Tim. 4:13) as a 
typical example of the use with persons which is much like apud 
in Latin, ‘at one’s house’ (Jo. 1:40), ‘in his society,’ ete. So 
καταλῦσαι παρά (Lu. 19:7), μένω παρά (Jo. 14:17), ξενίζω παρά (Ac. 
21:16). Cf. Ac. 21:8. In Rev. 2:13; Mt. 28 : 15, wapé has the 
idea of ‘among.’ The phrase παρὰ τῷ θεῷ (Lu. 1:30) is common. 
The word is used in ethical relations,” also like παρ᾽ ἐμοί (2 Cor. 
1:17). Cf. ri ἄπιστον κρίνεται rap’ ὑμῖν (Ac. 26:8) and φρόνιμοι 
map’ ἑαυτοῖς (Ro. 12:16). Tapa with the locative does not occur 
in Hebrews. 

5. With the Ablative. But it occurs only with persons (like the 
older Greek). The distinction between παρά and ἀπό and ἐκ has 
already been made. In Mk. 8:11 both παρά and ἀπό occur, 
ζητοῦντες παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ σημεῖον ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (cf. 12:2), and in Jo. 
1:40 we have both παρά and ἐκ, εἷς ἐκ τῶν δύο τῶν ἀκουσάντων παρὰ 
Ἰωάνου. In a case like Jo. ὃ : 88 the locative is followed by the 
ablative,® ἑώρακα παρὰ τῷ πατρί --- ἠκούσατε παρὰ Tod πατρός, though 
some MSS. have locative in the latter clause also. But the abla- 
tive here is in strict accordance with Greek usage as in a case like 
ἀκοῦσαι παρὰ σοῦ (Ac. 10:22). On the other hand in Jo. 6:45 f. 
we find the ablative in both instances, 6 ἀκούσας παρὰ τοῦ πατρός — 
ὁ ὧν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ (cf. ὁ ὧν εἰς τὸν κόλπον TOD πατρός in Jo. 1 : 18). 
But this last παρά implies the coming of Christ from the Father, 
like παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐξῆλθον (Jo. 16:27). Παρά with the ablative 
means ‘from the side of’ as with the accusative it means ‘to the 
side of.’ The phrase οἱ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ therefore describes one’s family 
or kinsmen (Mk. 3 : 21). In the papyri the phrase is very common 
for one’s agents, and Moulton* has found one or two like of rap’ 
ἡμῶν πάντες parallel to of παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ in Mk. 3:21. Cf. also τὰ παρ᾽ 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 134. 

2 Simcox, Lang. of N. T., p. 151. 3 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 271. 

4 Prol., p. 106. In G. H. 36 (ii/B.c.), B. U. 998 (ii/B.c.), P. Par. 36 (ii/B.c.). 
Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 138. 


PREPOSITIONS (ΠΡΟΘΕΣΕΙΣ) 615 


αὐτῶν (Lu. 10:7) for one’s resources or property. Rouffiac (Re- 
cherches, etc., p. 30) cites ἐδαπάνησεν παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ (cf. Mk. 5 : 26) 
from inscription from Priene (111, 117). Note also ἡ παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ 
διαθήκη (Ro. 11:27) with notion of authorship. With passive 
verbs the agent is sometimes expressed by παρά as in ἀπεσταλμένος 
παρὰ θεοῦ (Jo. 1:6), τοῖς λελαλημένοις παρὰ Κυρίου (Lu. 1:45). Cf. 
Text. Rec. in Ac. 22: 80 with κατηγορεῖται παρὰ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων, where 
W.H. have ὑπό. Παρά occurs with the middle in Mt. 21:42, παρὰ 
Κυρίου éyevero. In the later Greek vernacular παρά with the abla- 
tive helped supplant ὑπό along with ἀπό, and both παρά and ὑπό 
(and ἐκὴ vanished! ‘‘ before the victorious azo.” 

6. With the Accusative. It is not found in John’s writings at 
all? as it is also wanting in the other Catholic Epistles. The 
accusative is common in the local sense both with verbs of 
motion and of rest. The increase in the use of the accusative 
with verbs of rest explains in part the disuse of the locative.® 
One naturally compares the encroachments of εἰς upon ἐν. We 
see the idiom in the papyri as in of παρὰ σὲ θεοί, P. Par. 47 (B.c. 
153). The use of παρά with the accusative with verbs of rest 
was common in Northwest Greek (Buck, Greek Dialects, p. 101). 
Thus in Mt. 4:18 we find περιπατῶν παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν logically 
enough, but in 13:1 we meet ἐκάθητο᾽ παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν, and note 
καθήμενοι παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν (Mt. 20:30), ἑστὼς παρὰ τὴν λίμνην (Lu. 
δ : 1), ἐστὶν οἰκία παρὰ θάλασσαν (Ac. 10 : 6), διδάσκειν παρὰ θάλασσαν 
(Mk. 4 : 1), ἀνατεθραμμένους παρὰ τοὺς πόδας (Ac. 22:3). Cf. Ae. 
4:35. So no difficulty arises from ἔριψαν παρὰ τοὺς πόδας (Mt. 15: 
30). There is no example in the N. T. of παρά in the sense of 
‘beyond,’ like Homer, but one where the idea is ‘near to,’ ‘along- 
side of,’ as ἦλθεν παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν (Mt. 15:29). But figura- 
tively παρά does occur often in the sense of ‘beside the mark’ or 
‘beyond.’ Once* indeed we meet the notion of ‘less than,’ as 
in τεσσαράκοντα παρὰ μίαν (2 Cor. 11:24). Cf. παρὰ τἀλαντόν σοι 
πέπρακα, B.U. 1079 (a.p. 41), where παρά means ‘except.’ The 
modern Greek vernacular keeps παρὰ τρίχα, ‘within a hair’s 
breadth’ (Thumb, Handb., p. 98). The notion of ‘beyond’ is 
common enough in classic writers and is most frequent in He- 
brews in the N. T. It occurs with comparative forms like διαφο- 
ρώτερον (Heb. 1:4), πλείονος (8 : 8), κρείττοσι (9 : 28; cf. 12:24), 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 391. 

2 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 270. Se plasss Gr. of Nal: Gky 7.138. 

4 W.-Th., p. 404. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 138, less naturally explains 
παρά here as meaning ‘by virtue of,’ but not Debrunner. 


616 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


with implied comparison like ἠλάττωσας βραχύ τι (2:7), or with 
merely the positive like ἁμαρτωλοί (Lu. 13:2; cf. 13:4). Indeed 
no adjective or participle at all may appear, as in ὀφειλέται 
ἔγένοντο παρὰ πάντας (Lu. 13:4; οἵ. 13:2). The use of the posi- 
tive with παρά is like the Aramaic (cf. Wellhausen, Hznl., p. 
28). Here the notion of ‘beyond’ or ‘above’ is simple enough. 
Cf. παρά after ἄλλος in 1 Cor. 8 : 11 and ἡμέραν in Ro. 14:5; Heb. 
11:11. The older Greek was not without this natural use of 
παρά for comparison and the LXX is full of 10.} In the later Greek 
vernacular the ablative and # both retreat before παρά and the 
accusative.2. In the modern Greek vernacular we find παρά and 
the accusative and even with the nominative after comparison 
(Thumb, Handb., p. 75). The notion of comparison may glide 
over into that of opposition very easily. Thus in Ro. 1: 25, 
ἐλάτρευσαν τῇ κτίσει παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα, Where ‘rather than’ is the 
idea (cf. ‘instead of’). Cf. Ro. 4 : 18, παρ᾽ ἐλπίδα ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι, where 
both prepositions answer over to each other, ‘beyond,’ ‘upon.’ 
So in 2 Cor. 8 : ὃ κατὰ δύναμιν and παρὰ δύναμιν are in sharp contrast. 
Cf. Ac. 23:3. In Gal. 1: 8f. παρ᾽ 6 has the idea of ‘beyond’ and 
so/‘contrary to.) -Ch Ro: 11 243.12: 3516 W117 eo exceeding 
structions is often to go contrary to them. In a case like παρὰ 
νόμον (Ac. 18:13), to go beyond is to go against. Cf. English 
trans-gression, παρά-πτωμα. Once more παρά with the accusative 
strangely enough may actually mean ‘because of,’ like propter. 
polin’ 1 Cor, 12 δ παρὰ τοῦτο. Gin) Dine bus on ΠΟ τ 
writers used παρά thus, but it disappears in the later vernacular.® 
The notion of cause grows out of the idea of nearness and the nature 
of the context. Farrar’ suggests the English colloquial: “It’s all 
along of his own neglect.” , 

(ἢ Περί. There is some dispute about the etymology of περί. 
Some scholars, like Sonne,® connect it in etymology and meaning 
with ὑπέρ. But the point is not yet clear, as Brugmann® con- 
tends. Whatever may be true about the remote Indo-Germanic 
root, περί belongs to the same stem as παρά and is in the locative 
case like part in the Sanskrit.7 Cf. also Old Persian party, Zend 
pairt, Latin per, Lithuanian per, Gothic fair—, Old High German 
far—, fer, German ver-. The Greek uses πέρι as an adverb (Homer) 


ΤΟΣ ΠΟ piso t..2) hack. Gre nao * »Ib.; p. 690. 

2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 389. 4 Gk. Synt., p. 104. 
5 K. Z., 14, pp. 1 ff. Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 700. 

6 Kurze vergl. Gr., II, p. 475. 

7 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 447; Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 700. 


PREPOSITIONS (ΠΡΟΘΕΣΕΙΣ) 617 


and the AXolic dialect! even uses πέρ instead of περί. The inten- 
sive particle περ is this same word. 

1. The Root-Meaning. It is ‘round’ (‘around’), ‘on all sides’ 
(cf. ἀμφί, ‘on both sides’). Cf. πέριξ (Ac. 5 : 16), where the root- 
idea is manifest. Cf. Latin circum, circa. The preposition has 
indeed a manifold development,? but after all the root-idea is 
plainer always than with some of the other prepositions. The 
N. T. examples chiefly (but cf. Ac. 28:7) concern persons and 
things, though even in the metaphorical uses the notion of 
‘around’ is present. 

2. In Composition. The idea of ‘around’ in the literal local 
sense is abundant. Cf. περιῆγεν (Mt. 4: 23), περιαστράψαι (Ac. 22: 
6), περιεστῶτα (Jo. 11 : 42), περιέδραμον (Mk. 6 : 55), περιφέρειν (Mk. 
6:55), περι-τέρχομαι (Ac. 19:13), φραγμὸν αὐτῷ περιέθηκεν (Mt. 
21 : 88). In περι-πατέω (Mt. 9: 5) περί has nearly lost its special 
force, while in περιεργαζομένους (2 Th. 3:11) the whole point lies 
in the preposition. Note in Mk. ὃ : 34, περι-βλεψάμενος τοὺς περὶ 
αὐτὸν κύκλῳ καθημένους, Where κύκλῳ explains περί already twice ex- 
pressed. Cf. also περι-κυκλώσουσίν σε (Lu. 19:48). The perfective 
idea of περί in composition is manifest in περι-ελεῖν ἁμαρτίας (Heb. 
10 : 11), ‘to take away altogether.’ Cf. περι-ταψάντων πῦρ ἐν μέσῳ τῆς 
αὐλῆς (Lu. 22 : 55), where note the addition of περί to ἐν μέσῳ. In 
Mk. 14: 65 περι-καλύπτω means ‘to cover all round,’ ‘to cover up,’ 
like περι-κρύπτω in Lu. 1:24. This is the “perfective” sense. Cf. 
περί-λυπος in Mt. 26:38. Per contra note περίεργος (1 Tim. 5 : 19) 
for ‘busybody,’ busy about trifles and not about important mat- 
ters. In 1 Tim. 6:10 note περιέπειραν in the sense of ‘pierced 
through.’ But in 2 Cor. 3:16, περιαιρεῖται, ‘the veil is removed 
from around the head.’ 

3. Originally Four Cases Used. These were the locative, ac- 
cusative, genitive, ablative. The locative was never common in 
prose and died out in the late Greek, not appearing in the N. T. 
Delbriick? is very positive about the ablative in some examples in 
Homer and the earlier Greek. Indeed he thinks that the true 
genitive is a later development after the ablative with περί. I 
think it probable that some of these ablative examples survive in 
the N. T., though I do not stress the point.* 

4. With the Ablative. There is some doubt as to how to explain 


1 K.-G., I, p. 491. 

2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 447. 

3 Die Grundl., p. 131 f.; Vergl. Synt., I, p. 711 f. 
4 Cf. also Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 447. 


618 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the ablative with περί. In Homer! it is usually explained as like 
ablative of comparison. Cf. ὑπέρ. Thus περί is taken in the sense 
of ‘beyond’ or ‘over,’ and is allied to πέρα (πέραν) and ὑπέρ, ac- 
cording to the original sense.2, Brugmann? cites also περίειμι and 
περιγίγνομαι Where the notion of superiority comes in. With this 
compare περικρατεῖς γενέσθαι τῆς σκάφης (Ac. 27:16), which would 
thus have the ablative in σκάφης. But Monro* admits that the 
origin of this notion with περί is not quite clear. On the other 
hand, the use of περί in composition may throw light on the 
subject. In 2 Cor. 3:16, περι-αιρεῖται τὸ κάλυμμα, ‘the veil is 
taken from around.’ Cf. also Ac. 27:20. The same notion 
occurs in περι-κάθαρμα (1 Cor. 4:13) and περίψημα (ib.), ‘ off-scour- 
ing’ and ‘off-scraping.’ The same idea of from around occurs 
in περι-ρήξαντες τὰ ἱμάτια (Ac. 16 : 22; οἵ. 2 Macc. 4:38). In Lu. 
10 : 40 this idea appears in a metaphorical sense with περιεσπᾶτο, 
‘drawn away’’or ‘from around,’ ‘distracted.’ See περισπᾶι, P. 
Brit. M. 42 (s.c. 168) for ‘occupy.’ Cf. also the notion of 
beyond in περίεργος (1 Tim. 5:13), περιλείπω (1 Th. 4:15), 
περιμένω (Ac. 1:4), περιούσιος (Tit. 2:14), περισσεύω (Jo. 6 : 12), 
περισσός (Mt. 5:37). In the last example, τὸ περισσὸν τούτων, note 
the ablative. There remains a group of passages of a metaphorical 
nature where the idea is that of taking something away. These 
may be explained as ablatives rather than genitives. So in Ro. 
8:3, περὶ ἁμαρτίας, the idea is that we may be freed from sin, from 
around sin. Thayer (under περί) explains this usage as “‘ purpose 
for removing something or taking it away.” This, of course, is 
an ablative idea, but even so we get it rather indirectly with περί. 
See Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἀπέθανεν in 1 Pet. 3:18. It is worth 
observing that in Gal. 1 : 4 W. H. read ὑπέρ rather than περί, while 
in Heb. 5:3 W. H. have περί rather than ὑπέρ. Cf. Mk. 14 : 24. 
In Eph. 6:18 f. we have δεήσει περὶ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων, καὶ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ, 
where the two prepositions differ very little. But in 1 Pet. 3:18 
(see above), ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, the distinction is clearer. Cf. Jo. 16 : 26; 
17:9. See Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 152 ἢ. D has ὑπέρ with 
ἐκχυννόμενον in Mt. 26 : 28 rather than περί. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. 
Gk., p. 184. Cf. περί with ἱλασμός in 1 Jo. 2:2. The ablative 
with ὑπέρ renders more probable this ablative use of περί. 

5. With the Genitive. This is the common case with zepi in the 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 133; Sterrett, The Dial. of Hom. in Hom. 1]., Ν 47. 
2 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 714. Cf. περαιτέρω, Ac. 19 : 39. 

3 Griech. Gr., p. 448. Cf. Kurze vergl. Gr., II, p. 476. 

«ΠΟ τ ἢ) 1590. 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEIS) 619 


N. T. If the genitive and ablative examples are counted together 
(the real ablatives are certainly few) they number 291 as against 
38 accusatives.1 But in the later Greek the accusative gradually 
drives out the genitive (with the help of διά also).2- The genitive 
was always rare with περί in the local or temporal sense. The N. T. 
shows no example of this usage outside of composition (Ac. 25:7), 
unless in Ac. 25:18 περὶ οὗ be taken with σταθέντες, which is 
doubtful.2 Curiously enough the Gospel of John has the genitive 
with περί almost as often as all the Synoptic writers and the accu- 
sative not at all in the critical text, Jo. 11:19 reading πρὸς τὴν 
Mapfav.4 This frequency in John is due largely to the abundant use 
of μαρτυρέω, λέγω, λαλέω, γράφω, Phos ΠΣ 7 6 6: 
Περί may occur with almost any verb where the notion of ‘about,’ 
‘concerning’ is natural, like ἐσπλαγχνίσθη (Mt. 9 : 36), ἠγανάκτησαν 
(20 : 24), μέλει (22 : 16), ἐλεγχόμενος (Lu. ὃ : 19), ἐθαύμασαν (Lu. 2: 
18), ete. The list includes verbs like ἀκούω, γινώσκω, διαλογίζομαι, 
ἐνθυμέομαι, ἐπιζητέω, etc. The usage includes both persons, like 
προσεύχεσθε περὶ ἡμῶν (1 Th. 5: 25), and things, like περὶ ἐνδύματος 
τί μεριμνᾶτε (Mt. 6:28). One neat Greek idiom is τὰ περί. Cf. 
τὰ περὶ τῆς ὁδοῦ (Ac. 24 :.22), τὰ περὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ (18 : 25; Mk. 5: 27), 
Ta περὶ ἐμαυτοῦ (Ac. 24:10). Blass® considers ποιεῖν περὶ αὐτοῦ 
(Lu. 2: 27) “an incorrect phrase,’ which is putting it too strongly. 
Cf. λαγχάνω περί in Jo. 19: 24, like classical μάχομαι περί. Sometimes 
περί appears rather loosely at the beginning of the sentence, περὶ 
τῆς λογίας (1 Cor. 16:1), περὶ ᾿Απολλώ (16 : 12). Sometimes περί 
is used with the relative when it would be repeated if the antece- 
dent were expressed, as in περὶ ὧν ἔγράψατε (1 Cor. 7:1) or where 
περί properly belongs only with the antecedent, as in περὶ ὧν δέδωκάς 
μοι (Jo. 17:9). In Lu. 19:37, περὶ πασῶν ὧν εἶδον δυνάμεων, the 
preposition strictly belongs only to the antecedent which is in- 
corporated. Ina case like περὶ πάντων εὔχομαι (3 Jo. 2) the subject- 
matter of the prayer is implied in περί as cause is involved in 
περὶ τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ (Mk. 1:44) and as advantage is expressed in 
περὶ αὐτῆς (Lu. 4:38). But this is merely due to the context. 

6. With the Accusative. This construction in reality occurs with 
much the same sense as the genitive. The accusative, of course, 
suggests a placing around. It is rare in the N. T., but in later 
Greek displaced the genitive as already remarked. But it does 
not survive in the modern Greek vernacular. With the accusative 

1 Moulton, Prol., p. 105. 4 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 272. 


2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 392. ὑπ τ Ὁ 51: (ὐ-: Ὁ. 180: 
*W.-Th., p. 373. 


620 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


περί is used of place, as in σκάψω περὶ αὐτήν (Lu. 18 : 8), περὶ τὸν 
τόπον ἐκεῖνον (Ac. 28 : 7). Cf. Mk. 3:8. So with expressions of 
time, as in περὶ τρίτην ὥραν (Mt. 20:3). Note the use of περί with 
the different parts of the body, as περὶ τὴν ὀσφύν (Mt. 3: 4), περὶ τὸν 
τράχηλον (18:6). Cf. Rev. 15:6. Περί is used of persons as in περι- 
αστράψαι περὶ ἐμὲ (Ac. 22:6), εἶδαν περὶ αὐτούς (Mk. 9:14). An 
ancient Greek idiom occurs in of περὶ Παῦλον (Ac. 13 : 13), like οἱ 
περὶ Ξενοφῶντα (Xen. Anab. 7, 4, 16), where the idea is ‘Paul and 
his companions.’! But in a case like of περὶ αὐτόν (Lu. 22 : 49) the 
phrase has only its natural significance, ‘those about him.’ The 
still further development of this phrase for the person or persons 
named alone, like the vernacular “you all” in the Southern States 
for a single person, appears in some MSS. for Jo. 11:19, πρὸς τὰς 
περὶ Μάρθαν καὶ Μαρίαν, where only Martha and Mary are meant,? 
the critical text being πρὸς τὴν Μάρθαν. Blass* notes that only 
with the Philippian Epistle (2 : 28, τὰ περὶ éue) did Paul begin the 
use of the accusative with περί (cf. genitive) in the sense of ‘con- 
cerning,’ like Plato. Cf. in the Pastoral Epistles, περὶ τὴν πίστιν 
(1 Tim. 1:19), περὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν (2 Tim. 2:18). But Luke (10: 
40 f.) has it already. Cf. περὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα (Ac. 19:25). But κύκλῳ 
in the LXX, as in the κοινή, is also taking the place of περί (Thack- 
eray, Gr., p. 25). ’Audi could not stand before περί, and finally 
περί itself went down. The entrance of ὑπέρ into the field of περί 
will-eall for notice later. 

(m) Πρό. Cf. the Sanskrit pré and the Zend fra, Gothic fra, 
Lithuanian pra, Latin pro, German fiir, vor, English for (for-ward), 
fore (fore-front). The case of πρό is not known, though it occurs 
a few times in Homer as an adverb.* Cf. ἀπό and ὑπό. The 
Latin prod is probably remodelled from an old *pro like an abla- 
tive, as prae is dative (or locative). 

1. The Original Meaning. It is therefore plain enough. It is 
simply ‘fore,’ ‘before.’ It is rather more general in idea than 
ἀντί and has a more varied development.’ In πρό τῆς θύρας (Ac. 
12 : 6) the simple idea is clear. 

2. In Composition. It is common also in composition, as in 
προ-αὐλιον (Mk. 14 : 68), ‘fore-court.’ Other uses in composition 
grow out of this idea of ‘fore,’ as προ-βαίνω (Mt. 4: 21), ‘to go on’ 
(‘for-wards’), προ-κόπτω (Gal. 1 : 14), προτάγω (Mk. 11:9; ef. dxo- 
λουθέω in contrast), mpd-dndos (1 Tim. 5:24), ‘openly manifest,’ 

1 W.-Th., p. 406. 8.0: 


2 Blass, Gr. of Ν. Τ Gk., p. 134. 4 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 149. 
5 K.-G., I, p. 454. Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 716. 


PREPOSITIONS (ΠΡΟΘΈΣΕΙΣ) 621 


‘before all’ (ef. Gal.3:1, zpo-eypadn); προ-έχω (Ro. 8 : 9), ‘to sur- 
pass’; προ-ταμαρτάνω (2 Cor. 12:21), ‘to sin before,’ ‘previously’; 
mpo-opitw (Ro. 8:29), to ‘pre-ordain.’ Cf. πρό-κριμα (1 Tim. 5: 
21), ‘pre-judgment.’ In these respects the N. T. merely follows 
in the wake of the older Greek.! One may illustrate πρό still 
further by the comparative πρό-τερος and the superlative πρῶ-τος 
(ef. Doric mpa-ros). Cf. also πρό-σω, προ-πέρυσι. 

3. The Cases Used with πρό. These call for little comment. It 
is barely possible that οὐρανόθι πρό in Homer may be a remnant of 
a locative use.?. Brugmann® thinks that a true genitive is seen in 
πρὸ ὁδοῦ, but this is not certain. But the ablative is probably the 
case. In very late Greek πρό even appears with the accusative.’ 
It is not in the modern Greek vernacular. The ablative is due 
to the idea of comparison and is found also with the Latin pro.® 
Πρό occurs only 48 times in the N. T. and is almost confined 
to Matthew’s and John’s Gospels, Luke’s writings and Paul’s 
Epistles (12 times). 

4, Place. Thus it occurs only in four instances, πρὸ τῆς θύρας 
(Ac. 12 : 6), πρὸ τῶν θυρῶν (Jas. 5:9), πρὸ τοῦ πυλῶνος (Ac. 12 : 14), 
πρὸ τῆς πόλεως (14:18). Οἵ. ἔμπροσθεν (Mt. 5 : 24), which is more 
common in this sense in the N. T. Some MSS. have πρό in Ac. 
5:23. In Cyprus (borrowing from the literary language) to-day 
we still have πρὸ κεφαλῆς, ‘at the head of the table’ (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 98). 

5. Time. This is the more common idea with πρό in the N. T. 
Thus we find such expressions as τοὺς πρὸ ὑμῶν (Mt. 5:12), πρὸ 
καιροῦ (8:29), πρὸ τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ (Mt. 24:38), πρὸ τοῦ ἀρίστου 
(Lu. 11:38), πρὸ τοῦ πάσχα (Jo. 11:55), πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων (1 Cor. 
2:7), πρὸ χειμῶνος (2 Tim. 4:21). This is all plain sailing. Nor 
need one stumble much at the compound preposition (translation 
Hebraism) πρὸ προσώπου σου (Mk. 1 : 2 and parallels). Cf. Ac. 18: 
24; Lu. 9:52. Nine times we have πρὸ τοῦ with the infinitive, as 
in Lu. 2:21; 22:15; Jo. 1:48. Here this phrase neatly expresses 
a subordinate clause of time (antecedent). Cf. ante quam. A real 
difficulty appears in πρὸ ἐξ ἡμερῶν τοῦ πάσχα (Jo. 12:1), which 
does look like the Latin idiom in ante diem tertium Kalendas. 


1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 449. 

2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 149. Cf. Delbriick, Die Grundl., p. 182. The inscr. 
show the loc. also. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 398. 

8 Griech. Gr., p. 449. 

4 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 393. 

5 Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 722. 


622 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Jannaris! attributes this common idiom in the late Greek writers 
to the prevalence of the Roman system of dating. This has been 
the common explanation. But Moulton? throws doubt on this 
“»lausible Latinism’” by showing that this idiom appears in a 
Doric inscription of the first century B.c. (Michel, 694), πρὸ ἁμερᾶν 
δέκα τῶν μυστηρίων. ‘The idiom occurs also in the inscriptions, πρὸ 
τε Καλανδῶν Αὐγούστων, I.M.A. ili. 325 (ii/a.D.), and the papyri, 
πρὼ δύο ἡμερῶν, F.P. 118 Gi/a.p.). So Moulton proves his point 
that it is a parallel growth like the Latin. Rouffiac (Recherches, 
p. 29) re-enforces it by three citations from the Priene inscrip- 
tions. Cf. also πρὸ πολλῶν τούτων ἡμερῶν Acta S. Theogn., Ὁ. 102. 
Moulton thinks that it is a natural development from the abla- 
tive case with πρό, ‘starting from,’ and refers to ὀψὲ σαββάτων in 
Mt. 28:1 as parallel. May it not be genuine Greek and yet 
have responded somewhat to the Latin influence as to the fre- 
quency (cf. LXX and the N. T.)? Similarly πρὸ ἐτῶν δεκατεσσάρων 
(2 Cor. 12:2), ‘fourteen years before (ago).? Abbott? con- 
siders it a transposing of πρό, but it is doubtful if the Greek 
came at it in that way. Simcox‘ calls attention to the double 
genitive with πρό in Jo. 12:1, really an ablative and a genitive. 

6. Superiority. po occurs in the sense of superiority also, as 
in πρὸ πάντων (Jas. 5:12; 1 Pet. 4:8). In Col. 1:17 πρὸ πάντων 
is probably time, as in πρὸ ἐμοῦ (Jo. 10:8; Rom. 16:7). Cf. πρὸ 
τούτων πάντων in Lu. 2] : 12. 

(n) Πρός. The etymology of πρός is not perfectly clear. It 
seems to be itself a phonetic variation® of προτί which is found in 
Homer as well as the form ποτί (Arcad. és, πότ in Boeotian, etc.). 
What the relation is between ποτί and zpori is not certain. The 
Sanskrit prdti is in the locative case. The connection, if any, be- 
tween πρός and πρό is not made out, except that προ-τί and prd-ti 
both correspond to πρό and prd. Thayer considers —ri an adverbial 
suffix. 

1. The Meaning.’ It is the same as προτί and ori. The root- 
idea is ‘near,’ ‘near by,’ according to Delbriick,’ though Brug- 
mann® inclines to ‘towards.’ In Homer zpés has an adverbial 


1 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 894. Cf. Viereck, Sermo Graecus, p. 12 f. 

2 Prol., pp. 100 ff. He refers also to the numerous ex. in W. Schulze, Graec. 
Lat., pp. 14-19. 

+ Joh? Gry. 227. 5 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 449. 

4 Lang. of the N. T., p. 153 f. esi. 

7 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 726. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 449. 

8 Die Grundl., p. 132. 9. Griech. Gr., p. 449. 


PREPOSITIONS (ΠΡΟΘΈΣΕΙΣ) 623 


567 πρὸς δέ, with the notion of ‘besides.’! ‘Near,’ rather than 
‘towards,’ seems to explain the resultant meanings more satis- 
factorily. The idea seems to be ‘facing,’ German gegen. Cf. 
πρόσωπον. In ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν (Jo. 1:1) the literal idea 
comes out well, ‘face to face with God.’ 

2. In Composition. Probably one sees the original notion in 
προσ-εδρεύω, ‘to sit near’ (cf. Eurip.;jetc.). Some MSS. read this 
verb in 1 Cor. 9: 18, though the best MSS. have zapedpetw. But 
we do have προσ-κεφάλαιον (Mk. 4 : 38) and προσ-μένω (Mt. 15 : 32; 
1 Tim. 5:5). Cf. also προσ-φάγιον (Jo. 21:5), and προσ-ορμίζω 
(Mk: 6 : 53). The other resultant meanings appear in composition 
also as ‘towards’ in προσ-άγω (Lu. 9 : 41), ‘to’ in προσ-κολλάω (Eph. 
5:31), ‘besides’ in προσ-οφείλω (Phil. 19), ‘for’ in πρόσ-καιρος 
(Mt. 13:21). This preposition is common in composition and 
sometimes the idea is simply “perfective,” 
(Ac. 1 : 14), πρόσ-πεινος (Ac. 10 : 10). 

3. Originally with Five Cases. The cases used with πρός were 
probably originally five according to Brugmann,? viz. locative, 
dative, ablative, genitive, accusative. The only doubt is as to 
the true dative and the true genitive. Delbriick? also thinks that a 
few genuine datives and genitives occur. Green! (ef. πρό, 3) speaks 
of “the true genitive” with πρό; it is only rarely true of πρός and 
ὑπέρ. The genitive with πρός is wanting in the papyri and the 
Pergamon inscriptions (Radermacher, N. 7. Gr., p. 117). And 
in the N. T. no example of the genitive or dative appears. In 
Lu. 19 : 37 πρὸς τῇ καταβάσει might possibly be regarded as dative 
with ἐγγίζοντος; but it is better with the Revised Version to sup- 
ply “even” and regard it as a locative. In composition (προσέχετε 
ἑαυτοῖς, Lu. 12:1) the dative is common. 2 Maccabees shows 
the literary use of πρός with dative of numbers (Thackeray, Gr., 
p. 188). 

4. The Ablative. There is only one example of the ablative in 
the N. T. and this occurs in Ac. 27:34, τοῦτο πρὸς τῆς ὑμετέρας 
σωτηρίας ὑπάρχει. This metaphorical usage means ‘from the point 
of view of your advantage.’ It is possible also to explain it as 
true genitive, ‘on the side of.’ This is a classical idiom. So then 
πρός in the N. T. is nearly confined to two cases. Moulton® agrees 


as IN προσ-καρτερέω 


1 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 728. Πρός, as well as μετά, still appears as 
adv. in Polyb. Cf. Kaelker, Quest. de Eloc. Polyb., p. 289. 

2 Griech. Gr., p. 448 f. 

$ Vergl. Synt., I, p. 729 f. 

4 Notes on Gk. and Lat. Synt., p. 163. 5 Prol., p. 106. 


624 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


with Blass! that this is a ΝΑ ΑΝ, of the literary style in Luke. 
Moulton finds the genitive (ablative) 23 times in the LXX. The 
true genitive appeared in examples like πρὸς τοῦ ποταμοῦ, ‘by the 
river’ or ‘towards the river.’ In the modern Greek vernacular 
πρός fades” before eis and ἀπό as the ablative use is going in the 
N. T. It is rarely used-of place and time, and even so the usage 
is due to the literary language (Thumb, Handbook, p. 106). 

5. With the Locative. pds indeed occurs in the N. T. with the 
locative only seven times, so that it is already pretty nearly a 
one-case preposition. These seven examples are all of place and 
eall for little remark. Cf. πρὸς τῷ ὄρει (Mk. 5: 11), πρὸς τῷ μνημείῳ 
(Jo. 20:11). They are all with verbs of rest save the use with 
ἐγγίζοντος in Lu. 19:37. See under ὃ. The correct text gives 
the locative in Mk. 5:11 and Jo. 20:11, else we should have 
only five, and D reads the. accusative in Lu. 19:37. These seven 
examples illustrate well the etymological ‘meaning of πρός as 
‘near’ or ‘facing.’ Moulton counts 104 examples of πρός and the 
dative (locative) in the LXX. Four of these seven examples are 
in John’s writings. Cf. especially Jo. 20:12. Moulton (Prol., 
p. 106) notes “‘P. Fi. 5 πρὸς τῷ πυλῶνι, as late as 245 a.pv.” 

6. With the Accusative. It was exceedingly common in Homer 
and always in the literal local sense.? The metaphorical usage with 
the accusative developed later. How common the accusative is 
with πρός in the N. T. is seen when one notes that the number is 
679.4 This was the classic idiom® with πρός both literally and meta- 
phorically. It is not necessary to say that πρός with the accusative 
means ‘towards.’ The accusative case implies extension and with 
verbs of motion πρός (‘near’) naturally blends with the rest into 
the resultant idea of ‘towards.’ This is in truth a very natural 
use of πρός with the accusative, as in ἀνεχώρησεν πρὸς τὴν θάλασσαν 
(Mk. 3:7). In Mk. 11:1 note both eis (Tepood\vua) and πρός (τὸ 
ὄρος) with éyyifw. In Phil. 5 (W.H.) the margin has both with 
persons. Here Lightfoot (an loco) sees a propriety in the faith 
which is towards (πρός) Christ and the love exerted upon (eis) men. 
But that distinction hardly® applies in Ro. 3 : 25 f.; Eph. 4 : 12. 
Cf. Mk. 5:19. In Mk.9:17 W. H. and Nestle accent πρὸς σέ. 
There seems to be something almost intimate, as well as personal, 
in some of the examples of πρός. The examples of πρός with per- 
sons are very numerous, as in ἐξεπορεύετο πρὸς αὐτόν (Mt. 3:5), 

τ ot Nee ele) 10: 4 Moulton, Prol., p. 106. 


2 Jann., Gk. Gr., p. 366. 5 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 394. 
8 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 142. 6 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 155. 


PREPOSITIONS (ΠΡΟΘΕΣΕΙΣ) 625 


δεῦτε πρός με (Mt. 11 : 28), etc. But one must not think that the 
notion of motion is essential to the use of πρός and the accusative 
(cf. εἰς and ἐν). Thus in Mk. 4:1, πᾶς ὁ ὄχλος πρὸς τὴν θάλασσαν 
ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἦσαν, note both ἐπί and πρός and the obvious distinc- 
tion. Cf. also θερμαινόμενος πρὸς τὸ φῶς (Mk. 14:54). It is not 
strange, therefore, to find πρὸς ἡμᾶς εἰσίν (Mt. 13 : 56), πρὸς σὲ ποιῶ 
τὸ πάσχα (26:18). Cf. also τὰ πρὸς τὴν θύραν in Mk. 2:2. The 
accusative with πρός is not indeed exactly what the locative would 
be, especially with persons. In Mk. 14:49 we find καθ᾽ ἡμέραν 
ἤμην πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ διδάσκων. Abbott! properly illustrates 
Jo. 1:1, ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν with this passage in Mk. and 
with 2 Cor. 5:8, ἐνδημῆσαι πρὸς τὸν κύριον. It is the face-to-face 
converse with the Lord that Paul has in mind. So John thus 
conceives the fellowship between the Logos and God. Cf. στόμα 
πρὸς στόμα in 2 Jo. 12, 3 Jo. 14 and πρόσωπον πρὸς “πρόσωπον in 
1 Cor. 13:12. But, while this use of πρός with words of rest 
is in perfect harmony with the root-idea of the preposition it- 
self, it does not occur in the older Greek writers nor in the 
LXX.? Jannaris* is only able to find it in Malalas. Certainly 
the more common Greek idiom would have been παρά, while μετά 
and σύν might have been employed. Abbott, however, rightly 
calls attention to the frequent use of πρός with verbs of speaking 
like λέγω, Aadew, etc., and Demosthenes has it with faw. So then 
it is a natural step to find πρός employed for living relationship, 
intimate converse. Two very interesting examples of this personal 
intercourse occur in Lu. 24 : 14, ὡμίλουν πρὸς ἀλλήλους, and verse 17, 
ἀντιβάλλετε πρὸς ἀλλήλους. Cf. also πρός with περιπατέω (Col. 4 : 5), 
κοινωνία (2 Cor. 6:14), διαθήκη (Ac. 3:25 as in ancient Greek), 
λόγος (Heb. 4:13), etc. Certainly nothing anomalous exists in 
πίπτει πρὸς τοὺς πόδας (Mk. 5:22) and προσκόψῃς πρὸς λίθον (Mt. 
4:6). Πρός is not used often with expressions of time, and the 
notion of extension is in harmony with the accusative case. Cf. 
πρὸς καιρόν In Lu. 8:18, πρὸς ὥραν in Jo. 5:35, πρὸς ὀλίγας ἡμέρας 
in Heb. 12:10. In πρὸς ἑσπέραν (Lu. 24 : 29) the resultant notion 
is ‘toward,’ rather than ‘for.’ Blass® points out that πρὸς τὸ 
παρόν (Heb. 12:11) is classical. The metaphorical uses of πρός 
are naturally numerous. Disposition towards one is often ex- 
pressed by πρός, whether it be friendly as in μακροθυμεῖτε πρὸς πάντας 
(1 Th. 5 : 14) or hostile as in ἐν ἔχθρᾳ ὄντες πρὸς αὑτούς (Lu. 23 : 12). 
1 Joh. Gr., p. 273 f. 4 JohGr.; p: 275. 


2 Tb. *Greot Ny De Gk p: 139. 
* Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 395. 


626 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Cf. μετ’ ἀλλήλων (ib.). Πρός does not of itself mean ‘against,’ 
though that may be the resultant idea as in γογγυσμὸς ---- πρὸς τοὺς 
’EBpatovs (Ac. 6:1). Cf. also πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός (Col. 2 : 23) 
and πρὸς τοὺς κτλ. (2 Cor. 5:12). Sometimes πρός adds nothing 
to the vague notion of extension in the accusative case and the 
idea is simply ‘with reference to.’ Thus πρὸς τοὺς ἀγγέλους 
λέγει (Heb. 1:7). Cf. also Lu. 20:19. Πρός in the κοινή shares 
with eis and περί the task of supplanting the disappearing dative 
(Radermacher, N. 7’. Gr., p. 112). In particular πρὸς αὐτόν (—obs) 
takes the place of αὐτῷ (- οἷς) after λέγω, εἶπον, ἀποκρίνομαι, as 
shown by parallel passages in the Synoptic Gospels, as in Lu. 
3:14, where MSS. vary between αὐτοῖς and πρὸς αὐτούς. Adjec- 
tives may have πρός in this general sense of fitness, like ἀγαθός 
(Eph. 4 : 29), δυνατά (2 Cor. 10:4), ἱκανός (2 Cor. 2:16), λευκαὶ 
πρὸς θερισμόν (Jo. 4:35), ete. Cf. also τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν (Ro. 15: 
17). The phrase τί πρὸς ἡμᾶς; (Mt. 27:4) has ancient Greek 
support.!. The notion of aim or end naturally develops also as 
in éypadyn πρὸς νουθεσίαν ἡμῶν (1 Cor. 10:11), πρὸς τί εἶπεν (Jo. 
13 : 28), ὁ πρὸς τὴν ἐλεημοσύνην καθήμενος (Ac. 3:10). Cf. 1 Cor. 
14 : 26; 15:34. Some examples of the infinitive occur also in 
this connection, like πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι αὐτοῖς (Mt. 6:1), πρὸς τὸ 
κατακαῦσαι αὐτά (13:30), etc. In πρὸς τὸ δεῖν προσεύχεσθαι (Lu. 
18:1) the notion is hardly so strong as ‘purpose.’ But see 
Infinitive. Then again cause may be the result in certain con- 
texts as In Μωυσῆς πρὸς τὴν σκληροκαρδίαν ὑμῶν ἐπέτρεψεν (Mt. 
19:8). There is no difficulty about the notion of comparison. 
It may be merely general accord as in πρὸς τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ (Lu. 12 : 
47), πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν (Gal. 2 : 14), or more technical comparison as 
In οὐκ ἄξια τὰ παθήματα τοῦ νῦν καιροῦ πρὸς THY μέλλουσαν δόξαν ἀπο- 
καλυφθῆναι (Ro. ὃ : 18). With this may be compared πρὸς φθόνον 
in Jas. 4:5, where the phrase has an adverbial force. 

(0) Σύν. The older form ξύν (old Attic) appears in some MSS. 
in 1 Pet. 4:12 (Beza put it in his text here). This form ξύν is 
seen in ξυνός. In pera-& both μετά and ξύ(ν) are combined.2 Del- 
briick® is indeed in doubt as to the origin of civ, but see Momm- 
sen,‘ and some (Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 343) consider ξύν and σύν 
different. | 

1. The Meaning. 'Thisisin little dispute. It is ‘together with.’® 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 1389. 

2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 454. 3 Vergl. Synt., I, p. 730. 

4 Entwick. einiger Gesetze fiir ἃ. Gebr. ἃ. griech. Priip. μετά, σὺν and ἅμα, 
p. 444. 5 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 454. 


PREPOSITIONS (ΠΡΟΘΕΣΕῚΣ) 627 


Cf. Latin cum and English con-comitant. The associative in- 
strumental is the case used with σύν as with ἅμα and it is just that 
idea that it was used to express originally.! It never departed 
from this idea, for when the notion of help is present it grows 
naturally out of that of association. The Attic, according to 
Blass,? confines σύν to the notion of ‘including,’ but the Ionic 
kept it along with μετά for ‘with.’ 

2. History. Itisnot without interest. In Homer it is sometimes 
an adverb (tmesis). Indeed it never made headway outside of 
poetry save in Xenophon, strange to say. The Attic prose writers 
use μετά rather than σύν. Thus in 600 pages of Thucydides we 
find pera 400 times and ξύν 37, while Xenophon has σύν more than 
μετά. In Demosthenes the figures run 346 of μετά and 15 of σύν, 
while Aristotle has 300 and ὃ respectively. Monro‘ thinks that 
μετά displaced σύν in the vernacular while σύν held on in the poets 
as the result of Homer’s influence and finally became a sort of in- 
separable preposition like dis— in Latin (cf. ἀμφι-- τῇ N. T.). In the 
modern Greek vernacular σύν is displaced by μέ (μετά) and some- 
times by ἅμα. The rarity of σύν in the N. T. therefore is in har- 
mony with the history of the language. Its use in the N. T. is 
largely confined to Luke’s Gospel and Acts and is entirely absent 
from John’s Epistles and the Apocalypse as it is also from Hebrews 
and 1 Peter, not to mention 2 Thessalonians, Philemon and the 
Pastoral Epistles. It is scarce in the rest of Paul’s writings and 
in Mark and Matthew,® and John’s Gospel has it only three times 
(12:2; 18:1; 21:3). It occurs in the N. T. about 130 times 
(over two-thirds in Luke and Acts), the MSS. varying in a few 
instances. 

3. In Composition. Here σύν is extremely common. See list of 
these verbs in chapter on Cases (Instrumental). Cf. Thayer’s 
Lexicon under σύν. The use in composition illustrates the asso- 
ciative idea mainly as in συντάγω (Mt. 2:4), συν-έρχομαι (Mk. 3: 20), 
though the notion of help is present also, as in συν-αντι-λαμβάνομαι 
(Lu. 10 : 40), cuv-epyéw (1 Cor. 16:16). Cf. χαίρω καὶ ovyxaipw 
(Ph. 2:17f.). The “perfective” use of σύν is seen in συν-καλύπτω 
(Lu. 12:2), συν-κλείω (Ro. 11:32), συν-κύπτω (Lu. 18:11). Ce. 
συντελέω, συντηρέω, etc. In σύνοιδα the knowing may be either with 
another, as possibly Ac. 5 : 2, or with one’s self, as in 1 Cor. 4 : 4. f 


1 Delbriick, Die Grundl., p. 133. 

a arcOle NT. Gk.’ p.°132. “HomeGr?, Ὁ. 147. 

3 Cf. Mommsen, Entw. etc., p. 4f. 5 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 366. 
§ Cf. on the whole subject Mommsen, Entw., p. 395. 


628 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


The verb συνέχω (Lu. 22 : 68; Ac. 18:5) is found in the papyri 
(Deissmann,: Bible Studies, p. 160. Cf. Moulton and Milligan, 
Expositor, 1911, p. 278). As already explained, the case used is 
the associative-instrumental. In the very late Greek the accusa- 
tive begins to appear with σύν (as indeed already in the LXX}) 
and both σύν and ἅμα show! examples of the genitive like μετά. 

4. N. T. Usage. There is very little comment needed on the 
N.T. usage of the preposition beyond what has already been given.’ 
The bulk of the passages have the notion of accompaniment, 
like σὺν σοὶ ἀποθανεῖν (Mt. 26:35). So it occurs with μένειν (Lu. 
1:56), καθίσαι (Ac. 8:31), ete. Cf. also σὺν ὅλῃ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ (Ac. 
15 : 22), where the use of σύν may subordinate the church a bit 
to the Apostles (Thayer). Cf. also Ac. 14:5; Lu. 23:11, where 
καὶ rather than σύν might have occurred. As applied to Christ, σύν, 
like ἐν, may express the intimate mystic union, as in κέκρυπται σὺν 
τῷ Χριστῷ ἐν τῷ θεῷ (Col. 3:3). The phrase of σύν is used much 
like οἱ παρά, of περί, οἱ μετά. Thus Πέτρος καὶ of σὺν αὐτῷ (Lu. 9 : 32). 
Cf. Lu. 5:9 and Mk. 2:26. Once σύν occurs in a context where 
the idea is ‘besides,’ ἀλλά ye καὶ σὺν πᾶσιν τούτοις (Lu. 24 : 21). 
Cf. Neh. 5:18. So probably also Ph. 1:1. It appears in the 
papyri in this sense also. Cf. Moulton and Milligan, ‘‘ Lexical 
Notes on the Papyri,”’ The Expositor, 1911, p. 276. In Mt. ὃ : 34 
Text. Rec. reads εἰς συνάντησιν τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ where critical text has 
ὑπ--. The case of *Incod is associative-instrumental in either in- 
stance. MSS. give συν-- in other passages. The use of σὺν τῇ 
δυνάμει τοῦ κυρίου (1 Cor. 5 : 4) has a technical sense (‘together with’) 
seen in the magical papyri and in an Attic cursing tablet (ili/B.c.). 
Cf. Deissmann, Light, ete., p. 304f. See also Deissmann’s Die 
neut. Formel “in Christo Jesu” for discussion of σὺν Χριστῷ, the 
notion of fellowship in Ph. 1: 23. He now cites a graffito with 
these words to a deceased person, εὔχομαι κἀγὼ ἐν τάχυ σὺν σοὶ εἶναι 
(laght, p. 805)... Cf. Οὐ! Ὁ 23. In 1 Th. 4:17 note ἀμ oir 
αὐτοῖς and in 5:10 ἅμα σὺν αὐτῷ like our “together with,’’ which 
shows also the retreat of σύν before ἅμα. For συν-επι and κατά see 
Ac. 16: 22. 

(p) Ὑ πέρ. In Homer, by anastrophe, sometimes we have ὕπερ. 
Cf. Sanskrit wpdri (locative case of upar), Zend upairi, Latin super, 
Gothic ufar, German wber, Anglo-Saxon ofer, English over. The 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 396 f.; Jour. of Hell. Stud., XIX, pp. 287-288. 
2 Cf. Westcott on Jo.1:2 for discussion of distinction between σύν and 
μετά. 


8. Cf. the use of σὺν καί in the pap. Deiss., Β. S., p. 268 f. 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEIS) 629 


oldest Indo-Eur. locative! was without 7. A longer comparative 
occurs in ὑπέρτερος, and a superlative ὑπέρτατος shortened into 
ὕπατος. Cf. Latin superus, summus, and English up, upper, upper- 
most. 

1. The Meaning. It is therefore clear enough. It is the very 
English word ‘over’ or ‘upper.’ Chaucer uses ‘over’ in the sense 
of ‘upper.’ As an adverb it does not occur in Homer, though 
Euripides (Medea, 627) has ὑπὲρ ἄγαν. Jannaris? calls ὕπερ (Blass 
ὑπὲρ) éyw (2 Cor. 11: 23) “the monstrous construction,” which is 
rather overdoing the matter. The use of the preposition is not 
remarkably abundant in the N. T. 

2. In Composition. The N.T. has also the compound preposi- 
tions ὑπεράνω (Eph. 1:21), ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ (Eph. 3 : 20), ὑπερέκεινα 
(2 Cor. 10 : 16) and the adverbs ὑπερλίαν (2 Cor. 11: 5), ὑπερβαλλόν- 
τως (2 Cor. 11: 23). The literal meaning of ὑπέρ (‘over’) appears 
in ὑπερ-άνω (Heb. 9 : 5), ὑπὲρ αὐτήν (ib. D), ὑπερ-ῷον (‘upper room,’ 
Ac. 1:18). The notion of ‘excess,’ ‘more than’ (comparison), 
appears in ὑπερ-αίρω (2 Cor. 12 : 7), ὑπερ-εκπερισσοῦ (1 Th. 3:10), 
ὑπερτέχω (Ph. 4:7), ὑπερ-νικάω (Ro. ὃ : 37), ὑπερ-υψόω (Ph. 2:9), 
ὑπερ-φρονέω (Ro. 12:3). ‘Beyond’ is rather common also, as in 
ὑπέρ-ακμος (1 Cor. 7:36), ὑπερ-αυξάνω (2 Th. 1:3), ὑπερ-βαίνω (1 Th. 
4:6), ὑπερ-εκτείνω in 2 Cor. 10: 14, ὑπερ-έκεινα (10:16), and this 
grows into the “perfective” idea as in ὑπερ-ήφανος (Ro. 1 : 30), ὑπερ- 
ὑψωσεν (Ph. 2:9), ὑπερ-οχή (1 Tim. 2: 2), ὑπερ-πλεονάζω (1 Tim. 
1:14). Cf. English ‘over-zealous,’ ‘over-anxious,” etc. The 
negative notion of ‘overlook’ appears in ὑπερ-εῖδον (Ac. 17 : 30). 
The idea of ‘defence,’ ‘in behalf of,’ ‘bending over to protect,’ 
occurs in ὑπερ-εντυγχάνω (Ro. 8 : 26). In the late Greek vernacular 
ὑπέρ fades? before ὑπεράνω and διά and already in the N. T. the 
distinction between περί and ὑπέρ is not very marked in some 
usages, partly due to the affinity in sound and sense. Passages 
where the MSS. vary between ὑπέρ and περί are Mk. 14: 24; Jo. 
Mso0- Ac. 12:5; Ro.-1: 83 Gal) 124, etc. 

3. With Genitive? A word is needed about the cases used with 
ὑπέρ. There is no trouble as to the accusative, but it is a mooted 
question whether we have the true genitive or the ablative. 
Brugmann® views the case as genitive without hesitation and 
cites the Sanskrit use of ὠραγὶ in support of his position. But 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 146; Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 228. 

2 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 398. 

8 Jann., ib., p. 366. 4 Ib., p. 398. 
5 Griech. Gr., p. 451; Kurze vergl. Gr., II, p. 464. 


630 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


on the side of the ablative we note Kiihner-Gerth' and Monro,? 
while Delbriick® admits that either is possible, though leaning to 
the genitive. Where such doctors disagree, who shall decide? 
The Sanskrit can be quoted for both sides. The main argument 
for the ablative is the comparative idea in ὑπέρ which naturally 
goes with the ablative. On the whole, therefore, it seems to me 
that the ablative has the best of it with ὑπέρ. 

4. With Ablative. Certainly as between the ablative and the 
accusative, the ablative is far in the lead. The figures‘ are, abla- 
tive 126, accusative 19. On the whole, therefore, ὑπέρ drops back 
along with ὑπό. There is no example of the strictly local use of 
ὑπέρ in the N.T. unless of βαπτιζόμενοι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν (1 Cor. 15 : 29) 
be so understood, which is quite unlikely.’ This obscure passage 
still remains a puzzle to the interpreter, though no difficulty arises 
on the grammatical side to this or the other senses of ὑπέρ. The 
N. T. examples are thus metaphorical. These uses fall into four 
divisions. 

The most common is the general notion of ‘in behalf of,’ ‘for 
one’s benefit.’ This grows easily out of the root-idea of ‘over’ 
in the sense of protection or defence. Thus in general with προσ- 
evxouat (Mt. 5:44), δέομαι (Ac. 8: 24), ἀγωνίζομαι (Col. 4 : 12), 
καθίσταμαι (Heb. 5:1), προσφέρω (2b.), etc. The point comes out 
with special force in instances where κατά is contrasted with ὑπέρ 
as In εἷς ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἑνὸς φυσιοῦσθε κατὰ τοῦ ἑτέρου (1 Cor. 4:6). CF. 
also Mk. 9:40; Ro. 8:31. We must not, however, make the 
mistake of thinking that ὑπέρ of itself literally means ‘in behalf of.’ 
It means ‘over.’ 

It is sometimes said that ἀντί means literally ‘instead’ and ὑπέρ 
‘in behalf of.’® But Winer? sees more clearly when he says: ‘In 
most cases one who acts in behalf of another takes his place.’ 
Whether he does or not depends on the nature of the action, not 
on ἀντί or ὑπέρ. In the Gorgias of Plato (515 C.) we have ὑπὲρ σοῦ 
for the notion of ‘instead.’ Neither does πρό (nor Latin pro) in 
itself mean ‘instead.’ In the Alcestis of Euripides, where the 
point turns on the substitutionary death of Alcestis for her hus- 


1 J, p. 486. 
2 Hom. Gr., p. 147. 4 Moulton, Prol., p. 105. 
3 Vergl. Synt., I, p. 749. 5 Cf. W.-Th., p. 382. 


6 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 156. Winer (W.-Th., p. 38) implies the 
same thing. 

7 Ib. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 135, has nothing on this use of ὑπέρ. 
Moulton, Prol., p. 105, merely calls ὑπέρ “the more colourless” as compared 
with ἀντί. 





PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOESEI®) 631 


band, ὑπέρ occurs seven times, more than ἀντί and πρό together. 
Cf. Thucydides I, 141 and Xenophon Anab. 7: 4, 9 for the substi- 
tutionary use of ὑπέρ. In the Epistle to Diognetus (p. 84) we note 
λύτρον ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν and a few lines further the expression is ἀνταλλαγή. 
Paul’s combination in 1 Tim. 2:6 is worth noting, ἀντίλυτρον 
ὑπὲρ πάντων, where the notion of substitution is manifest. There 
are a few other passages where ὑπέρ has the resultant notion of 
‘instead’ and only violence to the context can get rid of it. One 
of these is Gal. 3:13. In verse 10 Paul has said that those under 
the law were under a curse (ὑπὸ κατάραν). In verse 13 he carries on 
the same image. Christ bought us ‘‘out from under” the curse 
(ἐκ THs κατάρας τοῦ νόμου) of the law by becoming a curse “‘over’’ us 
(γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατάρα). In a word, we were under the curse; 
Christ took the curse on himself and thus over us (between the 
suspended curse and us) and thus rescued us out from under the 
curse. We went free while he was considered accursed (verse 13). 
It is not a point here as to whether one agrees with Paul’s theology 
or not, but what is his meaning. In this passage ὑπέρ has the re- 
sultant meaning of ‘instead.’ The matter calls for this much of 
discussion because of the central nature of the teaching involved. 
In Jo. 11 : 50 we find another passage where ὑπέρ is explained as 
meaning substitution, ἵνα eis ἄνθρωπος ἀποθάνῃ ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ Kal μὴ 
ὅλον τὸ ἔθνος ἀπόληται. Indeed Abbott! thinks that ‘in almost all 
the Johannine instances it refers to the death of one for the many.” 
In Philemon 18, ὑπὲρ σοῦ μοι διακονῇ, the more obvious notion is 
‘instead.’ One may note ἔγραψα ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ μὴ ἰδότος γὙράμματα, 
P. Oxy. 275 (a.p. 66), where the meaning is obviously ‘instead of 
him since he does not know letters.’ Deissmann (Light, p. 152 f.) 
finds it thus (ἔγραψεν ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ) in an ostracon from Thebes, as in 
many others, and takes ὑπέρ to mean ‘for’ or ‘as representative 
of,’ and adds that it ‘is not without bearing on the question of 
ὑπέρ in the N. T.” Cf. ἔγραψα ὑ[πὲρ αὐτ]ωῦ ἀγραμμάτου, B.U. 664 
(i/a.p.). In the papyri and the ostraca ὑπέρ often bore the sense 
of ‘instead of.’ In 2 Cor. 5:15 the notion of substitution must 
be understood because of Paul’s use of ἄρα of πάντες ἀπέθανον as 
the conclusion? from εἷς ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀπέθανεν. There remain a 


τ ΠΟ ΟὟ,» Ὁ: 276. ἔ 

2 Cf. Thayer, p. 3, under ὑπέρ. In Pausanias (Riiger, Die Prip. bei Paus., 
1889, p. 12) ὑπέρ occurs about twice as often as ἀντί. A. Theimer (Beitr. 
zur Kenntn. des Sprachgeb. im N. T., 1901, p. 25), speaking of Jo. 11:50, 
says: “Der Zusatz μὴ ὅλον τὸ ἔθνος ἀπόληται die Bedeutung an Stelle 
anstatt.”’ 


632 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


number of passages where the notion of substitution is perfectly 
natural from the nature of the case. But in these passages one 
may stop in translation with ‘in behalf of’ if he wishes. But 
there is no inherent objection in ὑπέρ itself to its conveying the 
notion of ‘instead’ as a resultant idea. In fact it is per se as 
natural as with ἀντί. In the light of the above one finds little 
difficulty with passages like Ro. 5:6 f.; 8 : 32; Gal. 2 : 20; Jo. 10: 
11, 15; Heb. 2:9; Tit. 2:14, ete. In Mk. 10 : 45 we have λύτρον 
ἀντὶ πολλῶν and in 14: 24 τὸ αἷμά wou — τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν. 
But one may argue from 1 Jo. 3:16 that ὑπέρ in case of death 
does not necessarily involve substitution. Surely the very object 
of such death is to save life. 

The two other uses of ὑπέρ may be briefly treated. Sometimes 
the resultant notion may be merely ‘for the sake of,’ as in ὑπὲρ 
τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ (Jo. 11:4), ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας θεοῦ (Ro. 15 : 8), ὑπὲρ τοῦ 
ὀνόματος (Ac. 5:41), ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ (Ph. 1: 29), ete. This is natural 
in relations of intimate love. 

A more general idea is that of ‘about’ or ‘concerning.’ Here 
ὑπέρ encroaches on the province of περί. Cf. 2 Cor. 8 : 23, ὑπὲρ 
Τίτου, 2 Th. 2:1, ὑπὲρ τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ κυρίουῬ͵Ἑ Perhaps 1 Cor. 
15 : 29 comes in here also. Moulton! finds commercial accounts 
in the papyri, scores of them, with ὑπέρ in the sense of ‘to.’ We 
see the free use (‘concerning’) with verbs like καυχάομαι (2 Cor. 
7:14), φρονέω (Ph. 1:7), κράζω (Ro. 9 : 27), ἐρωτάω (2 Th. 2:1), 
etc. The Latin super is in line with this idiom also. Cf. Jo. 1: 
30, ὑπὲρ οὗ ἔγὼ εἶπον. In 1 Cor. 10 : 30, τί βλασφημοῦμαι ὑπὲρ οὗ ἔγὼ 
εὐχαριστῶ, the preposition suits antecedent as well as relative. In 
2 Cor. 1:6 and Ph. 2:13 ὑπέρ suggests the object at which one 
is aiming. Cf. ὑπὲρ ὧν ἠβουλόμεθα ἀπεστάλκαμεν, P. Goodspeed 4 
(11/B.C.); ὑπὲρ οὗ λέγωι, P. Oxy.37 (A.D. 49); ὑπὲρ apaBdvos, P.Grenf. 
ll. 67 (A.D. 237), ‘by way of earnest-money.’ 

4. The Accusative with ὑπέρ calls for little remark. The literal 
local use of ὑπέρ occurs in D in Heb. 9 : 5, ὑπὲρ δ᾽ αὐτήν, ‘an unpar- 
alleled use,’’? in the sense of ‘above,’ the other MSS. having 
ὑπεράνω. The accusative with ὑπέρ has the metaphorical sense of 
‘above’ or ‘over,’ as in οὐκ ἔστιν μαθητὴς ὑπὲρ τὸν διδάσκαλον (Mt. 
10 : 24). Cf. also τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα (Ph. 2 : 9), κεφαλὴν ὑπὲρ 
πάντα (Kph. 1 : 22), οὐκέτι ws δοῦλον ἀλλὰ ὑπὲρ δοῦλον (Phil. 16). 
This notion easily gets into that of ‘beyond’ in harmony with 
the accusative case. Thus ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται (1 Cor. 4:6), πειρα- 
σθῆναι ὑπὲρ ὃ δύνασθε (1 Cor. 10:18). Cf. ὑπὲρ δύναμιν (2 Cor. 1:8), 

1 Prol., p. 105. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 3138. 


PREPOSITIONS (ΠΡΟΘΕΣΕΙΣ) 633 
ὑπὲρ πολλούς (Gal. 1 : 14), ὑπὲρ τὴν λαμπρότητα (Ac. 26:13). Clas- 
sical Greek only shows the beginning of the use of ὑπέρ with com- 
paratives,! but the N.T. has several instances. Thus the LX X 
often uses it with comparatives, partly because the Hebrew had no 
special form for the comparative degree.? But the κοινή shows the 
idiom. So we find φρονιμώτεροι ὑπὲρ τοὺς υἱούς (Lu. 16 : 8), τομώτερος 
ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν μάχαιραν (Heb. 4:12). In Jo. 12:43 W. H. read ἤπερ 
in text and ὑπέρ in margin after μᾶλλον. But ὑπέρ has the compara- 
tive sense of ‘more than’ after verbs, as ὁ φιλῶν πατέρα ἢ μητέρα 
ὑπὲρ ἐμέ (Mt. 10:37). In the LXX the positive adjective occurs 
with ὑπέρ, as ἔνδοξος ὑπὲρ τοὺς ἀδελφούς (1 Chron. 4:9). In Ro. 12:3, 
μὴ ὑπερφρονεῖν παρ᾽ ὃ δεῖ φρονεῖν, note the conjunction of ὑπέρ and 
παρά. Moulton (Prol., p. 237) cites ὑπὲρ ἑαυτὸν φρονεῖν, T.P. 8 
(ii/B.c.). Blass* doubts whether ὑπερλίαν, ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ can be 
properly regarded as compounds. He would separate ὑπέρ as an 
adverb, ὑπὲρ λίαν. But the modern editors are against him. It 
has disappeared in modern Greek vernacular before γιά (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 105). 

(q) .-Ὑπό. Little is called for by way of etymology since ὑπό is 
the positive of ὑπέρ. Cf. the Sanskrit wpa, Latin sub, Gothic uf, 
possibly also German auf, English wp, ab-ove. The form ὑπό is of 
unknown case, but the Elean‘dialect* has ὑπα-, and Homer® has 
also trai (dative.) 

1. The Original Meaning.6 This was probably ‘upwards’ or 
‘from under.’ Unlike κατά, ὑπό never means ‘downwards.’ Asa 
matter of fact, ‘up’ and ‘under’ are merely relative terms. The 
very English word up is probably ὑπό. Cf. ὕψι ‘aloft,’ ὕπ-τιος 
‘facing upwards,’ ὕπτατος ‘uppermost,’ ὕψιστος. The meaning of 
under or beneath is common in the N. T., as ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον (Mt. 
Delo): 

2. In Composition. Here ὑπό appears simply with the notion 
of ‘under’ as in ὑπο-κάτω (Mk. 7: 28), ὑπ-ωπιάζω (1 Cor. 9: 27), ὑπο- 
γραμμός (1 Pet. 2 : 21), ὑπο-πόδιον (Mt. 5 : 35), ὑπο-δέω (Mk. 6: 9). 
Cf. also ὑπό-δειγμα (Jo. 18:15), ὑπο-ζύγιον (Mt. 21:5). In ὑπό- 
κρισις (Mt. 23 : 28), ὑπο-κριτής (Mt. 6:2) the notion of an actor 
under a mask lies behind the resultant idea. The idea of hos- 
pitality (under one’s roof) is natural with ὑπο-δέχομαι (Lu. 10: 
38), ὑπο-τλαμβάνω (3 Jo. 8). In Ro. 16:4 ὑπο-τίθημι has the idea 
of ‘put under,’ as ὑπο-ζώννυμι (Ac. 27:17), ‘undergird.’ In ὑπο- 

1 Tb., p. 108. 4 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 452. 


2 C, and S., Sel. from LXX, p. 84. 5 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 139. 
a Gry of Net. Gk,’ p. 135. 6 Ib. Cf. Brug., ib. 


634 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


λαβὼν εἶπεν (Lu. 10 : 30) the notion of interrupting or following a 
speech comes from the idea of ‘up’ in ὑπό, taking up the talk, ete. 
The “perfective” idea appears in ὑπο-λείπω (Ro. 11 : 3), ‘leave be- 
hind or over.’’ So with tro-rpéxw (Ac. 27: 16), ‘run under or past.’ 
Cf. ὑπο-πλέω (Ac. 27:4, 7), ‘sail close by.’ But in ὑπο-πνέω (Ac. 
27:13) the preposition minimizes the force of the verb, ‘blow 
softly.’ Cf. our suspicion, the French sowpcon. So with under- 
estimate.’ In ὑπο-βάλλω (Ac. 6:11) the notion of suggestion has an 
evil turn, but in ὑπο-μιμνήσκω (Jo. 14 : 26) there is no such colour. 
The idea of subjection (note how these ideas appear in English 
usage all along) occurs in ὑπτ-ακούω (Ph. 2 : 12), ὑπ-είκω (Heb. 13 : 17), 
etc. In ὑπ-αντάω (Mt. 8 : 28) the special force of ὑπό has rather 
disappeared. Cf. our vulgar “meet up” with one. So ὑπ-εναντίος 
(Col. 2.: 14). 

3. The Cases Once Used with iro. The locative was originally 
very common with ὑπό, as in Homer, even with verbs of motion.! 
As amatter of fact, however, in the historical writers the locative 
and accusative with ὑπό are very rare as compared with the abla- 
tive,” though Appian and Herodian use the locative more than the 
accusative. But the locative retreated* before the accusative 
with ὑπό till in the N. T. and the modern Greek it has disappeared. 
In the N. T. the accusative shows 50 examples and the ablative 
165, but in the vernacular of the Byzantine Greek the accusative 
with ὑπό disappears before ἀποκάτω and ὑποκάτω. In the modern 
Greek vernacular ἀπό has displaced ὑπό (Thumb, Handb., p. 102). 
Brugmann’ even thinks that ὑπό once occurred with the instru- 
mental case, and he is clear that the ablative, as well as the geni- 
tive, was found with it. Delbriick® agrees to both ablative and 
genitive. Thus originally ὑπό occurred with five cases (loc., instr., 
acc., abl., gen.). In the N.T. we meet only the accusative and 
ablative. No example of the pure genitive with ὑπό occurs in 
the N. T. In Jo. 1:50 we find εἶδόν ce ὑποκάτω τῆς συκῆς, but not 
ὑπό. So also in some other N.T. passages where a genitive with 
ὑπό might have been used. Cf. Mk. 7: 28; Lu. 8:16, ete. The 
accusative with ὑπό, as in ὄντα ὑπὸ τὴν συκῆν (Jo. 1:48), supplants 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 140. 

2 Helbing, Die Priip. bei Herod. und and. Histor., p. 22. 

3 Moulton, Prol., p. 63. 

4 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 399. Cf. Jebb in V. and D., Handb. to Mod. Gk., 
p. 313. 

5 Moulton, Prol., p. 105. * Griech. Gr., p. 452 f. 

6 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 398 f. 8 Vergl. Synt., I, p. 698. 


PREPOSITIONS (IPOOEZEI2) 635 


the genitive also in the N. T. The use of ὑπό for agency and 
cause is ablative like the Latin usage with ab (a). 

A. With the Accusative. It is considered by Winer! to be the 
original use of ὑπό. This indeed would accord with the notion of 
‘upwards,’ ‘up from under.’ But in the N. T., as in the later 
Greek, the accusative occurs with the notion of rest (cf. eis).2 The 
accusative in the N. T. takes the place of the local use of ὑπό with 
locative and genitive. Thus we find (motion) τιθέασιν αὐτὸν ὑπὸ 
τὸν μόδιον (Mt. 5: 15), but also (rest) ὄντα ὑπὸ τὴν συκῆν (Jo. 1:48). 
Other examples with verbs of rest are ὑπὸ τὴν σκιὰν κατασκηνοῖν 
(Mk. 4 : 32), ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν (Ac. 4 : 12), with εἰμί, we have ὑπὸ τὰ 
χείλη (Ro. 8 : 15), ὑπὸ νόμον (Ro. 6:14 f.), ὑπὸ παιδαγωγόν (Gal. 
ὃ : 26), etc. These examples are as freely used as those like ἵνα 
μου ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην εἰσέλθῃς (Mt. 8:8). The examples are both 
local as with ἐπισυνάγω (Lu. 13 : 34) and figurative as with ταπεινόω 
(1 Pet. 5:6). Cf. Ac. 4:12 ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν with ὑπὸ Ata Γῆν Ἥλιον 
ἐπὶ λύτροις P. Oxy. 48, 49, 722 (a.p. 86, 100, 91). Cf. Deissmann, 
Light, ete., p. 332. Only one instance of the use of ὑπό with time 
appears in the N. T., ὑπὸ τὸν ὄρθρον (Ac. 5: 21), where it has the 
notion of ‘about’ (or ‘close upon’) dawn. John uses ὑπό with the 
accusative only once* (Jo. 1:48) and with the ablative only five 
times (Jo. 14 : 21; ὃ Jo. 12 bis; Rev. 6:8, 13), an incidental ar- 
gument for unity of authorship. 

5. With the Ablative. In the sense of efficient cause or agent it 
was the commonest classical usage and it continues so in the N. T. 
The local and temporal uses do not occur, but only the metaphor- 
ical. These occur after passive or neuter verbs. Abbott® thinks 
that John preferred to represent the agent as performing the act 
and so avoided ὑπό. The ancient Greek indeed used ὑπό chiefly in 
this sense of agent. The use of ἀποθνήσκω ὑπό as the correlative 
of ἀποκτείνει τις 15. Well known.’ In the N. T. once (Rev. 6 : 8) ὑπό 
actually occurs with the active of ἀποκτείνω (ἀποκτεῖναι ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ --- 
kal ὑπὸ τῶν θηρίων). This is probably due to the desire to distin- 
guish between the living agent and the lifeless causes preceding.® 
But the N. T. has neuter verbs with ὑπό, like ἀπόλλυμαι (1 Cor. 
10 : 9), λαμβάνω (2 Cor. 11:24), πάσχω (Mk. 5 : 26), ὑπομένω (Heb. 
12:3). In the case of passive verbs the usage follows the tradi- 
tional lines. Cf. Mt. 4:1 for two examples, ἀνήχθη ὑπὸ τοῦ mveb- 


1 W.-Th., p. 407. 5 Simcox, Lang. of the N.T., p. 157. 
2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 398. 6 Joh. Gr., p. 279. 

8 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 185. 7 Moulton, Prol., p. 156. 

4 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 278. 8 Simcox, Lang. of the N.T., p. 157. 


636 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ματος, πειρασθῆναι ὑπὸ TOU διαβόλου. It is to be noted that in Lu. 9:8 
ὑπό is not repeated with ἄλλων. The bulk of the N. T. instances of 
ὑπό occur of personal agency like ἐβαπτίζοντο tx’ αὐτοῦ (Mt. 3 : 6), 
διεσπάσθαι ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ (Mk. 5:4), etc. Sometimes, when διά is added 
to ὑπό, a distinction is made between the intermediate and the 
mediate agent, as in τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου (Mt. 1: 22). 
Cf. 2:15. There is nothing peculiar about the use of ὑπό in 2 Pet. 
1:17, φωνῆς ἐνεχθείσης ὑπὸ τῆς μεγαλοπρεποῦς δόξης. But ὑπό is 
not the only way of expressing the agent. Besides διά for the in- 
direct agent ἀπό is the most common? substitute for ὑπό, though ἐκ 
and παρά both are found for the notion of agency. Radermacher 
(NV. T. Gr., p. 116) speaks of ἀπό as “die eigentlich pridestinierte 
Partikel.’”’? The instrumental case and ἐν and the locative must 
also be recalled. But διά with the accusative (motive or cause) 
must not be confounded with this idea. Cf. Lu. 21 : 17 for ὑπό 
with ablative and διά with the accusative. The prepositions will 
richly repay one’s study, and often the whole point of a sentence 
turns on the prepositions. In Lu. 5:19 eight prepositions occur, 
counting ἔμπροσθεν, and many such passages are found as Gal. 2: 
1,2. Cf. Joy, On the Syntax of Some Prepositions in the Greek 
Dialects (1904). 

VIII. The ‘‘Adverbial’’ Prepositions. The list in the N. T. of 
those prepositions which do not occur in composition with verbs 
is considerable. As already remarked in the beginning of this 
chapter, what are called “proper’’ prepositions were originally 
adverbs, fixed case-forms which came to be used with nouns and 
in composition with verbs. We have followed the varied history 
of this most interesting group of words. Homer? in particular 
used most of them at times merely adverbially. In Homer the 
“regular”? prepositions often retain this adverbial force, as ἐν δέ, 
παρὰ δέ, and this separation from a verb is no longer considered a 
‘surgical operation”’ (tmesis). Cf. Seymour, Homeric Language and 
Verse, 25, 78. Some of these prepositions gradually disappeared, 
but the total use of prepositions greatly increased. This increase 
was due to the wider use of the remaining prepositions and the 
increasing use of so-called “improper”’ prepositions, adverbs with 
cases that never came to be used in composition with verbs. The 
Sanskrit? had no proper class of prepositions, but a number of 


1 W.-Th., p. 369. 

2 Blass, Gr. of N. Τ᾿ Gk., p. 126. But ἀπό occurs in this sense in Xen. Cf, 
W.-Th., p. 369. 

3 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 151. 4 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 414. 


PREPOSITIONS (ΠΡΟΘΕΣΕΙΣ) 637 


adverbs which were sometimes used with cases. These adverbial 
prepositions varied constantly in the history of the Greek. Some 
of them, like ἄνευ, ἔγγύς, ἕνεκα, come right on down from Homer. 
Others drop by the way while each age sees a new crop coming on. 
But in the late vernacular a number of these prepositional adverbs 
are followed by the preposition! before the case, like ἀποκάτω ἀπό. 
In the modern Greek the improper prepositions are used either 
with the genitive (only with enclitic pronoun) or by the addition 
of ’s, ἀπό, μέ with the accusative. They are quite new formations, 
but made from ancient Greek material (Thumb, Handb., p. 107). 
From our point of view any adverb that occurs with a case may 
be regarded as a prepositional adverb,? like ἀξίως τοῦ εὐαγγελίου 
(Ph. 1:27). Some of these prepositional adverbs, as already 
shown, occur both as adverbs, as ἅμα καὶ ἐλπίζων (Ac. 24:26), and 
as prepositions, as ἅμα αὐτοῖς (Mt. 18: 29), while others appear only 
as prepositions with cases, as ἄνευ τοῦ πατρός (Mt. 10: 29). But it 
is not necessary to make a separate list on this basis. Blass,* who 
treats these words very scantily, is right in saying that no hard and 
fast line can be drawn between adverb and preposition here. The 
LXX shows some adverbial prepositions which do not occur in 
the N. T.4 Thus ἀπάνωθεν (Judges 16:20) may be compared 
with ἐπάνωθεν (classical also), and ὑποκάτωθεν (Deut. 9 : 14), which 
in ancient Greek is only an adverb. Simcox® carefully explains 
ἐνώπιον, 80 common in the LXX, as a translation and imitation of 
"2292, but even Conybeare and Stock® surrender this word as not 
a Hebraism before Deissmann’s proof.’ The N. T., like the κοινή 
in general, makes free use of these prepositional adverbs. I have 
given the list in my Short Grammar of the Greek New Testa- 
ment (3 ed., 1912, p. 116 f.), forty-two in all, more than twice as 
many as the “regular” prepositions.? ᾿Λξίως noted above is not in- 
cluded. Cf. ἅπαξ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ (Heb. 9:7). Conybeare and Stock 
(p. 87) even count ἐχόμενα πέτρας (Ps. 140 : 6), but surely that is 
going too far. Cf. τὰ κρείσσονα καὶ ἐχόμενα σωτηρίας (Heb. 6:9). 
There is more excuse for claiming ἐσώτερον τῆς. κολυμβήθρας (Is. 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 366. 

2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 150. δ Lang. of the N. T., Ὁ. 159. 
Pore or N. Le Gke pp: 12255127: 6 Sel., p. 87. 

4 C. and§&., Sel. from LXX, p. 86 f. “BESSA pr2isit 

8 


Krebs, Die Pripositionsadverbien in der spiiteren hist. Griic., I. ΤΊ., p. 4f., 
gives a list of 61, and 31 of his list do not appear in the N. T., while 12 are in 
the N. T. that he does not mention, viz. ἔναντι, ἐνώπιον, κατέναντι, κατενώπιον, 
κυκλόθεν, μέσον, ὀπίσω, ὀψέ, παραπλήσιον, παρεκτός, ὑπέκεινα, ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ. This 
list by Krebs shows the freedom in the κοινή development of adv. prep. 


638 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


22:11). It will pay us to take up briefly these adverbial prepo- 
sitions. All of them use the genitive or the ablative case except 
ἅμα (instrumental) and ἐγγύς (dative). 

1. “Aya. It is probably in the instrumental case itself. Brug- 
mann! connects the word with the root of εἷς, μία, ἕν as seen in 
ἅ-παξ, ἁ-πλοῦς, Cretan ἀμάκις, Latin semel, Sanskrit sama, English 
same. Cf. also ὁμοῦ, ἑκκατόν. It occurs in Homer with the associa- 
tive-instrumental case.2 The word occurs in the N. T. only ten 
times and usually as adverb, either merely with the verb as in 
Ro. 3:12, LXX, or with 6éxai (1 Tim, 5218; Phil? 22). (Cf: ‘at 
in Col. 4:3. Three of the examples are with participles (Col. 4:3 
above and Ac. 24: 26; 27:40). Twice we find ἅμα σύν with the 
instrumental, a sort of double preposition after the manner of the 
later Greek (1 Th. 4:17; 5:10) and once ἅμα πρωί with adverb 
(Mt. 20:1). The use of ἅμα σύν Thayer explains by taking ἅμα 
as an adverb with the verb. Only once does it occur as a simple 
preposition with the instrumental, ἅμα αὐτοῖς (Mt. 18:29). For 
the later revival of ἅμα and use like μετά see Jannaris.? In 2 Esdr. 
17: ὃ on is translated by ἅμα. In the Acta Nerez ἅμα is used only 
with the genitive (Radermacher, N. 7’. Gr., p. 119). 

2. "Avev. It is of uncertain etymology.47 Homer has another 
form, ἄνευθεν, the Eleatic avev-s, the EKpidaurian ἄνευ-ν, the Megarian 
avis. There is, however, no doubt as to the meaning, ‘without’ 
or ‘besides,’ and the case used is the ablative. There are only 
- three examples in the N.T., not counting Mk. 18 : 2, where W. H. 
and Nestle reject ἄνευ χειρῶν. Two of these (1 Pet. 3:1; 4:9) 
occur with abstract words, and one (Mt. 10 : 29) with τοῦ πατρός. 
The word is rare in the late Greek, especially with a case.® 

3. “Avrixpus (some editors ἀντικρύ). It is a compound form that 
originally meant ‘straight on,’ but in later Greek occurs in the 
sense of ‘opposite,’ ‘face to face.’ It was common in the ancient 
Greek as adverb of place or as preposition. In the N. T. we find 
it only once (Ac. 20 : 15) and the case used is the genitive, ἄντικρυς 
Χίου. It occurs in modern Greek vernacular (Thumb, Handb., p. 
109). 

4. ’Avrimepa (ἀντι-πέραν, Polybius, ete.). It is just ἀντί and πέραν 
combined. Thucydides uses ἀντιπέρας as adverbial preposition. 
Only one example occurs in the N. T. (Lu. 8 : 26), ἀντίπερα τῆς 


1 Griech. Gr., pp. 85, 211,: 230. 

2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 151; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 456. 

δ΄ Hist. Gk: Gri, pi 39d: 4 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 456. 
5 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 337. In Eleatic ἄνευς occurs with the ace. 


PREPOSITIONS (ΠΡΟΘΕΣΕΙΣ) 639 


Γαλιλαίας. The case is open to dispute, since ἀντί comes with the 
genitive and πέραν with the ablative. ‘Over against’ would be 
genitive, ‘on the other side of’ would be ablative. Either will 
make sense in Lu. 8 : 26. Probably genitive is the case here. 

5. ᾿Απέναντι. It is a triple compound of ἀπό, ἐν, ἀντί. A number 
of adverbial prepositions were formed on ἀντί as a base. In the 
N.T. we find also ἔναντι, ἐναντίον, κατέναντι. ‘These are late, except 
ἐναντίον (from Homer on. Cf. ἄντα, ἔν-αντα). Polybius uses ἀπέναντι 
with the genitive, and it is common with this case in the LXX! 
(cf. Gen. 3: 24). In the N. T. it occurs only six times, and in two 
of these (Mt. 27: 24; Mk. 12:41) W. H. put κατέναντι in the text 
and ἀπέναντι in the marg. Of the remaining four examples two 
(Ac. 3:16; Ro. 3:18) have the sense merely of ‘before,’ ‘in the 
sight or presence of.’ One (Mt. 27:61) has the notion of ‘oppo- 
site’ or ‘over against,’ while the fourth (Ac. 17:7) takes on a 
hostile idea, ‘against.’ These resultant ideas all come naturally 
out of the threefold combination. The other compounds with 
ἀντί will be noted later. 

6. “Arep. This word is of unknown origin, but compare Old 
Saxon sundir, Old High German suntar, Sanskrit sanutdr. It is 
common in Homer and the poets generally. Later prose uses it. 
But it occurs only once in the LXX (2 Mace. 12:15) and twice 
in the N. T. (Lu. 22:6, 35). The case is clearly the ablative, 
and the meaning is ‘without.’ One example, ἄτερ ὄχλου, is with 
persons and the other, ἄτερ βαλλαντίου, is with a thing. 

7. "Αχρι(ς). It is related to wéxpi(s) whatever its origin. Cf. 
usque in Latin and ἄχρι eis like wsque ad. As a mere adverb it 
no longer occurs in the N. T., but it is common both as a prepo- 
sition and as a conjunction. In the form ἄχρι οὗ (Ac. 7:18) and 
ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας (Mt. 24 : 88) it is both preposition and conjunc- 
tion (resultant temporal phrase). Leaving out these examples, 
ἄχρι is found 30 times in the N. T. ΟΥ̓. H. text) and some MSS. 
read ἄχρι in Ac. 1:22 and 20:4, while in Mt. 18:30 the MSS. 
vary between ἄχρι, μέχρι and ἕως (W. H.). The meaning is ‘up 
to’ and the case used is the genitive. It occurs with place (Ac. 
13 :6), persons (Ac. 11: 5), time (Ac. 13:11) and abstract ideas 
(Ac. 22:4, 22). It occurs mainly in Acts, Paul’s writings and 
Revelation. Cf. its use with the adverb ἄχρι τοῦ viv (Ro. 8: 22). 

8. ᾿Εγγύς.. It is a mere adverb (see comp. ἔγγύτερον, superl. 
ἔγγιστα) possibly related to éy-yin. It is common in Homer both 
as adverb and with the genitive.. The late Greek added the true 

1 C, and S., Sel. from the LXX, p. 86. 


640 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


dative and all three uses (adverb, gen., dat.) occur in the N. T. 
There are nineteen examples of the pure adverb in the N. T. 
(cf. Mt. 24 : 32), one the comparative (Ro. 13:11) and the su- 
perlative in some MSS. in Mk. 6:36. There are eight examples 
of the genitive with éyyts (ef. Jo. 11:54). Only four times does 
éyyis have the dative (Ac. 9 : 38; 27:8), counting the indeclin- 
able ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ (Lu. 19:11; Ac. 1:12), in which case Luke (4) 
would have the dative uniformly and John (6) and Heb. (2) the 
genitive (H. Scott). Once (Heb. 6 : 8) it is postpositive. 

9. ’Exzvos. It is a combination of ἐκ and the adverbial ending 
—ros with which may be compared Latin coelitus.1 The case 
used with it is, of course, the ablative and it is just a fuller 
expression of ἐκ, meaning ‘without.’ In the N. T. we find it only 
eight times, four of these with the ablative, as in 1 Cor. 6 : 18 (cf. 
with the relative in Ac. 26 : 22). Note position of ἐκτὸς λέγων ὧν 
in Ac. 26:22. Three times we have ἐκτὸς εἰ μή (1 Cor. 14:5; 15:2; 
1 Tim. 5:19), which is a pleonasm due first to the use of ἐκτὸς εἰ. 
Deissmann (Bible Studies, p. 118) cites an inscription of Mopsues- 
tia for ‘this jumbled phrase,” peculiarly apropos since Paul was 
Cilician, ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ [ἐϊὰν Mayva μόνη Oe[An]on. . Once (Mt. 23 : 26) 
ἐκτός 15 probably a mere adverb used as a substantive, though even 
here it may be regarded as a preposition. 

10. "ἕμπροσθεν. This is merely ἐν and πρόσθεν which adverb 
used the ablative? when it had a case. In the N. T. it is still four 
times a mere adverb of place, as in Rev. 4:6, but it is usually a 
preposition with the ablative. It occurs with words of place, as 
in Mt. 5:24, with persons (Mt. 5:16), and sometimes with the 
notion of rank (Jo. 1:15). As a preposition it appears 44 times 
in the N. T. 

11. "ἔναντι. (Cf. ἔναντα in Homer.) It is one of the ἀντί com- 
pounds and is found with the genitive case when it has a case. 
It is very common in the LXX even after Swete*’ has properly re- 
placed it often by ἐναντίον. The old Greek did not use it. In the 
N. T., W. H. accept it in Lu. 1:8 and Ac. 8:21 (though some 
MSS. in both places read ἐναντίον) and reject it in Ac. 7:10. It 
is not found in the N. T. as a mere adverb. 

12. ’Evavriov. This is, of course, merely the neuter singular of 
ἐναντίος (cf. Mk. 6:48), and is common in the older Greek as in 
the LXX. For the papyri see ἐναντίον ἀνδρῶν τριῶν P. Eleph. 1 

1 Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 198, 254. 2 Ib., p. 456. 


85. C. and §., Sel. from LXX, p. 87. The LXX used a number of prep. to 
transl. +}55. Cf. Swete, Intr. to the O. T. in Gk., p. 308. 


PREPOSITIONS (ΠΡΟΘΕΣΕΙΣ) 641 


(Β.α. 311). In the N. T. it does not occur as a mere adverb, but 
we find it five times as a preposition with the genitive (ef. Lu. 1 : 6), 
all with persons (cf. Latin coram). 

13. “Ἕνεκα. It occurs in three forms in the N. T., either ἕνεκα 
(Lu. 6 : 22), ἕνεκεν (9 : 24) or εἵνεκεν (18 : 29), but always as a prepo- 
sition (‘for the sake of’), never as mere adverb. These variations 
existed in the earlier Greek also. In the κοινή, ἕνεκεν is the more 
usual (Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., Ὁ. 35). Only twice, however, is it 
postpositive in the N. T., and this after the interrogative (Ac. 19: 
32) or the relative (Lu. 4: 18, LX X). The case used is the genitive. 
The etymology is quite uncertain, but the form εἵνεκεν is Ionic 
and partially in the κοινή supersedes the Attic. The preposition 
occurs 26 times in the N. T. Once (2 Cor. 7: 12) we find it 
used with τοῦ and the infinitive. Cf. ἕνεκεν and διά Lu. 21:12, 17. 

14. ’Evros. It is like the Latin in-tus (opposite of ἐκτός) and 
has the same ending —7os. It means ‘within’ and as a preposition 
is used with the genitive. The word occurs only twice in the 
N. T., once as an adverb with the article (Mt. 23 : 26), though 
even this may be regarded as a preposition with the article and 
the genitive (cf. ἐκτός, Mt. 23 : 26), and once as a preposition 
(Lu. 17 : 21) with the genitive. Thayer cites two passages from 
Xenophon where ἐντός may have the idea of ‘among’ and claims 
that this is the idea in Lu. 17: 21, because of the context. But the 
meaning in Xenophon is disputed and Liddell and Scott give only 
‘within’ for ἐντός. Besides, in one of the new Logia? of Jesus we 
have a similar saying in a context that makes ‘within’ necessary 
and would seem to settle the point about the passage in Luke: 
ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστίν. 

15. ᾿Ενώπιον. This is the neuter singular of the adjective 
ἐνώπιος Which (Thayer) is from the phrase ἐν wi (ὁ ἐν ὠπὶ dr). 
Homer uses τὰ ἐνώπια, but no example of the adverb or preposition 
ἐνώπιον occurs before the time of the LX X. Deissmann® thinks it 
possible, but not probable, that it was first used in this sense as a 
translation of the Hebrew 7255. A papyrus of the Thebaid from the 
second or third century B.c. has it also. As a preposition it is 
very common‘ in the LXX and in the N. T. also. Curiously 
enough it does not occur in Matthew and Mark, though very 


1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 457. 

2 C. Taylor, The Oxyrhyn. Sayings of Jesus, 1905, pp. 7, 11. Besides in 
Polyb. ἐντός is always the opposite of ἐκτός. Cf. Thiemann, Quest. Polyb., 1882, 
p. 23. 

ΠΡ 215: 4 C. and S., p. 87. 


642 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


common in Luke’s writings and Revelation. The Gospel of John 
has only one example and the Johannine Epistles two. Cf. also 
κατενώπιον. In the N. T., ἐνώπιον is always a preposition with the 
genitive and it occurs 92 times. It appears sometimes with place 
(Rev. 4:10), but usually with persons (Lu. 5:25; 12:9 bis), and 
especially of God (1:15). Sometimes the notion is that of judg- 
ment, as in 1 Tim. 2:3. See Wikenhauser, ᾿Ενώπιος --- ἐνώπιον --- 
κατενώπιον (Bibl. Z., 1910, pp. 263-270). 

16. "Ἔξω. It is an adverb from ἐξ (cf. ἔσω, és) and is probably 
in the ablative case like ot7w(s). As adverb and preposition it is 
common in the N. T. (16 times) as in the older Greek. It is 
found as preposition only with the ablative and that 19 times. It 
means ‘outside’ or ‘without’ and is used in the N. T. only with 
places, like ἔξω τῆς οἰκίας (Mt. 10: 14). John’s Gospel has it 13 
times, first Ep. 1, Rev. 2; Paul has it 5, and only as adverb. 

17. "Ἑξωθεν. It is the same word plus the suffix --εν, ‘from 
without,’ and was common in the poets (cf. ἔσωθεν). The case 
used is the ablative. In the N. T. it is much less frequent (13 
times) both as adverb and preposition than ἔξω. Indeed, if τὸ 
ἔξωθεν τοῦ ποτηρίου (Mt. 23 : 25; Lu. 11:39) be not considered the 
prepositional usage, there would be only three left (Mk. 7:15; 
Rev. 11:2; 14: 20). There is the same ambiguity in the two 
passages above that was noted about ἐκτός and ἐντός (Mt. 23 : 26). 
Cf. Lu. 11:40. 

18. ’Ex-avw. This is just the preposition ἐπί and the adverb 
ἄνω. It occurs in Attic Greek both as adverb and as preposition. 
As an adverb it is rare in the N. T. (4 times), once with the rel- 
ative adverb οὗ (Mt. 2: 9), once with a numeral with no effect 
on the case (1 Cor. 15: 6; cf. Mk. 14: 5 where the case may 
arise from πραθῆναι), once where a pronoun is really implied 
(Lu. 11:44). As a preposition we find it fifteen times in the 
N. T. Cf. ἐπάνω ὄρους (Mt. 5:14) where it has the somewhat 
weakened! sense of ‘upon’ rather than ‘above.’ The case used 
is the genitive. Modern Greek vernacular uses it as (ἀ)πάνω ’s 
(Thumb, Handbook, p. 109). 

19. *Ezéxeva. It is merely ἐπί and ἐκεῖνα. Thayer suggests the 
ellipsis of μέρη. It occurs in the Attic Greek both as adverb and 
as preposition. In the N. T. it appears only once in a quotation 
from Amos 5: 27 and as a preposition with the ablative in the 
sense of ‘beyond’ (Ac. 7:48. Cf. ὑπερέκεινα). 

20. "Eow. It is the adverb of és (cf. ἔξω) and is in the ablative 

1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 129. 


PREPOSITIONS (ΠΡΟΘΈΣΕΙΣ) 643 


case. The form εἴσω (els) does. not occur in the N. T. nor in the 
LXX. Indeed the word ἔσω is found only nine times in the N. T. 
and only one, ἔσω τῆς αὐλῆς (Mk. 15 : 16), is the prepositional use. 
The case used with it is the genitive. This, however, is a gen- 
uine example, while ἔσωθεν (12 times) is never a preposition in 
the N. T., for even Lu. 11:39, τὸ ἔσωθεν ὑμῶν, has the article. Cf. 
ἐσώτερον τῆς κολυμβήθρας (Is. 22 : 11). 

21. Ἕως. In Homer it is both demonstrative and relative ad- 
verb (from εἷος, elws).! Cf. ὥς and ws. The use of ἕως as a prep- 
osition appears in Demosthenes, Aristotle, Polybius, ete. In 
Northern England and Scotland “while” is used as ‘till’? (Lid- 
dell and Scott) and illustrates how ἕως as conjunction is used in 
the N. T. It is equally common in the N.'T. as preposition and 
conjunction, if the phrases ἕως οὗ, ἕως ὅτου be treated as conjunc- 
tions, as indeed they are, though technically composed of the 
preposition ἕως with the genitive of the relative. It is in the 
later Greek mainly, therefore, that it appears as a preposition (cf. 
LXX and papyri). The case used with it is the genitive (but 
very late Greek shows accusative sometimes), and it is found 86 
times in the N. T. and 51 of the examples are in the Synoptic 
Gospels. The preposition is used with places, like ἕως ἅδου (Mt. 
11:23), ἕως οὐρανοῦ (Lu. 10:15), ἕως ’Avrioxelas (Ac. 11: 22); with 
persons, like ἕως αὐτοῦ (Lu. 4 : 42); with expressions of time, like 
ἕως τῆς σήμερον (Mt. 27:8), ἕως ὥρας ἐνάτης (27:45); with abstract 
expressions, like ἕως θανάτου (Mt. 26 : 38); with notion of measure, 
like ἕως ἡμίσους (Mk. 6: 23). See Rom. 3:12 ἕως ἑνός (LXX). 
Cf. ἀπό --- ἕως in Mt. 1:17; 20:8; 27:51. Seventeen of the ex- 
amples are uses of ἕως with an adverb, like ἕως κάτω (Mt. 27: 51), 
ἕως ἄρτι (Jo. 2:10), while seven instances of ἕως πότε occur, like 
Mt. 17:17. Four times ἕως occurs with another preposition, like 
ἕως πρός (Lu. 24: 50), ἕως ἐπί (Ac. 17: 14), ἕως ἔξω (21:5). In Mk. 
14 : 54 note ἕως ἔσω eis. Once (cf. Demosthenes, Aristotle, LX Χ) 
we find it with the article and the infinitive ἕως τοῦ ἐλθεῖν (Ac. 8: 
40). In ἕως τέλους (2 Cor. 1 : 13), the phrase is almost adverbial. 
In D (Ac. 19: 26), ἕως ᾿Εφέσου, Blass? finds the notion of ‘within.’ 
In the LX X 2 [Heb.] Esdr. 6 : 20, ἕως εἷς πάντες, and 1 Chron. 5: 
10 A, ἕως πάντες, Deissmann (B. S., p. 1389) sees a Hebraism. 

22. Κατέναντι. It is not found in the older Greek, but appears 
in the LXX and the N. T. It is especially frequent in the Book of 
Sirach.* But in poetry we find κατέναντα and the word is merely 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 151. 8. C. and §., p. 87. 
arate Of Ne ty ke p: 1273 


644 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the threefold preposition κατά, ἐν, ἀντί. The MSS. in the N. T. 
often vary! between κατέναντι and ἀπέναντι as in Mt. 21: 2; 27: 24; 
Ac. 3:16, etc. In Mt. 27:24 and Mk. 12:41 W. H. put ἀπέναντι 
in the margin. Karevaytiov, found in Hesiod and Herodotus, does 
not occur in the N. T. There are only nine examples of κατέναντι 
in the N. T. One of these (Lu. 19 : 30) is merely adverbial, while 
the rest are prepositional. The idea is ‘before,’ ‘over against,’ 
‘in the presence of,’ and the case used with it is the genitive. It 
occurs with place (Mk. 13:3) and persons (Mt. 27: 24). Cf. 
κατέναντι θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ (2 Cor. 2:17; 12 : 10) and the attraction 
of relative (ᾧ) in the dative to the genitive case of θεοῦ, the ἸΠ001-᾿ 
porated antecedent (Ro. 4: 17). 

23. Κατενώπιον. It is just ἐνώπιον (see above) and xara. Homer 
uses κατένωπα With the genitive, but κατενώπιον appears in the LXX. 
The N. T. shows only three examples (cf. the frequency of ἐνώπιον), 
two with persons (Eph. 1:4; Col. 1:22), one with abstract word 
(Ju. 24). The case used is the genitive and the word means ‘in 
the presence of.’ 

24. Κυκλόθεν. It is an old adverb in —-Vey that occasionally 
occurs in the LX X (Jer. 17: 26) as a preposition. In the N. T. it 
appears as a preposition twice with the genitive θρόνου (Rev. 4: 
3 f.) and once as an adverb (4 : 8). 

25. Κύκλῳ is, of course, merely an adverb in the instrumental 
case and is common from Homer down. In the LXX it is extremely 
frequent and occasionally as a preposition with the genitive (ls. 
6:2). In the N. T. it is merely an adverb except with τοῦ θρόνου 
(Rev. 4:6;5:11; 7:11). Cf. κὐκχ pexpe (Ro. 15 : 19). 

26. Μέσον. As a preposition it occurs in Herodotus 7, 170, but 
was not common. It appears in the late Greek writers and the 
papyri.? Many adverbial phrases were made from μέσον which were 
used as prepositions, some of which survive in the N. T., like ava 
μέσον, διὰ μέσου (—ov), eis μέσον (and eis τὸ μέσον), ἐν μέσῳ (and ἐν τῷ 
μέσῳ), ἐκ μέσου, κατὰ μέσον. But these will be discussed later.. The 
adjective μέσος occurs with the genitive (Lu. 22 : 55; Jo. 1: 26), 
so that it is not strange to find the adverb with the genitive as 
in Ph. 2:15, μέσον γενεᾶς. In Mt. 14: 24 W. H. put μέσον in the 
margin and D reads μέσον in Lu. 8:7; 10:3. See Hatzidakis, 
Einl., p. 214, for examples. Cf. Homeric μεσσηγύς. The mod- 
ern Greek vernacular uses μέσα ἧς, μέσ᾽ ἀπό (Thumb, Handbook, 
p. 108). Σ 
1" Blass, Gri of No ΤΡ. 128. 
2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 374. 


PREPOSITIONS (ΠΡΟΘΕΣΕΙΣ) 045 


27. Μεταξύ. Like so many of the adverbial prepositions, it is a 
compound (μετά, ξύν). As a mere adverb, we meet it only twice in 
the N. T., once in the sense of ‘meanwhile’ (Jo. 4:31), once in 
the sense of ‘afterwards’ (Ac. 13 : 42), as commonly in the later 
~Greek.! Cf. twofold use of μετά. As a preposition it occurs seven 
times in the N. T., with places (Mt. 23 : 35), persons (Mt. 18 : 15) 
and in abstract relations (Ro. 2:15). A good example occurs in 
Ac. 15:9 where both διά and μεταξύ appear. 

28. Μέχρι. Like ἄχρι and ἕως, it is both preposition and con- 
junction as well as originally adverb. No example of the mere ad- 
verb is found in the N. T., as it was rare in the older Greek. The 
form is akin to ἄχρι and the sense is the same. If μέχρις ov be treated 
as a conjunction (cf. ἄχρι οὗ, ἕως οὗ), the preposition with the 
genitive appears fifteen times with another doubtful reading in 
Mt. 13:30. It is used with places (Ro. 15:19), persons (Lu. 
16 : 16), time (Ac. 10 : 30), abstract expressions (Ph. 2:8). Like 
ἄχρι, the notion of ‘measure’ or ‘degree’ is sometimes present 
(Heb. 12:4). 

29. "Οπισθεν. It is of uncertain etymology, perhaps related to 
ἐπί. It occurs in Homer both as adverb and as preposition. In 
the N. T. we find it five times as adverb and twice as preposition, 
and some MSS. have it in Rev. 1:10. The case used with it is 
the ablative. So ὄπισθεν τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ (Lu. 23 : 26). It means ‘from 
behind’ and so ‘after’ (Mt. 15 : 23). It is the opposite of ἔμπροσθεν. 

30. ’Oricw. It is the opposite of πρόσω (cf. πόρρω) and is an 
ablative adverb from ὄπις (as above). It is very common in the 
older Greek as an adverb, but it is extremely common in the LXX 
as a preposition.2 In the N. T. ὀπίσω occurs alone as an adverb 
only twice (Mt. 24:18; Lu. 7:38), though we meet εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω 
seven times as in Mk. 13:16. But as a preposition we find it 
26 times, mostly with persons, as in the common ὀπίσω μου (Mt. 
3:11). It is used with the ablative, ‘behind.’ Cf. δεῦτε ὀπίσω 
in Mt. 4:19. 

31. ‘Ove. This word seems to be another variation of ὄπις and 
occurs in the ancient Greek, both as an adverb and as a preposition 
with the genitive (Thuc. 4, 93) with the sense of ‘late on.’ But 
Philostratus shows examples where ὀψέ with the ablative has 
the sense of ‘after,’ like ὀψὲ τούτων --- ‘after these things.’? Philos- 
tratus uses it also in the sense of ‘late on.’ The papyri use it in 
the sense of ‘late on’ with the genitive.t So ὀψὲ τῆς ὥρας P. Par. 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 129. 8 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 312. 
2 Ὁ. and &., p. 87. 4 Moulton, Prol., p. 72 f. 


646 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


37 (ii/B.c.). Hence in Mt. 28:1, ὀψὲ σαββάτων may be either late 
on the Sabbath or after the Sabbath. Either has good support. 
Moulton! is uncertain, while Blass? prefers ‘after.’ It is a point 
for exegesis, not for grammar, to decide. If Matthew has in mind 
just before sunset, ‘late on’ would be his idea; if he means after 
sunset, then ‘after’ is correct. Cf. δὶς τοῦ σαββάτου (Lu. 18 : 12). 

32. Παρα-πλήσιον. It is merely the neuter of the adjective 
παραπλήσιος. This adjective usually had the associative-instru- 
mental, seldom the genitive. But the one example of the adverbial 
preposition in the N. T. (Ph. 2 : 27), θανάτου, has the genitive. See 
πλησίον. 

33. Παρ-εκτός. It is a late compound for the earlier παρέκ. It 
appears in the N. T. only three times, save in the margin of Mt. 
19:9 of W. H.’s text. Once it is a mere adverb (2 Cor. 11: 28), 
and twice it is a preposition with the ablative (Mt. 5: 32; Ac. 
26 : 29) meaning ‘without.’ 

34. Πέραν. It comes from the root περ (cf. περάω, ‘fare,’ ‘ferry,’ 
etc.). Ionic πέρην. It is an adverb (cf. adv. πέρα), probably 
accusative case. Both as adverb and as preposition with ablative 
(sometimes with accusative), it survives from Homer. In the 
N. T. it occurs ten times as an adverb in the phrase eis τὸ πέραν 
(Mt. 8:18). Itis found 13 times as a preposition with the abla- 
tive, chiefly in the expression πέραν τοῦ ᾿Ιορδάνου (Mt. 4 : 15). 

35. Πλήν, Doric πλάν. It is probably from πλέον, ‘more,’ and so 
is used with the ablative. In the N. T. it occurs only four times 
as a preposition with the ablative and in one of these we find πλέον 
— πλὴν τούτων (Ac. 15:28). Twice it is a mere adverb, πλὴν ὅτι 
(Ac. 20:23; Ph. 1:18), unless indeed the ὅτι clause is in the 
ablative. Cf. English “except that.’ In all the other rather 
numerous instances πλήν is an adversative conjunction at the 
beginning of a clause (cf. 6€) as in Mt. 11:22. These three 
usages come on down from the older Greek. 

36. Πλησίον, Doric πλατίον. The word is allied to πέλας and is 
neuter adj. from πλησίος. In the older Greek the adverb occurs 
absolutely or with the art. ὁ πλησίον, ‘neighbour,’ as in the N.T. 
(Mt. 5:43). As a preposition it appears with the associative- 
instrumental or with the genitive. But in the N. T., it is found 
only once and with the genitive in Jo.4:5. In Lu. 10: 29, 36, the 
genitive is also found with πλησίον, but the word here has more of 
the substantive idea (‘neighbour’) than the prepositional usage. 

37. ‘Trep-avw. It is a simple compound that in the late Greek 

1 Moulton, Prol., p. 72 f. *- Grof Nee Gk, p08. 


ΝΘ, ων." 3... a 


PREPOSITIONS (ΠΡΟΘΕΣΕΙΣ) 647 


gradually displaced! ὑπέρ. It occurs in writers from Aristotle on 
both as adverb and as preposition and is common in the LXX.? 
In the N. T. we find it only three times and with the ablative each 
time. Twice it occurs literally of place (Heb. 9: 5; Eph. 4 : 10) 
and once of rank (Eph. 1: 21). | 

38. Ὑπερ-έκεινα. It is merely ὑπέρ and the pronoun ἐκεῖνα (cf. 
ἐπ-έκεινα in Ac. 7: 43) which appears in the Byzantine Greek. It 
occurs only once in the N. T. (2 Cor. 10 : 16), εἰς τὰ ὑπερέκεινα ὑμῶν, 
with the ablative in the sense of ‘beyond,’ ‘into the (regions) 
beyond you.’ 

39. Ὕπερ-εκ-περισσοῦ. It is written separately in Liddell and 
Scott and some N. T. editors print it ὑπὲρ ἐκπερισσοῦ. It is found 
in Dan. 3: 22 (Ald., Compl.). W.H. read it three times (Eph. 
3:20; 1 Th. 3:10; 5:13); though in the last passage ὑπερεκ- 
περισσῶς 15 put in the margin by W. H. Asa preposition with the 
ablative, we find it only in Eph. 3.: 20 (ὧν attracted to case of 
omitted antecedent). 

40. Ὑπο-κάτω. It is another compound word which in the an- 
cient Greek was used both as adverb and as preposition and es- 
pecially in the κοινή writers (Polybius, Diodorus, Plutarch). In 
the late Greek it gradually ὃ displaced ὑπό. In the LXX both ὑπερ- 
ἀνωθεν and ὑπερκάτωθεν occur as prepositions as well as κατόπισθεν." 
In the N. T. it is no longer adverb, but appears as preposition 
eleven times with the ablative, five of them with τῶν ποδῶν (as 
Mk. 6:11). The examples are all literal, not metaphorical. Cf. 
ὑποκάτω τῆς τραπέζης (Mk. 7: 28). 

41. Χάριν. This word is just the accusative of χάρις and it is 
still common as the substantive in the accusative (Lu. 1: 30). 
The ancients used it freely with the genitive and with the posses- 
sive pronoun, ἐμὴν χάριν. The idea of ‘for the sake of’ (cf. Latin 
gratia) may: be due to apposition originally. The usage continues 
in the late Greek.’ Among the ancients it was generally post- 
positive, but in the LX-X it is now one way, now the other. In 
the N. T. it occurs nine times, and is postpositive (as Gal. 3:19) 
always except 1 Jo. 3:12 with interrogative. It is only once in 
the Gospels (Lu. 7: 47). 

42. Χωρίς. It is of doubtful etymology (cf. χάω, χήρα), but ap- 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 367, 397. 8 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 366. 

2 Cf. Deiss., B.8., p. 283 f. 4C. ΠΟ p. 86 f. 

5 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 337. Χάριν asa prep. is in poetry till 50 B.c., when 
it appears first in prose. Cf. Meisterh., p. 222. He gives an interesting ex. of 
the prep. in Attic inscr. . 


648 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


pears in Homer freely as an adverb and in Pindar as a preposition. 
It holds on steadily in both senses. In the N. T. we have only one 
pure adverbial use (Jo. 20:7), while as a preposition with the 
ablative we find it 40 times. The usage is chiefly with persons 
(Mt. 14: 21) or abstract relations (Mt. 13 : 34), though it may be 
used with place (Lu. 6: 49). In Ro. 10 : 14 note χωρὶς κηρύσσοντος 
without the article. It is postpositive once, οὗ χωρίς (Heb. 12: 14). 
Ramsay, C. and B., 11, 391 (No. 254), cites from the inscriptions 
χωρὶς εἰ un τι πάθῃ (Moulton, Prol., p. 239). 

Of these 42 words in the N. T. the following are only used as 
prepositions: ἄνευ, ἀντίπερα, ἀπέναντι, ἄτερ, ἔναντι, ἕνεκα, ἐνώπιον, ἐπέ- 
κεινα, κατενώπιον, παραπλήσιον, ὑπερέκεινα, ὑπεράνω, ὑποκάτω. Of the 
rest μέσον is also adjective; χάρις substantive; πλησίον substantive 
and adjective; ἄχρι, ἕως, μέχρι, πλήν Conjunctions; and the rest are 
also adverbs. 

IX. Compound Prepositions. A considerable number of these 
adverbial prepositions are compound words. So are dvri-xpv(s), 
ἀντί-περα, ἀπ-έν-αντι, ἔμ-προσθεν, ἔν-αντι, ἐν-αντίον, ἐν-ώπιον, ἐπ-άνω, 
ἐπ-έκεινα, μετα-ξύ, παρα-πλήσιον, παρ-εκτός, ὑπερ-άνω, ὑπερ-εκ-περισσοῦ, 
ὑπο-κάτω. The modern Greek vernacular shows similar forms in 
ἀποκάτω ἀπό, ἀποπίσω ἀπό, ἀπέξω ἀπό (Thumb, Handb., p. 110). 
See chapter XII, v1. 

X. Prepositional Circumlocutions. Blass calls these Hebraisms 
and it is true that the frequency of these phrases in the LX X 
and the N. T. is due to the influence of the Hebrew idiom. But 
the construction itself is good Greek, though not so common, as 
the papyri show.! 

(a) Μέσον. This word furnishes a number, one of which, ava 
μέσον, “has turned up abundantly in the papyri.’’? In the N. T. 
we find this compound preposition only four times. Moulton 
thinks that in 1 Cor. 6:5, διακρῖναι ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ, the text is 
corrupt, but probably the phrase is not to be taken too literally 
and etymologically (cf. διά here). Διὰ μέσον is read once (Lu. 
17:11) and διὰ μέσου once in W. H. (Lu. 4: 30). Εἰς μέσον (Mk. 
14:60) appears once, but els τὸ μέσον (Lu. 4 : 35) six times. ᾿Εκ 
μέσου, like all the circumlocutions with μέσον, is followed by the 
genitive (Mt. 13 : 49) and it occurs 7 times. Κατὰ μέσον is found 
once (Ac. 27:27). The commonest (27 times) of these circum- 
locutions is ἐν μέσῳ (ἐμμέσῳ some MSS.) as in Mt. 10:16. Ἔν τῷ 
μέσῳ (Mt. 14:6; Ac. 4:7) is not a prepositional phrase. Cf. ἐκ τοῦ 
μέσου (Col. 2:14). See also chapter XII, x, (0). 

1 ΟΝ Le Gk seeds 2 Moulton, Prol., p. 99 f. 


PREPOSITIONS (ΠΡΟΘΕΣΕΙῚΣ) 649 


(Ὁ) "Ὄνομα. It is sometimes adduced as an example of a prep- 
ositional circumlocution and as a pure Hebraism. Deissmann! 
has given abundant illustrations from the papyri to show that the 
use of εἰς τὸ ὄνομα, ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Is Common enough in the vernacular 
κοινή where, as in the LXX and the N. T., ὄνομα represents the 
person. It is more than doubtful if we are justified in considering 
these phrases as mere prepositional circumlocutions with the gen- 
itive. The examples that come nearest to it are εἰς ὄνομα προφήτου, 
eis ὄνομα δικαίου, εἰς ὄνομα μαθητοῦ (Mt. 10:41 f.), but even here 
ὄνομα brings out the notion that one has the name or character 
of prophet, righteous man, disciple. In Mt. 28:19, ὄνομα has the 
idea of ‘the authority of.’ 

(c) Πρόσωπον. This word also furnishes a number of such 
phrases which in the LX X seem to be based on Hebrew originals 
(translation Hebraisms).? Thus ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ κυρίου (Ac. 3 : 19) 
is like "28%, while πρὸ προσώπου σου is like "2D, and κατὰ πρόσωπον 
Πειλάτου (Ac. 8: 13) Blass? finds like "353. Cf. πρόσωπον πρὸς 
πρόσωπον (1 Cor. 13 : 12). | 

(d) Στόμα. This again is a Hebraism in the LXX due to trans- 
lation. In Mt. 4:4 we have διὰ στόματος θεοῦ, a quotation from 
Deut. 8:3. In Mt. 18:16, ἐπὶ στόματος δύο μαρτύρων is likewise 
from Deut. 19:15. So in Mt. 21:16, ἐκ στόματος νηπίων is from 
Ps. 8:38. Cf. also ἀπὸ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ (Lu. 22 : 71), ἐν τῷ στόματί 
σου (Ro. 10:8 from Deut. 30:14). But this picturesque phrase- 
ology belongs to all language as a matter of fact. 

(e) Xeip. It shows several similar examples. Thus διὰ χειρὸς 
αὐτῶν (Ac. 15 : 28), διὰ τῶν χειρῶν αὐτῶν (Ac. 14:38), εἰς χεῖρας (Lu. 
24:7), els τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ (Lu. 15 : 22), ἐκ χειρὸς πάντων (Lu. 1: 71), 
ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ (Jo. 3:35), σὺν χειρὶ ἀγγέλου (Ac. 7:35). Here 
again the Greek idiom follows the Hebrew particularity, but with 
perfect ease. The classical Greek is not without examples‘ of 
this use of χείρ and one may note the English idiom also.’ See 
2 Sam. 15:2, ava χεῖρα τῆς ὁδοῦ τῆς πύλης. 

See also ἐξ ἐναντίας αὐτοῦ (ΜΚ. 15:39) and παρεκτὸς λόγου πορ- 
vetas in the margin (W. H.) of Mt. 19 :9. 


1 B.S., pp. 146 f., 197. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 100. See also Heitmiiller’s 
proof, Im Namen Jesu, pp. 100 ff. 

2 Moulton, Prol., pp. 81, 99; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 129 f. 3 Tb. 

+ Blass, Gri of N. T. Gk:, p. 130: 

5 Cf. for the LXX, Swete, Intr. to O. T. in Gk., p. 308. 


CHAPTER XIV 
ADJECTIVES (ἘΠΙΘΕΤ A) 


I. Origin of Adjectives. This matter was touched upon in 
the chapter on Declensions, but calls for a further word here. 
There is no absolute line of cleavage between substantive and ad- 
jective either in form or sense.!. The Alexandrian grammarians 
had no special treatment of the adjective. “The division line be — 
tween substantive and adjective, always an uncertain one in early 
Indo-European language, is even more wavering in Sanskrit than 
elsewhere.”’? Indeed it is not difficult to conceive the time when 
there was no distinct adjective. The substantive would be used 
in apposition as in English, brother man, church member. Cf. 
the common use of titles also like doctor, president, governor, ete. 
This attributive use of the substantive is not a peculiarity of any 
language, but belongs to Hebrew, Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, English, 
etc. It is out of this use of the substantive that the adjective as 
a separate part of speech developed.? The adjective is not there- 
fore a mere variation of the genitive, though, like the genitive, it 
is descriptive. The term noun (ὄνομα) is used to cover both sub- - 
stantive and adjective, but many substantives continue to be 
used in a descriptive or adjectival sense and many adjectives in a 
substantival sense.4 The term adjective covers words of one, two 
or three genders, and indeed includes numerals and some of the 
pronouns also. But the pronouns require treatment in a separate 
chapter. Participles are verbal adjectives. See later. The close 
relation between adjective and substantive is well illustrated by 
δοῦλα (Ro. 6:19). Cf. δοῦλοι. 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 117. 

2 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 111. 

3 “Tt is this change from subst. in apposition to adj. which according to 
Delbriick is the explanation of the numerous Gk. adjectives in o.’”’ Giles, Man., 
etc., p. 239. 

4 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 117. Cf. Schoemann, Die Lehre von den Redet. 
nach den Alten, 1862, p. 15, where he makes the quality of the thing essential 
to the idea of noun. 

_ 650 


ADJECTIVES (’EIIOETA) 651 


II. The Adjectival or Appositional Use of the Substantive. 
Examples have already been given in the chapter on the Sentence. 
Let one suffice here: ἐν τῷ ᾿Ιορδάνῃ ποταμῷ (Mt. 3 :6).1 Cf. further 
Lu. 24:19; Ac. 1:16; 3:14. This idiom is common enough in 
the N. T. I must demur, however, at this point to Winer’s idea 
(Winer-Thayer, p. 236) that “‘a notion which should naturally be 
expressed by an adjective as an epithet, is sometimes, by a change 
of construction, brought out by a substantive.’”’ What I object 
to is the word “‘should.”’ He is right in saying that “the N. T. 
is by no means poor? in adjectives,” but wrong in urging that the 
N. T. ought to use more. As already observed, substantives con- 
tinued to be used in a descriptive sense not only in apposition, 
. but also in the genitive. This original use of the substantive 
never ceased. Hence it is useless to talk of ‘this substitution of 
a substantive for an adjective” and to explain it as “ἃ Hebraistic 
mode of expression”’ due to “the want of adjectives in Hebrew”’ 
and to “‘the peculiar vividness of the Oriental languages”’ (p. 237). 
He admits, however, that the matter is not arbitrary, but the prin- 
cipal word stands in the genitive. There is this difference between 
the adjective as an epithet and the genitive. The two substan- 
tives do not merge into one idea quite so completely. Winer’s ex- 
amples illustrate this point well: μηδὲ ἠλπικέναι ἐπὶ πλούτου ἀδηλότητι 
(1 Tim. 6:17), ἵνα ἡμεῖς ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς περιπατήσωμεν (Ro. 6 : 4), 
βλέπων τὸ στερέωμα τῆς πίστεως (Col. 2:5), λόγοις τῆς χάριτος (Lu. 
4:22), οἰκονόμον τῆς ἀδικίας (10 : 8), κριτὴς τῆς ἀδικίας (18 : 6), πάθη 
ἀτιμίας (Ro. 1 : 26), τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως (Heb. 1:3), etc. It was 
just the shade of difference between the substantive in the genitive 
and the adjective that led to the expressions above. Phrases like 
τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας (Eph. 6 : 12) are analogous to the use of 
the adjective as substantive to be discussed directly. The use of 
vids or τέκνον with the genitive is exactly like the Hebrew idiom 
with 32 and is extremely common in the LXX and fairly so in 
the N. T. Thus υἱοῖς ἀπειθίας (Eph. 2 : 2), τέκνα φωτός (Eph. 5 : 8), 
etc. But this ‘Hebrafstic circumlocution” turns up in inscrip- 
tions and on coins,’ so that it is clearly not un-Greek. Deissmann, 
however, since the idiom is so common and many of the N. T. 


1 Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 88; K.-G., I, p. 272 f.; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 415. 
On the later distinction between adj. and subst. see Schroeder, Uber die 
formelle Untersch. der Redet., 1874, pp. 195 ff. 

2 But his notion of adjs. “formed by the apostles themselves”’ vanishes 
sadly in the light of the papyri. 

3 Deiss., B. S., p. 165 f. So vids τῆς γερουσίας, vids τῆς πόλεως, etc. 


652 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


examples are quotations from the LXX or translations from the 
Aramaic, admits that the majority in the N. T. are due to “trans- 
lation Hebraisms’’ and the rest to analogical formation. 

III. The Adjective as Substantive. Simcox! thinks that the 
N. T. shows a more frequent use of this idiom than the earlier 
Greek. But the earlier Greek shows abundant evidence of the 
use of the adjective without the substantive as a practical sub- 
stantive, usually with the article, but not always.? 

(a) ANY GENDER. Such adjectives may be of any gender, 
according to the gender of substantive. So ὁ καλός, ἡ ἔρημος, τὸ 
χρηστόν. This is no peculiarity of Greek alone, though it has its 
own development in the substantival use of the adjective. Indeed 
the participle was often used as a substantive. Thus ὁ σπείρων 
(Mt. 13 : 3), ἡγούμενος (Mt. 2:6). In Ph. 3:8 we have the parti- 
ciple used as a substantive with the genitive, τὸ ὑπερέχον τῆς γνώσεως. 
Cf. Lu. 16 :1, τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτοῦ. So τὸ ἐμαυτοῦ σύμφορον (1 Cor. 
10 : 33) where the adjective, like a substantive, has the genitive. 

(6) Wits Mascunine Apsectives. With masculine adjectives 
the substantives naturally suggest themselves out of the con- 
text or the nature of the case.2 Thus in Mt. 11:5, τυφλοὶ ἀνα- 
βλέπουσιν Kal χωλοὶ περιπατοῦσιν, κτλ. Cf. of ἅγιοι (1 Cor. 6: 2), 
ἁμαρτωλούς (1 Tim. 1:15), δικαίου and τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ (Ro. 5: 7), ἐκλεκτῶν 
θεοῦ (8 : 33), τὸν ἀληθινόν (1 Jo. 5:20), ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ (Jo. 6: 69) 
and probably τοῦ πονηροῦ (Mt. 6:13). In Jas. 5:7, πρόϊμον καὶ 
ὄψιμον, supply ὑετόν. Sometimes only the context can determine 
the gender, as in Eph. 6: 16; 1 Jo. 3: 12). 

(c) Wirth FEMININE Apsrectives. These are usually exam- 
ples of the ellipsis of ὁδός, χείρ, γῆ, γυνή, ἡμέρα, γλῶσσα. I follow 
Blass? mainly in these examples. Thus γῆ 1s responsible for the 
feminine gender in τὴν ξηράν (Mt. 23:15; Heb. 11:29), ἡ περί- 
xwpos (Mt. 3:5), τὴν ὀρεινήν (Lu. 1:39), τῇ ἐρήμῳ (Mt. 3 : 2), τῆς 
οἰκουμένης (Ro. 10:18), ete. In ἐκ τῆς ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν (Lu. 17 : 24) 
Blass prefers μερίδος to γῆς and urges that we do not refine too 
sharply over ἐξ ἐναντίας (Mk. 15:39; Tit. 2:8). As examples of 
the influence of ὁδός note εὐθείας (Lu. 3:5), ποίας (5 : 19), ἐκείνης 
(19:4). For χείρ observe ἡ ἀριστερά and ἡ δεξιά (Mt. 6 : 3), ἐν δεξιᾷ 
(Ro. 8 : 34), τῇ δεξιᾷ (Ac. 2:33). But ἐκ δεξιῶν (2:34) may be 
compared with εἰς τὰ δεξιὰ μέρη (Jo. 21:6). The ellipsis of ἡμέρα is 
noticed by Blass in τῇ ἐχομένῃ (Lu. 13 : 33), τῇ ἐπιούσῃ (Ac. 16 : 11), 

1 Lang. of the N. T., p. 91. 


2 Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 414; K.-G., I, p. 266 f. 
3 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 140. 1b. Ὁ. 1401: 


ADJECTIVES (’ENIOETA) 653 


τῇ ἑτέρᾳ (20 : 15), τῇ ἐπαύριον (Mt. 27 : 62), τῇ τρίτῃ (Lu. 13:32), τῆς 
ἑβδόμης (Heb. 4:4), τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων (Ac. 20:7), μέχρι τῆς 
σήμερον (Mt. 11: 23), ad’ ἧς (2 Pet. 3:4), τῇ ἑξῆς (Ac. 21:1). But 
Blass rightly supplies ὥρα with ἀφ᾽ ἧς in Lu. 7:45, as with ὀψίας 
(Mt. 8 : 16), πρωίας (Mt. 27:1). To conclude the list of feminine 
examples with τῇ πνεούσῃ (Ac. 27:40) supply αὔρᾳ, with ἐν τῇ ‘EX- 
ληνικῇ (Rev. 9 : 11) supply γλώσσῃ (but cf. τῇ ᾿Εβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ, Ac. 
22 : 2), with πολλάς and ὀλίγας (Lu. 12 : 47 f.) supply πληγάς, with 
ἀπὸ μιᾶς (Lu. 14 : 18) insert φωνῆς. But κατ᾽ ἰδίαν (Mk. 6:31) and 
ἰδίᾳ (1 Cor. 12:11), though stereotyped, may refer to ὁδῷ. ΟΥ̓. 
also κατὰ μόνας (Mk. 4 : 10) as an instance of ὁδός. So δημοσίᾳ (Ac. 
16:37). Words like σωτήριος (Tit. 2 : 11), αἰώνιον (Jo. 6 : 47), εὐπε- 
piotatov (Heb. 12 : 1) are, of course, feminine, not masculine. See 
chapter on Declensions. 

(d) With THE Neuter. The neuter furnishes a number of 
interesting examples. Thus ποτήριον ψυχροῦ (Mt. 10 : 42), where 
ὕδατος is referred to. So ὕδωρ is meant by τὸ γλυκὺ καὶ τὸ πικρόν 
(Jas. 3:11). With ἐν λευκοῖς (Jo. 20 : 12), one must insert ἱματίοις 
as with ἐν μαλακοῖς (Mt. 11:8). Cf. πορφυροῦν in Rev. 18 : 16. 
With τοῦ διοπετοῦς (Ac. 19:35) Blass! suggests ἀγάλματος, and with 
τὸ τρίτον τῆς γῆς (Rev. 8:7) we must supply μέρος (“not classical,” 
Blass). Cf. εἰς τὸ ἱερόν (Mt. 21:28). In Mt. 6 : 18, ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ, 
most likely διάβολος is meant,? not mere evil. In Mt. 19:17 we 
have περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ explained by ὁ ἀγαθός, though the American 
Standard Version gives it ‘that which is good.’ But ef. Ro. 5: 7. 
The number of these neuter adjectives used substantively in the 
N. T. is large and varied, but the older Greek shows abundant 
illustrations’ of the same thing, especially in philosophical discus- 
sions. With prepositions in particular we meet with this use of the 
neuter. Thus εἰς τὸ μέσον (Jo. 20 : 19), ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ (Mt. 6 : 4), εἰς 
φανερόν (ΜΚ. 4 : 22), μετὰ μικρόν (Mt. 26 : 79), ἐν μέσῳ (Mt. 10 : 16), 
ἐν ὀλίγῳ (Ac. 26 : 28), ἐν μεγάλῳ (26 : 29), μετὰ βραχὺ (Lu. 22 : 58), 
etc. Cf. εἰς ἀγαθά (Jer. 24:6). Very common is the adverbial 
usage of this neuter like βραχύ (Ac. 5:34), μικρόν (Mt. 26 : 39), 
μόνον (Mt. 8 : 8), τὸ πρῶτον (Jo. 12 : 16), but the adjective’s rela- 
tion to the adverb will receive special treatment. See x1. Cf. τῷ 
ὄντι. Sometimes the neuter singular was used in a collective sense 
for the sum total (cf. English “the all’’). Thus in Jo. 6 : 37, 39, 
πᾶν 6, 17:24 6, where persons are meant. The neuter plural is 


1 Tb., p. 141. 
2 So Rev. Vers. uniformly. Cf. Green, Handb. to Gk. N. T., p. 268. 
8 W.-Th., p. 235. 


654 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


common in this sense like τὰ πάντα (Col. 1: 16) where the universe 
is thus described. Cf. τὰ ὄντα and τὰ μὴ ὄντα (1 Cor. 1 : 28). Bin 
the LX X (Helbing, p. 51) frequently has πᾶν Ξε πάντα (acc. sing. 
masc.). (Cf. also Ps. of Sol. 3:10; 8: 23 V; Test. xii, Pat. Reub. 
1:10 πᾶν ἄρτον, Gad 3:1 πᾶν νόμον.) See also the common collec- 
tive neuter in the LX-X (Thackeray, Grammar, p. 174 f.). Usually 
the neuter plural is concrete, however, as in τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ ἀόρατα 
(Col. 1:16), where πάντα is thus explained. Cf. τὰ βαθέα (Rev. 
2:24), ἀρχαϊα (2\Cor. 52 17). Ine ΕΟ 1 20. SW iners points 
out, τὰ ἀόρατα makes more concrete ἥ τε ἀΐδιος δύναμις καὶ θειότης. 
But one must confess that in Eph. 3:10, ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις, it is 
not clear what the idea is, whether places, things or relations. 
In Jo. 3:12 ἐπίγεια and ἐπουράνια seem to refer to truths. In 
1 Cor. 2:18, πνευματικοῖς πνευματικὰ συνκρίνοντες, & like ambiguity 
exists, but the presence of λόγοις inclines one to the notion that 
Paul is here combining spiritual ideas with spiritual words. The 
neuter singular with the article is very common for the expression 
of an abstract idea. One does not have to say that the adjective 
is here used instead of the abstract substantive, but merely as an 
abstract substantive. Cf. English “the beautiful and the good”’ 
with “beauty and goodness.” This is good ancient Greek. Cf. 
also in the papyri τὸ δίκαιον Tbh.P. 40 (B.c. 117) and (2b.) τὰ 
καθήκοντα. Winer? was troubled over τὸ δοκίμιον τῆς πίστεως (1 Pet. 
1:7) and said that no such adjective existed and therefore this 
was a mere substantive. There was none in the lexica, but 
Deissmann® has found a number of instances of the adjective in 
the papyri. So χρυσοῦ δοκιμίου, P.K.R. xii. 6 f. (93 a.v.), ‘good 
gold.’ One need not be troubled over τὸ γνωστόν (Ro. 1:19) any 
more than over the other neuter adjectives. Cf. τὸ χρηστὸν τοῦ 
θεοῦ (Ro. 2:4), τὸ μωρὸν τοῦ θεοῦ and τὸ ἀσθενὲς τοῦ θεοῦ (1 Cor. 1: 
25), τὸ ἀμετάθετον τῆς βουλῆς (Heb. 6:17), τὸ ἐλαφρὸν τῆς θλίψεως 
(2 Cor. 4 : 17), τὸ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου (Ro. 8 : 3), τὸ δυνατὸν αὐτοῦ (9: 
22). Τῦ is thus frequent with the genitive. Cf. also τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ πρό- 
θυμον (Ro. 1:15). See Heb. 7:8. In Lu. 12: 23, ἡ ψυχὴ πλεῖόν 
ἐστιν τῆς τροφῆς, We have πλεῖον because the abstract idea of thing 
is expressed. This also is a frequent Greek idiom. Cf. οὐδέν 
(1 Cor. 7:19), 6 (1 Cor. 15 +10), ratva (1 Cor. 6: 11). 

IV. Agreement of Adjectives with Substantives. 

(a) In NumBer. It is not necessary to repeat what has been 

1 W.-Th., p. 235. Cf. lateness of the forms in —1xés (only two in Hom.). 


Hoffmann, Uber die Entw. des Begr. des Griech. bei den Alten, p. 2. In 1 
Tim. 5:17 note διπλῆς (from —éos). 2 Ib. ?- Buss pezos f. 


ADJECTIVES (’EIIIOETA) 655 


said on this subject in chapter X, vit, (6), on concord between 
adjective and substantive in number. The normal thing is for 
adjective and substantive to agree in number. But one must not 
get the idea that “construction according to sense” of the gram- 
marians is an anomaly. ‘The term is unobjectionable, provided 
we remember that constructions according to the meaning are 
generally older than those in which meaning is overridden by 
idiom or grammatical analogy.’”’! Thus there is no cause for as- 
tonishment in seeing ἔκθαμβοι with ὁ λαός in Ac. 3:11, nor πλῆθος 
κράζοντες in Ac. 21: 36. 

(Ὁ) In GENDER. For concord in gender see chapter X, vit. 
Here again the construction according to sense is normal like orpa- 
τιᾶς οὐρανίου αἰνούντων (Lu. 2:13), but οὐρανίου in the same phrase 
is the feminine (cf. αἰώνιος, etc.). The N. T. does not have the 
Attic idiom with ἥμισυς of agreement with the gender of the gen- 
itive substantive, though it is still in the LXX. Cf. τὰς ἡμίσεις 
τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν (Ezek. 16:51). Instead see ἕως ἡμίσους τῆς βασιλείας 
μου (Mk. 6 : 23). But αὕτη and θαυμαστή in Mt. 21:42 (Mk. 12 : 11) 
are probably due to the Hebrew nxt, the Hebrew using the fem- 
inine for abstract ideas, since it had no neuter. But even here in 
Ps. 117: 23 the context has κεφαλὴν ywvias.2 One other remark 15 
to be made which is that when an adjective occurs with more than 
one substantive it may agree with the gender of the nearest, as in 
πᾶσαν πόλιν καὶ τόπον (Lu. 10 : 1), be repeated with each, as in πᾶσα 
δόσις ἀγαθὴ καὶ πᾶν δώρημα τέλειον (Jas. 1:17) and ἐν ποίᾳ δυνάμει ἢ 
ἐν ποίῳ ὀνόματι (Ac. 4:7), or agree with the masculine rather than 
the feminine or neuter, as in γυμνοί (Jas. 2:15). With the same 
gender there may be repetition (Mt. 4 : 23; 9:35) or not (Mt. 
19.591}; 

(c) In Cass. For concord in case see chapter X, 1x. The main 
instances of variation here belong to the participle as in Ac. 15: 
22 f.), and in particular the Book of Revelation furnishes illustra- 
tions (Rev. 3 : 12, ete.), as already shown. 

(2) Two or More Apsectives. When two or more adjectives 
occur together the conjunction may be used as in πολλὰ καὶ Bapéa 
αἰτιώματα (Ac. 25:7) and even πολλὰ καὶ ἄλλα σημεῖα (Jo. 20 : 30), 
asin Latin.? But see ἑτέρων πολλῶν (Ac. 15 : 35) and the repetition 
of the adjective with the article (Rev. 2 : 12). 

V. The Attributive Adjective. The adjective (from adjaceo) 
is a word joined on to another (ἐπίθετον). The adjective is by no 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 118. 
2 Cf. W.-Th., p. 238; Moulton, Prol., p.59. ὃ Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 87. 


656 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


means the only attribute used with substantives. Thus the attri- 
bute may be substantive in apposition with another substantive, 
like ἀνθρώπῳ οἰκοδεσπότῃ (Mt. 13 : 52), or a genitive, like ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ 
μακροθυμία (1 Pet. 3:20), or an adverb, like τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως (Ph. 
3:14), or an adjunct, like ἡ κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις (Ro. 9:11), or a 
pronoun, like τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα (Mt. 18: 20).! When the article is used 
before the adjective or participle it is, of course, attributive, as in 
ὁ καλός (Jo. 10:11), & τῇ παρούσῃ ἀληθείᾳ (2 Pet. 1:12). But ad- 
jectives and participles may be attributive when no article is 
used. Thus with στρατιᾶς οὐρανίου (Lu. 2:18), ὕδωρ ζῶν (Jo. 4 : 10. 
Cf. τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ζῶν in verse 11), μονογενὴς θεός (Jo. 1:18). The un- 
usual position of the attributive adjective, like ὁ ὄχλος πολύς (Jo. 
12:9), where the substantive and adjective form ‘‘a composite 
idea” (Jebb, Soph. O. T., pp. 1199 ff.), may be illustrated from 
the papyri, O.P. 99, τῆς ὑπαρχούσης αὐτῷ μητρικῆς οἰκίας τριστέγου 
(Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 154). Cf. also ἐκ τῆς ματαίας ὑμῶν 
ἀναστροφῆς πατροπαραδότου (1 Pet. 1: 18), where, however, zarpo- 
παραδότου may very well be predicate (see vi). Cf. French La 
République Francaise. 

VI. The Predicate Adjective. The adjective (including par- 
ticiple) is common as a predicate, as is the substantive. Monro? 
considers the substantive in the predicate adjectival. Cf. pro- 
noun, adverb, etc. As examples note πολλοί (Mk. 5:9), ὁμοία 
(Mt. 18 : 81), σωτήριος (Tit. 2:11), ἕτοιμα (Lu. 14:17), βαθύ (Jo. 
4:11), διδάσκων (Mt. 7:29). But adjectives are predicate with- 
out a copula, as in Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν (Mk. 10:18), ὁ ποιήσας με 
ὑγιῆ (Jo. 5:11; ef. 7: 23), ἀδάπανον θήσω τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (1 Cor. 9: 
18), μεγάλῃ τῇ φωνῇ (Ac. 26: 24), ἀπαράβατον ἔχει τὴν ἱερωσύνην 
(Heb. 7:24). τΟΥ ΜΠ ΒΥ ΠΝ ΚΟ ἡ Cone Poe 
examples of the verbal in —ros take παθητός (Ac. 26 : 23) and γνω- 
στόν (Ac. 4:10) with which last compare the attributive use in 
Ac. 4:16 γνωστὸν σημεῖον. Cf. Mk. 3:1. As further interesting 
examples of the predicate adjective, note ὅλος (Jo. 9:34), δόκιμοι 
φανῶμεν (2 Cor. 18 : 7), ὑγιής (Mt. 12 : 18), πρῶτος (Jo. 20 : 4), ἑδραῖος 
(1 Cor. 7:37), ὀρθός (Ac. 14:10), μόνος (Lu. 24:18; cf. Mt. 14: 
23), ete. Cf. ὅλον in Lu. 13:21. The distinction between the 
attributive adjective and the predicate adjective lies in just this, 
that the predicate presents an additional statement, is indeed the 
main point, while the attributive is an incidental description of 
the substantive about which the statement is made. Cf. Ac. 4: 10 
and 16 above for both uses of γνωστόν. Cf. ταύτας in Ac. 1:5. 

1 Cf. K.-G., I, pp. 268 ff. 2 Hom. Gr., p. 117. 


ADJECTIVES (’EMIOETA) 657 


This distinct predication! with the adjective in an oblique case is 
seen in τοῦτο ἀληθὲς εἴρηκας (Jo. 4:18) and is a classical idiom.? 
Note the use of πάντα as predicate for ὁ θεός in 1 Cor. 15: 28 as 
with Χριστός in Col. 38:11 for the totality of things. 

VII. Adjective Rather than Adverb. See ch. XII, rx, for dis- 
cussion of this subject. A few items are added here. Cf. πρῶτος 
Μωυσῆς λέγει (Ro. 10:19), ‘Moses is the first who says,’ with 
πρῶτον διαλλάγηθι τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου (Mt. 5 : 24), ‘Be reconciled with 
thy brother as the first thing that you do.’ In Mt. 10 : 2 πρῶτος 
Σίμων means that first in the list is Simon, whereas πρῶτον, in Jo. 
1:41, means that Andrew finds his brother Simon as the first 
thing which he does. Πρῶτον ἰχθύν (Mt. 17: 27) means the first 
fish that came up. Cf. ἐν ἐμοὶ πρώτῳ (1 Tim. 1:16), ‘me as chief.’ 
The exact idea of πρώτη in Lu. 2 : 2 is not certain, but most prob- 
ably Luke’s idea is that there were two enrolments under Cyrenius. 
Cf. Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? With μόνος and 
μόνον a like distinction is to be observed. Take ἀνεχώρησεν πάλιν 
eis TO ὄρος αὐτὸς μόνος (Jo. 6:15) and σὺ μόνος παροικεῖς ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ 
(Lu. 24:18). The difference is much like that between the Eng- 
lish “alone” and “only.” So in Lu. 9 : 96, εὑρέθη ᾿Ιησοῦς μόνος, 
‘Jesus was found alone,’ and in Mt. 17:8 (cf. Mk. 9: 8), οὐδένα 
εἶδον εἰ μὴ αὐτὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν μόνον, it is adjective, not adverb. Cf. 
σὺν eiut μόνος (Jo. 16 : 32) with od μόνον in Ac. 21:18. Cf. 2 Jo. 
1. Contrast μόνον in Mt. 8 : 8 with μόνος in Mt. 14:23. There are 
some examples where either adverb or adjective would make good 
sense,’ as in Mk. 6:8, μηδὲν εἰ μὴ ῥάβδον μόνον, where D reads μόνην; 
Ac. 11:19, μηδενὶ εἰ μὴ μόνον ᾿Ιουδαίοις, where D has μόνοις ; and 1 Jo. 
5:6, οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον, where B reads μόνῳ. But this is not all. 
The Greek often uses an adjective where other languages prefer 
adverbs or prepositional phrases. Latin and English have similar 
expressions for other ideas.t| Naturally this idiom is common in 
Homer.® For time note δευτεραῖοι ἤλθομεν (Ac. 28 : 13), ‘we came 
second-day men’ (‘on the second day’). Cf. τεταρταῖος Jo. 11: 
39. D has likewise πεμπταῖοι in Ac. 20:6. So γενόμεναι ὀρθριναὶ 
ἐπὶ τὸ μνημεῖον (Lu. 24:22), ἐπιστῇ ἐφνίδιος (Lu. 21:34), αὐθαίρετος 
(2 Cor. 8.: 17), ὀκταήμερος. (Ph. 3:5). 

VIII. The Personal Construction. This matter belongs more 
properly to indirect discourse and the participle, but it calls for 


1 Monro, ib., p. 119. 8 ΤΡ. 

2 Blass, Gr. of Ν. T. Gk., p. 141. 4 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 89. : 

5 Seymour, Hom. Lang. and Verse, p. 79. On the relation between adj. 
and adv. see Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 416 f.; Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 40 f. 


658 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


just a word here. The Greeks were more fond of the personal 
construction than we English are. Farrar! indeed doubts if Greek 
has a true impersonal verb. But éyevero in a passage like Lu. 1:8 
comes close to it. Cf. Lu. 1:23. We have fewer examples in the 
N. T. of the personal construction, none in truth with either δῆλος 
(1 Cor. 15 : 27 is impersonal construction) or with φανερός. But 
we do have φανερούμενοι ὅτι ἐστὲ ἐπιστολὴ Χριστοῦ (2 Cor. 3:3). 
Cf. Χριστὸς κηρύσσεται ὅτι in 1 Cor. 15:12. Note also ἄξιος ἵνα 
λύσω (Jo. 1:27), but the impersonal construction is found with 
δίκαιον in Ph. 1:7. See also ἱκανὸς ἵνα in Mt. 8:8. Δυνατός oc- 
curs with the infinitive (2 Tim. 1:12). This personal construction 
is probably due to assimilation of gender by analogy.” Cf. δοκεῖ 
σοφὸς εἶναι (1 Cor. 3:18), perfectly regular predicate nominative. 
See good example in 1 Cor. 15:9. 

Ix. Adjectives Used with Cases. Examples were given under 
the various oblique cases of adjectives that were construed with 
the several cases. A mere mention of the matter is all that is re- 
quired here. Thus the genitive appears with ἔνοχος θανάτου (Mt. 
26 : 66), the ablative with ξένοι τῶν διαθηκῶν (Eph. 2 : 12), the da- 
tive (Mt. 20: 1) and accusative with ὅμοιος υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου (Rev. 
14 : 14), the acc. with πιστὸς τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν (Heb. 2 : 17), the da- 
tive with ἔνοχος τῇ κρίσει (Mt. 5: 21) and καλόν σοί ἐστιν (Mt. 18: 
8), the instrumental with ἴσους ἡμῖν (Mt. 20 : 12), the locative with 
βραδεῖς τῇ καρδίᾳ (Lu. 24:25). Cf. locative in Col. 2:13f. The 
adjective is, of course, used with various prepositions, as τὸ ἀγαθὸν 
πρὸς πάντας (Gal. 6:10), πιστὸς ἐν ἐλαχίστῳ (Lu. 16:10), βραδὺς εἰς 
ὀργήν (Jas. 1:19). 

X. Adjectives with the Infinitive and Clauses. If cases can 
occur with adjectives, it is natural that the verbal substantive 
known as the infinitive should come within that idiom and be in 
a case. The case of the infinitive will vary with the adjective. 
Thus in ἄξιος κληθῆναι (Lu. 15: 19) the infinitive is probably in 
the genitive case. Cf. also ἄξιος ἵνα λύσω (Jo. 1: 27). With δυνατὰς 
κωλῦσαι (Ac. 11:17) we have the accusative of general reference. 
In the case of ἱκανὸς βαστάσαι (Mt. 3:11) we may see either the 
accusative of general reference, as above, or the dative, according 
to the original idea of the form and the common case with ἱκανός. 
Cf. also ἱκανὸς ἵνα εἰσέλθῃς (Mt. 8:8). The instances of both in- 
finitive and ἵνα are numerous in the N. T. As specimens of the 
infinitive and preposition after the adjective, take ταχὺς eis τὸ 
᾿ ἀκοῦσαι, βραδὺς eis τὸ λαλῆσαι (Jas. 1:19). Indeed the genitive 
1 Gk. Synt., p. 89. 2 Middleton, Anal. in Synt., p. 15. 


OO a ν΄“ 


ADJECTIVES (’EMIOETA) 659 


article τοῦ with the infinitive occurs with adjectives where it would 
not naturally be looked for, as in ἕτοιμοί ἐσμεν τοῦ ἀνελεῖν (Ac. 23: 15). 
Cf. ἕτοιμός εἰμι πορεύεσθαι (Lu. 22 : 33). But see further βραδεῖς τοῦ 
πιστεύειν (Lu. 24: 25). 

XI. The Adjective as Adverb. This subject has been treated 
in the chapter on the Cases as well as in the one on Adverbs. 
Hence a few words will suffice here. The border line between ad- 
jective in the nominative and adverb gets very dim sometimes. 
Thus in English we say “1 am well,’”’ ‘“‘He spoke well.”’ Farrar! 
even says that it is “‘more correct”’ to use an adverb than an ad- 
jective in a phrase like ἄσμενος buds εἶδον. But that is going too far 
even if we call it antimeria. He quotes Milton (Par. Lost, vii, 161), 
“‘Meanwhile inhabit lax,’’ and Shakespeare (Taming of Shrew, I, 
i, 89), ““Thou didst it excellent.”” We can see the difference be- 
tween ἀνάστηθι ὀρθός (Ac. 14:10) and ὀρθῶς ἔκρινας (Lu. 7 : 48). 
But, as already observed, the difference between μόνον and μόνῳ 
grows faint in 1 Jo. 5:6 and similar examples. Hence it becomes 
very easy for the adjective form in the accusative to be used 
indiscriminately as adverb where the adjective idea disappears. 
Thus only the context can tell whether μόνον is adjective (Jo. 
8 : 29) or adverb (Gal. 1 : 23). So as to μικρόν (Jo. 7: 33 and 16: 
19), πολὺ (Lu. 12:48 and Ro. 3:2), ὀλίγον (Mk. 1:19), ete. 
Πρῶτον, for instance, is very common as an adverb (cf. Mt. 7:5, 
and even τὸ πρῶτον is found, Jo. 10 : 40), but πρώτως occurs only 
once (Ac. 11:26). It is needless to multiply here examples like 
these. Other cases are used besides the accusative to make ad- 
verbs from adjectives, as the ablative in πρώτως above, the geni- 
tive as ὁμοῦ (Jo. 4:36), the associative-instrumental as δημοσίᾳ 
(Ac. 16:37). Cf. πολλῷ (Ro. 5:9). All degrees of comparison 
furnish adverbs, thus πολύ (Ro. 3:2; 2 Cor. 8: 22), πλέον (Jo. 21: 
15), μάλιστα (Ac. 20:38). The accusative singular of the com- 
parative is the common adverb of that degree as περισσότερον 
(Heb. 7:15), but see περισσοτέρως (2 Cor. 1:12). In the super- 
lative both the singular as πρῶτον (Lu. 6:42) and the plural as 
μάλιστα (above). These examples sufficiently illustrate the prin- 
ciples involved. 

XII. The Positive Adjective. 

(a) RELATIVE Contrast. In discussing the positive adjective 
first one must not get the idea that the positive was originally 
the absolute idea of the adjective as distinct from the compara- 
tive or superlative. This notion of absolute goodness or great- 

1 Gk. Synt., p. 90. 


660 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ness, etc., is itself later than the notion of comparison.! Indeed 
the adjective itself has a relative sense and suggests the opposite, 
as light implies darkness. And then many of the oldest com- 
parative forms have no positive at all and never did have, like 
ἀμφότερος, ἀριστερός, βέλτερος, δεύτερος, etc. More of this under the 
comparative. The point to get hold of just here is that the ad- 
jective per se (like many other words) implies contrast, and that 
originally this is what the comparative form meant. Thus in 
Homer some comparatives in —7epos have no notion of greater or 
less degree, the idea of duality, but merely contrast, like θηλυτέρα 
as opposed to male, ὀρέστερος as opposed to valley, ἀριστερός op- 
posed to right, δεξίτερος opposed to left, ἡμέτερος opposed to ὑμέτερος 
and vice versa.2 Cf. the comparative idea (and ablative case after) 
in τὸ περισσὸν τούτων (Mt. 5 : 37). 

(0) UsEpD AS COMPARATIVE OR SUPERLATIVE. With this no- 
tion of the relative contrast in the adjective and the first use of 
the comparative one is not surprised to find the positive still used 
alongside of the comparative. In Lu. 1 : 42, εὐλογημένη od ἐν γυ- 
ναιξίν, we do not have a mere Hebraism, though a very natural 
one in this translation from the Aramaic talk of Elizabeth. The 
Hebrew has no degrees of comparison at all and has to resort to 
circumlocutions.2? But Homer and other early Greek writers show 
a similar idiom, like δῖα θεάων, δῖα γυναικῶν (Kurip., Alc., 471).4 
Other examples occur in the N. T., like ἅγια ἁγίων (Heb. 9:2 f., 
frequent in the LX X), ποία ἐντολὴ μεγάλη ἐν τῷ νόμῳ (Mt. 22 : 36). 
Cf. βασιλεὺς βασιλέων (Rev. 19 : 16), κύριος τῶν κυριευόντων (1 Tim. 
6:15), τοῦ αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων (Eph. 3:21). The vernacular κοινή 
uses repetition of the adjective, as in μεγάλοι μεγάλοι, B.U. I, 229, 
μεγάλων καὶ μεγάλων ἀγαθῶν, Inscription of Thera (Herm. 1901, 
p. 445), θερμὰ θερμά, Herondas IV, 61. Cf. Radermacher, NV. 7. 
Gr., p. 57. The positive suggests contrast clearly in τῶν πολλῶν 
(Mt. 24:12). Cf. of πολλοῦ in Ro. 5: 15, 19; 1 Cor. 10:33. Here 
the majority is the idea, a comparative notion. Cf. Paul’s use of 
τοὺς πλείονας (1 Cor. 9:19) and Matthew’s ὁ πλεῖστος ὄχλος (21: 8). 
See also Mk. 12: 37 ὁ πολὺς ὄχλος and Lu. 7: 11 ὄχλος πολύς, and in 
2 Cor. 8:15 τὸ πολύ and τὸ ὀλίγον. Hence it is not surprising in 
Lu. 16:10 to see ἐν ἐλαχίστῳ and ἐν πολλῷ side by side (cf. ἐν ὀλίγῳ 
καὶ ἐν μεγάλῳ in Ac. 26:29), as in Mt. 5:19 also ἐλάχιστος and 


1 Cf. Schwab, Hist. Synt. d. griech. Comp., Heft i, 1893, p. 7 f. 
2 Seymour, Hom. Lang. and Verse, p. 60. Cf. K.-G., II, p. 21. 
2 C. and S., Sel. from LXX, p. 64. 

4 Schwab, Hist. Synt. d. griech. Comp., Heft i, p. 9. 


ADJECTIVES (’ENIOETA) 661 


μέγας are set over against each other. Cf. also Mt. 22:38. In 
Ac. 26 : 24, τὰ πολλὰ γράμματα, we have an implied comparison. ! 

(c) WirH Prepositions. The positive may be used with prep- 
ositions also where comparison is implied. Thus ἁμαρτωλοὶ παρὰ 
πάντας τοὺς Γαλιλαίους (Lu. 13:2). Winer? properly compares this 
idiom with the use-of ὡς in Heb. 3: 2, for in the next verse the 
author uses πλείονος δόξης as the sense of verse 2. But in the LX.X 
this is a very common idiom? and it is found in the classical Greek. 
The correct text in Lu. 18:14 (NBL) has also δεδικαιωμένος παρ᾽ 
ἐκεῖνον. Cf. ἄξια πρός in Ro. 8: 18. 

(d) Comparison Impirep By 7. Once more the positive may 
occur with 7. It is not necessary, in view of the preceding dis- 
cussion, to suggest the “‘omission”’ of μᾶλλον. It is true that we 
have only one such example in the N. T., καλόν σοί ἐστιν εἰσελθεῖν 
ἢ βληθῆναι (Mt. 18:8). Cf. Mk. 9:48, 45. But the LXX again 
furnishes many illustrations® like λευκοὶ 7 (Gen. 49:12). The ancient 
Greek also is not without parallels. And there are N. T. examples, 
as in LXX, of verbs so employed like θέλω ἤ (1 Cor. 14 : 19) and 
λυσιτελεῖ ἤ (Lu. 17:2) and substantives as χαρὰ ἔσται ἤ (Lu. 15: 
7). Older Greek writers show this idiom with substantives and 
verbs. In Mt. 18:8 we have the positive adjective both before 
and after 7 as κυλλόν ἢ χωλὸν. But cf. 2 Tim. 3:4 for compara- 
tive before and positive after. 

(6) In ABsoLUTE SENSE. After the three grades of comparison 
were once established, analogy worked to form and use positive, 
comparative and superlative. And sometimes the positive oc- 
curs in the absolute sense. So we find Christ discussing the ab- 
solute meaning of the positive ἀγαθός in Mt. 19 : 17 (Mk. 10 : 18). 
Thus it comes to pass that sometimes the positive is more abso- 
lute than comparative or superlative which are relative of neces- 
sity. God is alone ἀγαθός in this sense, while others are βελτίονες 
and βέλτιστοι. Our God, ὁ ἀγαθὸς θεός, is higher in ideal and fact 
than Jupiter Maximus or Ζεὺς ἄριστος ἠδὲ μέγιστος. Of καλός the 
opposite is οὐ καλός and this is not the positive attribute αἰσχρός. 
In Mt. 17:4 we find Peter saying fervently καλόν ἐστιν ἡμᾶς ὧδε 
εἶναι. ‘“‘The positive represents the highest absolute idea of a 
quality and cannot therefore be increased.’ ὃ 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 149. 

2 W.-Th., p. 240. $C. and S., p. 64. 

4 Though Blass does, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 143. 

5 C. and S., p. 64; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 143; W.-Th., p. 241. 

6 W.-Th., p.240f. 7 Schwab, Hist. Synt. etc., Heft i,p.9. 8 Ib., Ὁ. 19. 


662 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


XIII. The Comparative Adjective (συγκριτικὸν ὄνομα). 

(a) Conrrast oR Duauiry. On the forms see chapter VII, 1, 
3. As already observed, the first use of the comparative form 
was to express contrast or duality. This is clear in ἡ ἀριστερά 
(Mt. 6:3), though ἡ δεξιά occurs in the same verse. But Homer 
uses δεξίτερος as comparative. Cf. also ἀμφότερος, ἡμέτερος, ὑμέτε- 
pos, ἕτερος, ἑκάτερος, ὁπότερος, πότερος, Where the notion of two is 
accentuated. Contrast between two or duality, therefore, is clear 
in these pronouns. ‘They will receive separate treatment later. 
Here they are merely used to illustrate the origin of the compara- 
tive form. ἤλλλος (Latin alius) is also comparative,? *&d-tos. So 
is δεξ-ιός 5. which explains the disappearance of δεξίτερος. One of 
the comparative endings is —-vos. ‘This leads one to remark that 
the oldest comparative forms are not formed from positives as 
such, but from their own roots. Thus δεύτερος, which is obviously 
comparative and expresses duality, has no positive form. Cf. 
ἀμφότερος and the examples just mentioned.* This original com- 
parative need not be formed from an adjective at all, but from a 
substantive like βασιλεύτερος, κύντερος, etc., in Homer where the 
comparative expresses the possession of the quality ‘in contra- 
distinction to objects which are without it’? (Monro, Homeric Gr., 
p. 82). So πρότερος (from the adverb πρό) is not ‘more forward,’ 
but ‘forward’ in opposition to ὕστερος, ‘backward.’ Cf. Brugmann, 
Griech. Gr., ἡ. 415. Cf. ἐλεύθερος, ‘free to come.’ So ἐξώτερος 
is ‘outside,’ not ‘more outside.’ These oldest forms represent 
the original meaning which was not the comparison of greater 
or less, not a matter of degree, but a question of contrast or 
duality. So βέλτερος, ἀμείνων have no positive forms. There is 
indeed a distinct weakening of this original duality in adjectives 
as in pronouns.’ Cf. the dropping of the dual endings. Thus in 
the N.T. πρότερος as an adjective occurs only once, κατὰ τὴν προτέραν 
ἀναστροφήν (Eph. 4:22). It is rare in the papyri (Moulton, Prol., 
p. 79). Elsewhere πρῶτος holds the field when only two objects 
or persons are in view, like πρῶτός μου (Jo. 1:15), πρῶτος and 
ἄλλος (20 : 4), etc. Cf. our ‘first story’ when only two stories are 
contemplated, ‘first volume,’ etc. And as an adverb πρότερον sur- 
vives only ten times (cf. 2 Cor. 1:15), while πρῶτον is very com- 


1 Moulton, Prol., pp. 77 ff. 2 Brug., Grundr. vergl. Gr., II, i, p. 420. 
3 Ib. Transl. (Comp. Gr.), vol. II, p. 132. 

4 Schwab, Hist. Synt. d. griech. Comp., Heft i, p. 5. 

5 Ib., pp. 4 ff. 

§ Moulton, Prol., p. 77 f.; Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 439; 1908, Ὁ. 154. 


ADJECTIVES ( ἘΠΙΘΕΤΑ) 663 


mon. Luke does not use πρότερος (adjective or adverb) so that 
πρῶτος in Ac. 1:1 with λόγος does not imply rpiros. Moulton! 
finds πρότερος only once in the Grenfell-Hunt volumes of papyri so 
that this dual form vanishes before the superlative πρῶτος. Winer 
(Winer-Thayer, p. 244) sees this matter rightly and calls it a 
Latin point of view to insist on ‘‘former”’ and “latter’’ in Greek, 
a thing that the ancients did not do. 

(b) Dearer. The next step was for the notion of degree to 
come into the comparative. The notion of ‘‘two-ness”’ remained, 
but it had the added idea of more in degree. They run along 
then parallel with each other. The comparative form, therefore, 
has two ideas, that of contrast or duality (Gegensatz) and of the 
relative comparative (Steigerung), though the first was the origi- 
nal.2- Relative comparison is, of course, the dominant idea in 
most of the N. T. examples, though, as already remarked, the 
notion of duality always lies in the background. Thus ἀμεκτότερον 
ἔσται (Mt. 10:15), βεβαιότερον (2 Pet. 1:19), εἰς τὸ κρεῖσσον (1 Cor. 
11:17), σοφώτερον and ἰσχυρότερον (1 Cor. 1:25). 

(c) WITHOUT SUFFIXES. But the comparative did not always 
use the comparative suffixes, though this was usual. Sometimes 
μᾶλλον was employed with the positive, though this idiom is not 
very frequent in the N. T. Thus we find μᾶλλον with καλός (Mk. 
9 : 42), with μακάριον (Ac. 20:35), with ἀναγκαῖα (1 Cor. 12 : 22), 
with πολλά (Gal. 4:27). Once indeed (2 Tim. 8 : 4) μᾶλλον oc- 
curs with one adjective before 7 and not with the other after 7. 
The Greeks preferred to put both qualities in the comparative 
degree when two adjectives were compared. But here we have 
φιλήδονοι μᾶλλον ἢ φιλόθεοι. “In Jo. 3:19 μᾶλλον --- ἤ is used with 
two substantives” (H. Scott). In Phil. 16 we have a distinc- 
tion drawn between μάλιστα and μᾶλλον with ἀδελφὸν ἀγαπητόν. No 
example occurs in the N. T. of two comparatives with #, but in 
Ro. 9:12 we have ὁ μείζων δουλεύσει τῷ ἐλάσσονι and in Heb. 1:4, 
τοσούτῳ κρείττων γενόμενος ὅσῳ διαφορώτερον. 

(d) DouBLE CoMPARISON. Sometimes indeed μᾶλλον occurs 
with the comparative form itself. This applies to adjectives and 
adverbs. Thus μᾶλλον περισσότερον (Mk. 7: 36), περισσοτέρως μᾶλλον 
(2 Cor. 7:13). Cf. ἔτι μᾶλλον καὶ μᾶλλον (Ph. 1:9), περισσότερον 
ἔτι κατάδηλον (Heb. 7:15). Recall also the double comparative 
form like vernacular English ‘‘lesser,” μειζοτέραν (3 Jo. 4), and the 
comparative on the superlative ἐλαχιστότερος (Eph. 3:8. It oc- 


PU PTON, 6.70: 
2 Schwab, Hist. Synt. etc., Heft i, p. 21 f. 3 Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 42. 


664 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


curs in Test. xii, Pat. Jos. 17:8). All this is due to the fading 
of the force of the comparative suffix and the desire for em- 
phasis. Homer has χειρότερος, Aischylus μειζονώτερος and ὑπερτε- 
pwrepos, Nenophon ἐσχατώτερος, Aristophanes προτεραίτερος. Cf. 
Schwab, Hist. Syntax ete., Heft ii, p. 60. Modern Greek verna- 
cular has πλειότερος and χειρότερος. The papyri give illustrations 
like πρεσβυτερωτέρα (Moulton, Prol., p. 236). Cf. Latin double 
comparative dex-ter-ior, sinis-ter-ior. See list in Jannaris, Hist. 
Gk. Gr., Ὁ. 147. This double comparative is due to analogy and 
weakened sense of the form (Middleton, Analogy in Syntax, p. 38). 
Other means of strengthening the comparative were the accusa- 
tive adverb πολύ, as in Heb. 12:9, 25 (οἴ. 2 Cor. 8 : 22), and in 
particular the instrumental πολλῷ, as in Lu. 18:39. In 1 Cor. 
12 : 22 we have πολλῷ μᾶλλον over against ἀσθενέστερα. But in 
Ph. 1: 23 note πολλῷ μᾶλλον κρεῖσσον where all this emphasis is 
due to Paul’s struggling emotion. The ancient Greek used all 
these devices very often. Cf. Schwab, Hist. Syntax, etc., Heft 
111, pp. 59 ff. Blass (Gr. of N. T.Gk., p. 148) rightly observes that 
in 2 Cor. 12:9 ἥδιστα μᾶλλον are not to be taken together. The 
older Greek used also μέγα and μακρῷ to strengthen the comparison. 
Cf. Mayer, Verstdrkung, Umschreibung und Entwertung der Com- 
parationsgrade in der dlteren Grdcitdt, 1891, p. 16 f. 

(ὁ) WitHouT OBJECT OF COMPARISON. Sometimes the com- 
parative form is used absolutely. It is beside the mark to say 
with Clyde! that this idiom occurs ‘‘through politeness for the 
positive.” It is not used for the positive. It is true that no ob- 
ject of comparison is expressed, but that is because the context 
makes the point perfectly clear. In rapid familiar conversation 
this would often be true. Blass? also thinks that sometimes the 
comparative is no more than a positive. Winer? more justly holds 
that the point of comparison may ‘ordinarily be gathered from 
the context.” The point is always in the context. Thus ὃ ποιεῖς 
ποίησον τάχειον (Jo. 13:27) may mean more quickly than Judas 
would have done but for the exposure. Note that this is a con- 
versation and Judas would understand. In Heb. 13:19 περισσοτέ- 
pws and τάχειον correspond easily, and in verse 23, ἐὰν τάχειον ἔρχηται, 
perhaps it means ‘if he come before I leave.’ None of the examples 
of Blass are convincing, for πρεσβύτερος, though used of an official, 
is one who is older (elder) as compared with νεώτερος, and the bishop 
is not to be a neophyte (1 Tim. 3:6). The point, of course, lies 


1 Gk. Synt., p. 41. 
% Gr. of N. T. Gk p. 142. 8 W.-Th., p. 242. 


ADJECTIVES (’EIIIOETA) 665 


more in length of experience than of age. Deissmann (B. S., p. 
154 f.) finds in the papyri ὁ πρεσβύτερος ὁ κώμης, an official title. 
Pap. Lugd. A, 35f. (Ptol. Per.). In Ac. 17: 21 καινότερον means, 
of course, something newer than what they had recently heard. 
Socrates said to Hippocrates when he came in (Plato, Protagoras 
309 C): μή τι vewrepov ἀγγέλλεις; Then again, in Ac. 17: 22, δεισι- 
δαιμονεστέρους is more religious (or superstitious, as the case may be, 
a matter for exegesis. I prefer religious) than ordinary or than I 
had supposed. One does not need to deny the “elative’’ compara- 
tive sense of “‘very’’! here and elsewhere. The elative compa- 
rative is still comparative. But Blass? denies even the elative 
comparative in a number of these examples. This is to a certain 
extent to surrender to translation the true interpretation of the 
Greek idiom. In Ac. 18:26 ἀκριβέστερον ἐξέθεντο teaches that 
Apollos received more accurate information than he had previously 
had. Cf. ἐξετασθήσεται περὶ τούτου ἀκριβέστερον, B.U. 388 (ii/A.D.). 
Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 489. So in Ac. 24:22 ἀκριβέστερον 
εἰδώς means that Felix more accurately than one would suppose, 
and in verse 26 πυκνότερον shows that he sent for Paul more fre- 
quently than he had been doing before. Ac. 25 : 10 κάλλιον ἐπιγι- 
νώσκεις 1S an interesting example. Paul hints that Festus knows 
his innocence better than he is willing to admit. Cf. βέλτιον σὺ 
γινώσκεις (2 Tim. 1:18), ‘better than I.’ Βελτίων occurs in the papyri 
as adjective, though not in the N. T. Thus one could go through 
all the rather numerous examples of elative comparative adjectives 
and adverbs in the N.T. and show that with proper attention 
to the context the point: of comparison appears plainly enough. 
The comparative even without the expressed object of comparison 
is not just the positive. So in Ac. 27:13 ἄσσον παρελέγοντο clearly 
means ‘nearer than they could do before’ (cf. παραλεγόμενοι In Verse 
8). Again in Jo. 4:52 κομψότερον ἔσχεν (note the construction) is 
‘better than before the word of Christ was spoken.’ As further 
illustrations, not to overdo the point, note μᾶλλον in 2 Cor. 7:71 
(cf. Ph. 1 : 12), σπουδαϊότερος in 2 Cor. 8: 17 (cf. 2 Tim. 1:17) and 
σπουδαιοτέρως in Ph. 2 : 28 (cf. 1 Th. 2:17), τολμηροτέρως (Ro. 15: 
15), μείζονες (2 Pet. 2:11), κατώτερα in Eph. 4:9. The common 
expression οἱ πλείους (Ac. 19:32), and τοὺς πλείονας (1 Cor. 9 : 19) 
for ‘the majority’ should occasion no difficulty. In free trans- 
lation one may sometimes use ‘very’ or ‘rather,’ but this is 

1 Moulton, Prol., p. 236. He notes some “‘elative comparatives” in D, 


in Ac. 4:16 φανερότερον, 10 : 28 βέλτιον. 
5 Οτ' Οἱ Ν. .LaGk,, τ. 142. 


666 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 
merely the resultant idea. Cf. ἑτέροις λόγοις πλείοσιν (Ac. 2: 40). 
The older Greek shows this idiom.! 

(f) FoLLowED By 7 This ἤ is merely the πη ς conjunc- 
tion. But ἤ is not common in the N. T. in this connection. Indeed 
Blass? considers that it does not occur where any other construc- 
tion would be perfectly clear. As is well known in the ancient 
Greek, ἤ is not common after πλείων and ἐλάττων with numerals. 
This use of the comparative as a mere parenthesis is in the papyri. 
Cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 488. O.P. 274 (i/a.D.) πλείω πήχεις 
ἐννέα. Cf. Schwab, Hist. Syntax, Heft 1, pp. 84 ff. Cf. also 
ἐπάνω in Mk. 14:5 and 1 Cor. 15 : 6, where it has no effect on the 
construction. In Mt. 5:20 there is an ellipsis (πλεῖον τῶν Pap.), 
‘than that of the Pharisees.’ So in Mt. 26 : 53 πλείω δώδεκα λεγιῶ-- 
vas occurs with no change in the case of λεγιῶνας. In Ac. 4 : 22; 
23 : 18; 24:11 likewise 7 is absent without change of case. So in 
Ac. 25 : 6 οὐ πλείους ὀκτὼ ἢ δέκα, for 7 here does not go with πλείους. 
But in Lu. 9:18 we do find οὐκ εἰσὶν ἡμῖν πλεῖον ἢ ἄρτοι πέντε. 
And in 1 Tim. 5:9 the ablative construction occurs. In justifi- 
cation of Blass’ point? above, he points out that with two adjec- 
tives we have 7 (2 Tim. 8 : 4); with a conjunction, as ἔγγύτερον ἢ 
ὅτε (Ro. 15.: 11); with an infinitive, εὐκοπώτερον εἰσελθεῖν ἤ (εἰσελθεῖν 
to be repeated, Mt. 19:24. Cf. Ac. 20:35); with a genitive 
(same form as the ablative would be if ἤ were absent), like ὑμῶν 
ἀκούειν μᾶλλον ἢ τοῦ θεοῦ (Ac. 4:19); with a dative, like ἀνεκτότερον 
γῇ Σοδόμων ἢ τῇ πόλει ἐκείνῃ (Mt. 10:15). These are all pertinent 
and striking examples. There remain others (against Blass’ view) 
which are not so justified, like πλείονας μαθητὰς rove? ἢ ᾿Ιωάνης 
(Jo. 4:1), ἠγάπησαν μᾶλλον τὸ σκότος ἢ τὸ φῶς (Jo. 3:19), ete. 
But it remains true that 7 is becoming rare in this usage in the 
Need. 

(g) FoLLowED BY THE ABLATIVE. The ablative is the most 
common means of expressing the standard of the comparison: so 
we must take the case, and not as genitive. As remarked in the 
chapter on the cases, this ablative construction seems rather more 
common in the N. T. than in the papyri. It is found in Homer.‘ 
In the old Sanskrit the ablative was found with comparatives,® 
though occasionally the locative or the instrumental appeared. 


1 Schwab, Hist. Synt. etc., Heft ii, p. 178; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 148. 
2 (ἡ OM bss lene Lae 

8. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 316, sustains him. 

4 Monro, Hom., Gr., p. 109. 

6 Ziemer, Vergl. Synt. der Indoger. Comp., 1884, pp. 29 ff. 


= ὦ. «. — 


ADJECTIVES (’EIIIOETA) 667 


Indeed the various constructions after the comparative (particle 
like 7, case, preposition) occur in the other Indo-Germanic lan- 
guages.! Schwab? estimates that in Attic prose the ablative after 
the comparative stands in relation to 7 as 5.5 to 1 and in poetry 
18 to 1. Blass? thinks that in the κοινή the ablative is three times 
as common in this idiom as in Attic prose. So in the N. T. this 
is the usual construction after the comparative. As further ex- 
amples observe μείζων τούτων (Mk. 12 : 91), μείζων τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν 
(Jo. 4:12), πλέον τούτων (Jo. 21 : 15), σοφώτερον τῶν ἀνθρώπων 
{ΠΟΤ 15.990}. οἱ. Ὁ 1790. 8.: 20; Heb.7: 26... Sometimes the 
comparison is a little complicated, as in Mt. 5:20, ὑμῶν ἡ δικαιο- 
σύνη πλεῖον τῶν γραμματέων, Where ‘righteousness’ is dropped in the 
second member. Note πλεῖον as a fixed or stereotyped form.! Cf. 
also Jo.5:36. In Mt. 21:36, ἄλλους δούλους πλείονας τῶν πρώτων, 
note the use of comparative and superlative side by side. 

(h) FoLLOwED BY PREPOSITIONS. Prepositions occur not in- 
frequently after the comparative. We have already seen the 
positive so used with παρά, and πρός. Wellhausen? considers this 
positive use like the Aramaic. In the classical Greek we see begin- 
nings of this usage. In the modern Greek, the normal’ way of 
expressing comparison is to use ἀπό with the accusative and occa- 
sionally παρά with the nominative. The examples of the use of 
mapa are chiefly in Luke and Hebrews. Thus Lu. 3 : 18, μηδὲν πλέον 
παρὰ τὸ διατεταγμένον ὑμῖν; Heb. 1:4, διαφορώτερον παρ᾽ αὐτούς; 3 : ὦ, 
πλείονος δόξης παρὰ Μωυσῆν; 9 : 23, κρείττοσι θυσίαις παρὰ ταύτας. So 
Heb. 11:4; 12:24. Examples οἱ ὑπέρ in this sense occur likewise 
in Lu. 16:8, φρονιμώτεροι ὑπὲρ τοὺς υἱούς; Heb. 4 : 12, rouwrepos ὑπὲρ 
πᾶσαν μάχαιραν. In the LX X*® comparison was usually completed 
by means of παρά or ὑπέρ. ; 

(ὃ THE COMPARATIVE DISPLACING THE SUPERLATIVE. This 
increase of the comparative in contrast to the corresponding de- 
crease of the superlative is one of the most striking peculiarities of 
the adjective in the κοινή. Indeéd one may broadly say with Blass,® 
that in the κοινή vernacular the comparative with the article takes 


ΠΡ: 2 Hist. Synt. etc., Heft ii, p. 92. 

3 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 8329. The abl. is sometimes used with personal pro- 
nouns after the comp. in mod. Gk. (Thumb, p. 76). "4 Blass, ib., p. 108. 

5 Hinl. in die drei ersten Evang., p. 28. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 236. 

§ Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 108. 7’ Thumb, Handb., p. 75 f. 

8 C. and S., Sel., pp. 84ff. For various prepositions so used in older Gk. 
see Schwab., Hist. Synt., Heft i, pp. 48 ff. 

9 Hermeneutik und Kritik, p. 199. 


668 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


over the peculiar functions of the superlative. In the modern 
Greek vernacular the comparative with the definite article is the 
only idiom employed for the true superlative. The form in --τατος 
in modern Greek is rare and always elative. Moulton? finds the 
papyri supporting this disappearance of the superlative form be- 
fore the comparative to a certain extent. “It seems fair to con- 
clude that (1) the superlative, apart from its elative use, was 
dying, though not dead; (2) the comparative had only sporadically 
begun to be used in its place.”* He reminds us that the literary 
use had as much weight as the vulgar idiom. As a matter of fact 
the superlative form is not essentially necessary. The Armenian 
has no superlative and is like the vernacular modern Greek. The 
root-difference between the comparative and the superlative is that 
between ‘‘twoness”’ and “‘moreness.”’ As the notion of duality 
vanished or was no longer stressed, the need for a distinction be- 
tween the comparative and superlative vanished also. Both are 
in reality comparative in relation to the positive. In the N. T. 
therefore we see this blurring of distinction between comparative 
and superlative.’ Cf. 1 Cor. 19 : 15 μείζων δὲ τούτων ἡ ἀγάπη where 
three things are compared. In English we say ‘“‘ greatest of these.” 
Sir W. M. Ramsay gives πάντων μεῖζον in a Christian inscription.® 
In Mt. 18:1 we have τίς dpa μείζων, etc. Cf. Mk. 9:34. So in 
Mt. 11:11 (ef. Lu. 9 : 48) note ὁ δὲ μικρότερος (but note also μείζων 
αὐτοῦ). In Lu. 7:42 f., πλεῖον and τὸ πλεῖον do indeed refer to the 
two debtors (verse 41), though it is questionable if that fine point 
is here insisted on. But in 1 Cor. 12 : 23 the comparatives have 
their usual force. Moulton® cites from O.P. 716 (ii/A.D.) τὴν ἀμεί- 
vova αἵρεσιν διδόντι, ‘to the highest bidder.’ Winer’ indeed finds 
similar examples in Demosthenes and Athenagoras. Note the 
adverb ὕστερον πάντων (Mt. 22:27), obviously as superlative. So 
in 1 Tim. 4 : 1, ἐν ὑστέροις καιροῖς. In Eph. 4:9, τὰ κατώτερα μέρη is 
likewise in the superlative sense. The Epistle of Barnabas shows 
similar examples. Blass* reminds us that the Italian does not dis- 
tinguish between the comparative and the superlative. The mod- 
ern Greek to-day says ὁ σοφώτερος ἀπὸ ὅλους ‘the wisest of all.’9 

1 Thumb, Handb., p. 73. 

“ΤΟ. 18. 0} Rev., 1901, p. 489; 1904, p. 154. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. 


Gk., p. 33. 
3 Ib., Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 439. Cf. Schwab, Hist. Synt. ete., Heft ii, pp. 172, 


177. ‘1D erat 170} 
5 Cities and Bish. of Phrygia, II, p. 525. 
6° ProlA spades ΒΥ dol Nov be Ὁ Dee 


7 W.-Th., p. 242. 9. Jebb, V. and D.’s Handb., p. 309. 


ADJECTIVES (’EIIIOETA) 669 


Moulton! notes the fact that, while κρείττων and χείρων in the N. T. 
are strictly comparative, they have no superlative, but he notes 
(p. 236) that the papyri show χείριστος, as Tb.P. 72 (1.8.0). 

XIV. The Superlative Adjective (ὑπερθετικὸν ὄνομα). For 
the forms see chapter VII, 1, 3, (c). As already set forth, the 
superlative is moreness rather than twoness. 

(a) THE SUPERLATIVE VANISHING. As already remarked, the 
superlative forms are vanishing in the N. T. as in the κοινή gener- 
ally. Blass? observes that ἔσχατος and πρῶτος are the only excep- 
tions to this disappearing tendency. Under the weakening of 
dualism πρότερος goes down. Usually ἔσχατος refers to more than 
two, the last of a series or last of all, like ἐν ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ (Jo. 11: 
24), ἔσχατον" πάντων (1 Cor. 15:8). Sometimes first and last are 
contrasted, like ἡ ἐσχάτη πλάνη χείρων τῆς πρώτης (Mt. 27: 64). 
Note comparative also. Cf. Mt. 19:30. So ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος 
about Jesus (Rev. 1:17). In the LXX ἔσχατος occurs as com- 
parative (cf. in Deut. 24:3), and even as an adverb meaning 
‘after’ in Deut. 31:29. Cf. Thackeray, p. 184. Even more com- 
mon than ἔσχατος 18 πρῶτος. It is used in the usual sense often 
(Mk. 12 : 20), but is also common where only two are concerned 
(1 Cor. 15:45; Jo. 20:4) as already shown. Sometimes πρῶτος 
expresses mere rank as in Ac. 17:4. In Mt. 22 : 38 note ἡ μεγάλη 
καὶ mpwrn ἐντολή. Cf. πρώτη πάντων in Mk. 12 : 28 (note gender 
also).4 These are true superlatives. Sir W. M. Ramsay (Hxpos- 
itor, Nov., 1912) shows that πρὠτη in Lu. 2 : 2 is not in sense of 
πρότερος. It is first of a series of enrolments as we now know. But 
this proves nothing as to Ac. 1:1. Radermacher (N. 7’. Gr., p. 
60) quotes I Gr. XII, 5, 590, ἔφθασας ἀλάχου πρῶτος, where two are 
compared. 

(b) A Few TRUE SUPERLATIVES IN THE N. T. But a few other 
true superlatives survive in the N. T. Thus ὁ ἐλάχιστος in 1 Cor. 
15:9 is a true superlative, ‘the least.’ But it is elative in Lu. 
12:26. Cf. Mt. 2:6; 5:19. Moulton® finds ἐλάχιστος as a 
true superlative in a papyrus of second century B.c. Tb.P. 24. 
But there are very few true superlatives in the papyri.6 In Ac. 
17:15 ὡς τάχιστα is a true superlative. “Ὕψιστος is a true super- 


ΤΡ. Dieta. 2Gre OL NetleGk., p..14U1; 

3 On this word οἵ. Gonnet, Degrés de signif. en Grec et en Lat., 1876, p. 131. 

4 On πρῶτος in older Gk. for not more than two see Schwab, Hist. Synt. etc., 
Heft ii, p. 175. 5 Prol., p. 79. 

6 Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 439; 1904, p. 154. See τὴν ἐσομένην πλείστην τιμήν. Th.P. 
105 (ii/B.c.). 


670 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


lative both when applied to God, τοῦ ὑψίστου (Mk. 5:7), and the 
abode of God, ἐν τοῖς ὑψίστοις (Mt. 21:9). Some MSS. (D, etc., 
W. H. marg.) have ἔγγιστα in Mk. 6:36, which is a true super- 
lative. In Ac. 20:38 μάλιστα, ‘most of all,’ is probably a true 
superlative. In 1 Cor. 14: 27 τὸ πλεῖστον, ‘at the most,’ is a true 
superlative. In Mt. 11:20 αἱ πλεῖσται δυνάμεις we probably have 
the true superlative. Cf. τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ ὑμῶν πίστει (Ju. 20) and τὴν 
ἀκριβεστάτην αἵρεσιν (Ac. 26:5), true superlatives in —rtatos. In 
Rev. 18 : 12; 21:11 τιμιώτατος is probably elative. Cf. μονώτατος, 
1 Ki. 8:39. The list is indeed very small. 

(c) Tue Evative Suprruative. In the sense of ‘very’ or ‘ex- 
ceedingly’ it comprises the great majority of the superlative forms 
that survive in the N. T.! In the papyri the immense majority 
of superlative forms are elative. Cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, 
p. 439. Kpdaricros is elative always in the N. T. and is indeed 
merely a sort of title.2 So κράτιστε in Lu. 1:3. So ἥδιστα is only 
elative (2 Cor. 12:9, 15). Μέγιστος occurs only once (2 Pet. 1:4) 
and is elative, τὰ τίμια καὶ μέγιστα ἡμῖν ἐπαγγέλματα (permagnus, 
Blass). In Lu. 12 : 26 ἐλάχιστον is elative as also in 1 Cor. 4:3; 
6:2, while in Eph. 3:8 the comparative superlative ἐλαχιστό- 
repos is doubtful.* Πλεῖστος, generally elative in the papyri,‘ is 
so in Mk. 4:1, ὄχλος πλεῖστος. Μάλιστα occurs some 12 times and 
is usually elative, as in Ph. 4 : 22. 

(d) No DovusBLE SupERLATIVES. The scarcity of the superla- 
tive in the N. T. removes any ground for surprise that no double 
superlatives occur. In Eph. 3:8 ἐλαχιστοτέρῳ is indeed a super- 
lative strengthened by the comparative. In Gal. 6 : 10 the elative 
superlative μάλιστα occurs by way of repetition with 76 ἀγαθόν, as 
in Phil. 16 it does with ἀγαπητόν. Schwab® gives a considerable 
list of double or strengthened superlatives from classic writers, like 
πλεῖστον ἥδιστος (Kurip., Alc.), μέγιστον ἔχθιστος (Eurip., Med.), 
μάλιστα φίλτατος (EKurip., Hippol.), μάλιστα δεινότατος (Thuc.), ete. 
Cf. Latin minimissimus and English “most straitest sect,’’ ‘‘most 
unkindest cut of all,’’ ete. 

(6) Fottowrep By ABLATIVE. The superlative, like the com- 
parative, may be followed by the ablative.6 Thus with πρῶτον 
ὑμῶν (Jo. 15:18), πρῶτός μου (Jo. 1:15), and possibly in ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 33. Blass considers τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ (Ju. 20) 
elative. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 78. 

* Ib., p. 236. 5 Schwab, Hist. Synt. etc., Heft iii, pp. 70 ff. 

* Ib., p. 79: 6 Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., pp. 11 ff. 


ADJECTIVES (’ENIOETA) 671 


τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων (Heb. 1 : 2), though this passage may be merely 
the genitive. 

(f) No “Hesraistic” SUPERLATIVE. It is gratuitous to con- 
sider ἀστεῖος τῷ θεῷ (Ac. 7: 20) and similar passages superlatives. 

XV. Numerals. For the general discussion of the forms see 
chapter VII, m1. The ordinals are indeed adjectives, as are the 
first four cardinals and all after two hundred. The syntactical 
peculiarities of the numerals are not many. 

(a) Eis anp Πρῶτος. The use of εἷς rather than πρῶτος is one 
of the most striking points to observe. Before we can agree with 
Blass! that this is ‘undoubtedly a Hebrew idiom,” who follows 
Winer,” we must at least hear what Moulton? has to say in reply. 
To begin with, in modern Greek ‘‘the cardinals beyond 4 have 
ousted the ordinals entirely.””* Then we learn from the inscriptions 
that this usage of cardinals as ordinals is as old as the Byzantine 
Greek.® Moulton® also quotes from papyri of the second and third 
like μιᾷ καὶ εἰκάδι τοῦ μηνός in Haggai 2:1.’ The Germans, like the 
English, can say ‘‘page forty.”® In the N. T. we only find this sub- 
stitution of the cardinal in the case of εἷς, while in the modern 
Greek the matter has gone much further. In the classic Greek 
no real analogy exists, though εἷς stands in enumerations when 
δεύτερος or ἄλλος follows, and in compound numerals a closer par- 
allel is found, like εἷς καὶ τριακοστός, though even here the case is 
essentially different.® Cf. Latin wnus et vicésimus, ‘a case of the 
formation of the ordinal being imperfectly carried out.’’® Cer- 
tainly then it was possible for this development to have gone on 
apart from the Hebrew, especially when one considers that πρῶτος 
is not derived from εἷς, though Moulton” admits that the Hebrew 
has the same peculiarity. Moulton" further objects that if Semitic 
influence had been at work we should have had τῇ πέντε in the 
modern Greek, since the Hebrew used the later days of the month 
in cardinal numbers.” Still, the striking fact remains that in the 
LXX (cf. Numb. 1:1) and in the N.T. the first day of the month 
is expressed by pia, not by πρώτη. This was obviously in harmony 
with the κοινή of a later time, but the first evidence of its actual 


1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 144. 7 C. and S., Sel., p. 31. 

2 W.-Th., p. 248 f. 8 W.-Th., p. 249. 

$>Prol.;:p. 951. 9 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 144. 
imc rl numb, Handb., etc., p..$2.. 1° Prol., p..96. 

6 Dieterich, Unters. etc., p. 187 f. it ΤΌ: 

ΤΟΙ ΠΡ 90... 12 Blass, Gr. of Ν. Τ᾿. Gk., p. 144. 


672 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


use so far is in the LXX, and it is in exact imitation of the Hebrew 
idiom on the point. It is hard to resist the idea that the LXX at 
least is here influenced by the Hebrew. And, if so, then the N. T. 
naturally also. Later on we need not attribute the whole matter 
to the Hebrew influence. In the N.T. indeed we once have πρώτῃ 
σαββάτου (Mk. 16:9), which belongs to the disputed close of the 
Gospel.! Cf., on the other hand, εἰς μίαν σαββάτων (Mt. 28:1), 
πρωὶ [τῇ] μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων (Mk. 16:2), τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων (Lu. 
24:1; Jo. 20:1; Ac. 20:7); xara play σαββάτου (1 Cor. 2). 
There is nothing peculiar in the use of ἐνιαυτὸν καὶ μῆνας ἕξ (Ac. 
ΘΠ). Gis ΗΕ: 

(0) THe SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ‘TEENS.’ This began in the 
classical period as is seen in the Attic inscriptions.” Hence from 
the third century B.c. on we usually find “simplified ordinals from 
13th to 19th.”2 So we have τρισκαιδέκατος, τεσσαρεσκαιδέκατος, etc. 
So the papyri‘* usually have δέκα τρεῖς, δέκα ἕξ, and even δέκα δύο 
rather more® frequently than δώδεκα. Cf. τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτη in Ac. 
27:27, 33. Hence καί is not always inserted when the smaller 
number precedes and ‘omitted’? when the larger comes first. It 
was never a uniform custom (Winer-Thayer, p. 250), least of all 
in the N.T. Cf. Gal.3:17, ete. But three numerals may ap- 
pear without καί, as in ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα τριῶν (Jo. 21:11). Cf. 
Rev. 7:4; 14:3; 21:17. See further chapter VII, 111, 2, (6). 

(c) THe IncLustvE OrpinaL. Cf. αὐτὸς τρίτος, ‘he and two 
others.’ It has one illustration in the N.T., ὄγδοον Νῶε (2 Pet. 
2:5), ‘Noah and seven others’ or ‘Noah an eighth.’ The idiom 
is classical enough, though the ancient writers usually had αὐτός 
also.6 Moulton’ finds one parallel in the papyri, τρίτος ὧν in 
P.P. iii. 28, though the literary κοινή writers (Plutarch, Appian) 
use it. Moulton expresses no surprise at this idiom in 2 Peter 
where “we rather expect bookish phrases.’”’ He comments also 
on the “translation English” in the Authorized Version’s render- 
ing “Noah the eighth person,” and uses it as an illuStration of 
the way that the LX X often rendered the Hebrew, though un- 
like the misprint “strain at a gnat,’” it did not gain currency 
in English. 

1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 144, remarks that Eusebius quotes the verse 
as τῇ μιᾷ. 

2 Meisterh., Att. Inscr., p. 160. 3 Moulton, Prol., p. 96. 

4 Ib. Δέκα occupies first place from thirteen upwards, but with ordinals the 
reverse is true. 


ὅ Like the LXX. C. and §&., Ὁ. 30. 
6 W.-Th., p. 249. : 7 Prol., pp. 98, 107. 


ADJECTIVES ( ἘΠΙΘΕΤΑ) 673 


(d) Tue Distrisutives. There is no trouble over the classic 
use of ava (Mt. 20 : 9) and κατά (Mk. 6 : 40) in this sense. We have 
already (chapter XIII, ava and xara) discussed ἀνὰ εἷς (Rev. 21: 21) 
and καθ᾽ εἷς (Ro. 12:5). The point here that calls for comment 
is whether δύο δύο in Mk. 6 : 715 a Hebraism. Cf. ἀνὰ δύο [δύο] 
in Lu. 10:1. Winer! termed it “properly Hebraistic,” while 
Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 145) more guardedly described it as 
“after the Semitic and more colloquial manner.”’ The repetition 
of the numeral is a Hebrew way of expressing the distributive 
idea. Cf.in the N. T. also συμπόσια συμπόσια (Mk. 6 : 39), πρασιαὶ 
πρασιαί (verse 40). Moulton? cites also decuds δεσμάς, as the read- 
ing of Epiphanius for Mt. 13:30. But Winer’ had himself cited 
Atschylus, Persae, 981, μυρία μυρία, and Blass* compares in Eris, 
the lost drama of Sophocles, μίαν μίαν. The Atticists had cen- 
sured this as ‘‘colloquial,’’ but at any rate ‘it was not merely a 
creation of Jewish Greek.’ Deissmann® besides quotes τρία τρία 
from the Oxy. Papyri. W. F. Moulton® had already called atten- 
tion to the fact that modern Greek shows the same usage. Hence 
. we must conclude, with Moulton’ and Thumb,’ that the κοινή de- 
velopment was independent of the Hebrew. Moulton® comments 
also on the reading of B in Lu. 10:1, ἀνὰ δύο δύο, and notes how 
in the papyri μεγάλου peyadou=the elative superlative μεγίστου. 
See also xara δύο δύο in P. Oxy. 886 (iii/A.D.). 

For the proportionals the N. T. has only --πλασίων, not the 
classic -πλάσιος. Cf. ἑκατονταπλασίων, Mk. 10 : 90 and Mt. 19 : 29 
NCDX; πολλαπλασίων, Lu. 18:30 and Mt. 19:29 BL. Cf. 
Blass-Debrunner, p. 38. 

(ὁ THe CARDINAL Era. With ἑβδομηκοντάκις ἑπτά (Mt. 18 : 22) 
rather than ἑπτάκις D the rendering ‘until seventy times seven’ is 
certainly possible in itself and follows literally the Greek words. 
The identical expression (ἑβδομηκοντάκις ἑπτά) occurs in Gen. 4 : 24 
(where the Revised Version renders it ‘seventy and seven fold’) 
and in Test. xii, Pat. Ben. 7:4. The margin of the Revised 
Version for Mt. 18 : 22 gives “‘seventy times and seven” which 

1 W-M., p. 312. 

2 Prol., p. 97. 4 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 330. 

3 W.-Th., p. 249; W.-M., p. 812. ὅ Theol. Literaturzeit., 1898, p. 631. 

6 W.-M., p. 312 note. Cf. Jebb in V. and D.’s Handb., p. 310. Rader- 
macher (N. T. Gr., p. 57) cites σφόδρα σφόδρα from the LXX and εὐθὺς εὐθύς 
from the Byz. Gk. 

ΠΡΟ ΠΡ 5.97. 8 Hellen., p. 128. 

9 Prol., p. 97. Blass, Gr. of Ν. T. Gk., p. 330, cites from Gosp. of Pet. 35, 


ἀνὰ δύο δύο. 


674 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Winer! interprets as ‘‘seventy-seven times.’ Moulton? considers 
rightly that the passage in Genesis settles the usage in Matthew 
to which an allusion may be made. He cites a possible parallel 
from the Iliad, xxii, 349, δεκάκις[τε] καὶ Feixoor. 

(f) SUBSTANTIVE NoT EXPRESSED. Sometimes with numerals 
the substantive for money is not expressed. Thus ἀργυρίου μυριάδας 
πέντε (Ac. 19:19), but in Mt. 26:16 note ἀργύρια. The use of 
τρίτον τοῦτο (2 Cor. 13:1) is merely an instance of the adjective 
used absolutely without a substantive. Cf. the neuter τὸ δεύτερον 
(2, Cor. ΘΝ 

(g) ADVERBS wiTH NuMERALS. They have no effect on the 
construction. Thus πραθῆναι ἐπάνω τριακοσίων δηναρίων (Mk. 14 : δ), 
ὥφθη ἐπάνω πεντακοσίοις ἀδελφοῖς (1 Cor. 15:6), ws δισχίλιοι (Mk. 
δ: 18), ὡσεὶ πεντακισχίλιοι (Mt. 14 : 21), ἑκατονταετής που (Ro. 4 : 19). 
In the case of ὡς and ὡσεί we really have conjunctions.? In ἕως 
ἑπτάκις (Mt. 18:21) we have, of course, the preposition. Cf. 
Winer-Moulton, p. 318, for classical parallels with ἔλαττον, πλέον, 
eis, ἐν, περί, ὑπέρ, μέχρι. 

(h) Kis as INDEFINITE ARTICLE. The Greek, as a rule, had . 
no indefinite article. The older Greek did occasionally use τις 
with no more apparent force than an indefinite article, but usually 
nothing was used for that idea in Greek. Still in Aristophanes 
(Av. 1292) Moulton‘ rightly sees εἷς κάπηλος, as an example of the 
later κοινή idiom. Aristophanes indeed preserves much of the 
colloquial speech. In the modern Greek ἕνας may be used.® Eis 
became naturally more popular than zis since it has all three 
genders. Moulton’ finds numerous papyri illustrations. The 
modern languages have followed the Greek model here, for the 
English an (Scottish ane) is really one, like the German ein and 
the French un. It is therefore hardly necessary to fall back on the 
Hebrew precedent® in the use of πιὰ, though it here coincided 
with the κοινή idiom. Hence N. T. usage on this point is in full 
accord with the development of the Greek. Cf. εἷς γραμματεύς 
(Mt. 8:19), μία παιδίσκη (26:69), μία χήρα πτωχή (Mk. 12:42), εἷς 
ὀφειλέτης (Mt. 18 : 24), ete. In Jo. 6:9 some MSS. have ἕν with 
παιδάριον, but the sense is not materially altered either way. Cf. 
ἤκουσα ἑνὸς ἀετοῦ (Rev. 8:18), ἰδὼν συκῆν μίαν (Mt. 21:19), ete. 


1 W.-Th., p. 251. 45Prohyn.0 7s 
2 Prol., p. 98. Cf. W.-M., p. 314. 5 Thumb, Handb., p. 81. 
8 Cf. Green, Handb., etc., p. 276. 6 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 170. 


7 Prol., p. 97. Cf. Wellhausen, Einl., p. 27. 
8 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 144. 


Yi ὩΣ 


ADJECTIVES (‘EIIOETA) 675 


Moulton! properly criticizes Meyer on Mt. 8: 19 for his “ exegeti- 
cal subtleties” in denying this idiom for εἷς in the N. T. 

(ὃ Εἷς -- Τις. Sometimes indeed εἷς stands alone with prac- 
tically the same sense as τις, as in Mt. 19:16; Mk. 10:17, though 
in the parallel passage (Lu. 18:18) τις ἄρχων occurs. The use of εἷς 
with genitive (or ablative), like ἑνὲ τῶν πολιτῶν (Lu. 18 : 15), ἐν μιᾷ 
τῶν ἡμερῶν (Lu. 8: 22), or the ablative, like εἷς ἐξ ὑμῶν (Jo. 13:21), 
is, of course, merely the same idiom expanded. Cf. εἷς τις, Lu. 
22:50; Jo. 11:49. In Mk. 14:10, ὁ εἷς τῶν δώδεκα, the article at 
first looks incongruous, ‘the one of the twelve,’ but the early 
papyri give illustrations of this usage also2 It is as a pronoun 
that εἷς is to be construed here and in the rather frequent alterna- 
tive expressions εἷς — εἷς (Mt. 24 : 40), μία — μία (verse 41), τὸν ἕνα 
— τὸν ἕτερον (Mt. 6 : 24), ἑνὸς --- τοῦ ἑτέρου (ib.), ets — τοῦ ἑνός (1 Cor. 
4:6). Cf. εἷς καὶ εἷς (Mt. 27: 38) and the reciprocal use in 1 Th. 
5:11. Cf. els &acros, Mt. 26: 22. 

(j) THe DistrRiBuTIVE [1585 or Eis. So ἕν καθ᾽ ἕν in Rev. 4:8 
and the “barbaric” (Winer-Schmiedel, p. 247) εἷς κατὰ εἷς (Mk. 
14 : 19), τὸ καθ᾽ εἷς (Ro. 12 : 5), ἀνὰ εἷς ἕκαστος (Rev. 21:21). This 
“barbaric” idiom came to be very common in the later Greek. 
Cf. modern Greek κάθε, καθένας = ἕκαστος. The free adverbial use 
of prepositions like ἕως, ἀνά, παρά, κατά is copiously illustrated in 
Winer-Schmiedel, p. 247, from the LX-X and the late Greek writers. 
For the use of οὐδείς, οὐθείς, μηδείς, μηθείς see next chapter on Pro- 
nouns. Cf. also there od — πᾶς and πᾶς — οὐ. | 


1 Prol., p. 95. 2 Ib. 


CHAPTER XV 
PRONOUNS (’ANTQNYMIAI) 


For the antiquity and history of pronouns see Iv in chapter 
VII (Declensions). We are here concerned, not with the form, 
but with the use of pronouns.! As a matter of fact all pronouns 
fall into two classes, Deictic (δεικτικαί) and Anaphoric (ἀναφορικαί). 
They either “point out” or they ‘“‘refer to” a substantive. So we 
get the modern terms, demonstrative and relative (cf. Monro, 
Homeric Gr., p. 168 f.). But some pronouns may be demon- 
strative or relative according to the context. The demonstrative 
or deictic was the original usage. For practical purposes we have 
to follow a more minute division. 

I. Personal Pronouns (πρωτότυποι ἢ προσωπικαὶ dvTovuptar). 
The personal pronouns (first and second persons) are deictic (I, 
thou). The reason for the use of pronouns, as already explained, 
was to avoid the repetition of the substantive. In Jo. 11:22 note 
the repetition of θεός. Cf. also Lu. 6:45. 

(a) THe Nominative. As already explained, the verb uses the 
personal pronoun as personal suffixes, so that as a rule no need 
was felt for the separate expression of the pronoun in the nom- 
inative. All verbs had the personal endings like εἰ-μί, ἐσ-σί, ἐσ-τί. 
The use of the personal pronoun in addition to the personal end- 
ing of the verb was due to desire for emphasis. Then the sepa- 
rate expression of the pronoun led to the gradual sloughing off 
of the personal ending. In modern English this process is nearly 
complete. In Greek this process was arrested, though in modern 
Greek all verbs save εἶμαι are—w verbs. In most cases, therefore, 
in Greek the existence of the personal pronoun in the nominative 
implies some emphasis or contrast. But this is not quite true of 
all examples. ‘‘The emphasis of the first and second persons is 
not to be insisted on too much in poetry or in familiar prose. 


1 Cf. Schoemann, Die Lehre von den Redet. nach den Alten, p. 95: “Die 
Nomina benennen die Dinge nach ihren Qualititen, die Pronomina bezeichnen 
sie nach ihren Verhaltnissen.” 

« 676 


PRONOUNS (’ANTQNYMIAI) 677 


Notice the frequency of éy@da, éy@uar.’’! In conversation it was 
particularly common to have the personal pronoun in the nomina- 
tive. In the later Greek generally the personal pronouns show 
a weakening of force,? but never to the actual obliteration of 
emphasis, not even in the modern Greek. Moulton‘ agrees with 
Ebeling® that there was “no necessary emphasis in the Platonic 
ἦν δ᾽ ἔγώ, ἔφην ἔγώ, ws σὺ φής." Clearly then the frequency of the 
pronoun in the N. T. is not to be attributed to the Semitic influ- 
ence. Even Conybeare and Stock® see that it is not necessary to 
appeal to the well-known Hebrew fondness for pronouns for this 
usage. But Blass’ thinks that some of the MS. variations may 
be due to Semitic influence. We are free therefore to approach 
the N. T. examples on their merits. 

1. The First Person, ἔγὠ and ἡμεῖς. It is easy to find in the N.T. 
numerous examples where éyw shows contrast. So ἐγὼ χρείαν 
ἔχω ὑπὸ σοῦ βαπτισθῆναι (Mt. 3:14), ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω (5 : 22), yw σε 
ἐδόξασα (4ο. 17: 4). Cf. ἔγώ and σύ in Jo. 17: 23. The amount of 
emphasis will vary very greatly according to circumstances and 
may sometimes vanish entirely so far as we can determine. Differ- 
ent shades of meaning appear also as in ὑπὲρ οὗ ἔγὼ εἶπον (Jo. 1: 30), 
‘I, myself.’ Cf. κἀγὼ οὐκ ἤδειν αὐτόν (Jo. 1: 83) and κἀγὼ ἑώρακα 
Kal μεμαρτύρηκα (verse 34) and note absence with second verb. Cf. 
Jo. 6:48; 16:33; 1 Cor. 2:1, 8. Note absence of ἐγώ in Mt. 
5:18, 20, λέγω ὑμῖν. Cf. also ris ἀσθενεῖ καὶ οὐκ ἀσθενῶ; (2 Cor. 
11 : 29) with ris σκανδαλίζεται καὶ οὐκ ἔγὼ πυροῦμαι; (1b.) as proof that 
the point must not be pressed too far in either direction.? Further 
examples of éyw may be seen in Ro. 7:17; Jo. 5:31, 34; 10:30; Eph. 
5:32; Ph.4:11. For the plural ἡμεῖς see ἡμεῖς προσκυνοῦμεν (Jo. 
4 : 22) in opposition to ὑμεῖς, but then follows merely ὃ οἴδαμεν. So 
in Ac. 4: 20 note οὐ δυνάμεθα ἡμεῖς ἃ εἴδαμεν and τί καὶ ἡμεῖς κινδυ- 
νεύομεν; (1 Cor. 15:30). Cf. Mt. 6:12. The “editorial” ‘we’ has 
already received discussion (cf. The Sentence) and may be merely 
illustrated here. Blass! considersita “wide-spread tendency among 
Greek writers, when they speak of themselves to say ἡμεῖς instead 


1 Gildersleeve, Synt. of Cl. Gk., part i, p. 35. 


2 Jann., Hist? Gk. Gr., p. 348. 5 Gildersleeve Studies, p. 240. 
3 Thumb, Handb., etc., p. 59 f. 6. Sel. from the LXX, p. 65. 
4 Prol., p. 85. ΝΠ D. 510: 


8 In general the N. T. follows the classic idiom. W.-Sch., p. 194. 

9 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 194. 

10 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 166. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 86 f., who leaves the 
matter to the exegete. 


678 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 
of ἐγώ." This is not always true in Paul’s Epistles (Ro. 1: 5), for 
sometimes he associates others with him in the address at the 
beginning. There are undoubted examples in the N. T. like οἷοί 
ἐσμεν (2 Cor. 10:11), πειθόμεθα (Heb. 18 : 18), γράφομεν (1 Jo. 1: 4). 
But sometimes the plural merely associates the readers or hearers 
with the writer or speaker. So ἐφορέσαμεν (1 Cor. 15 : 49), ὁμοιώσω- 
μεν (Mk. 4:30). Sometimes the first person singular is used in a 
representative manner as one of a class (cf. the representative 
article like ὁ ἀγαθός). Blass! does not find this idiom so common in 
Greek as in other languages, but it occurs in Demosthenes and 
certainly in Paul. So τί ἔτι κἀγὼ ὡς ἁμαρτωλὸς κρίνομαι; (Ro. 8 : 7). 
Cf. in next verse βλασφημούμεθα. See 1 Cor. 10:30; Gal. 2:18. 
In Ro. 7: 7-25 special difficulties occur. 

2. The Second Person, σὺ and ὑμεῖς. Thus in Jo. 17:5 note the 
contrast in we σύ. Cf. Jo. 1:42 od εἶ Σίμων ---- od κληθήσῃ, 2:10 od 
τετήρηκας, 4:9 πῶς σὺ ᾿Ιουδαῖος, 4:10 σὺ ἂν ἤτησας, Ro. 2:3 ὅτι σὺ 
ἐκφεύξῃ, Lu. 1:76 καὶ σὺ δέ, etc. Cf. also Mt. 27:11. Sometimes 
ov has a very emphatic position, as in σὺ τίς εἶ (Ro. 9 : 20; 14: 4). 
In 1 Cor. 15 : 36, ἄφρων, σὺ ὃ σπείρεις, it is possible,? though not 
necessary, to take σύ with ἄφρων (cf. Ac. 1:24). In καὶ σὺ ἐξ αὐτῶν 
εἶ (Lu. 22 : 58) one is reminded of the Latin Hé tu, Brute. See 
Lu. 10:15; Ac. 23:3; ἢ καὶ σὺ τί ἐξουθενεῖς (Ro. 14:10). As ex- 
amples of the plural take ἔσεσθε ὑμεῖς (Mt. 5 : 48), δότε αὐτοῖς ὑμεῖς 
φαγεῖν (Mk. 6:37). See ἐκεῖνος and ὑμεῖς contrasted in Jo. 5: 38; 
ὑμεῖς in verse 89 and also in 44f. Cf. Ac. 4:7; Lu. 10: 24, and 
in particular ὑμεῖς ὄψεσθε (Mt. 27: 24). For ὑμεῖς and ἡμεῖς con- 
trasted see Jo. 4:22. In Jo. 4:35, οὐχ ὑμεῖς λέγετε, we have the 
same inclusive use of the second person that we noticed in the first. 
In Ro. 2: 3,17, the second person singular occurs in the same repre- 
sentative sense that the first has also. Cf. also Ro. 9: 20; 11:17, ete. 
In Jo. 3:10, σὺ εἶ ὁ διδάσκαλος, we have a case of distributed em- 
phasis. Cf. also Mt. 16:16; Jo. 9:34; 2 Cor. 1 : 23, as examples 
of this sustained emphasis, where the emphasis of the pronoun 
passes on to the remainder of the sentence and contributes point 
and force to the whole. On the whole the Greek language has 
freedom in the construction of the pronouns. Moulton raises® the 
question if in od εἶπας (Mt. 26 : 64), σὺ λέγεις (27: 11), ὑμεῖς λέγετε 
(Lu. 22:70), we do not have the equivalent of ‘That is right,’ 


ΤΟ ΟΝ Leak pers bo 2 W.-Sch., p. 195. 

3 Renaud, The Distributed Emphasis of the Pers. Pron., 1884. 
4 Bernhardy, Wissensch. Synt. der griech. Spr., 1829, p. 45. 

5 Prol., p. 86. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTONTMIAI) 679 


but πλήν (Thayer) is against it in Mt. 26:64. Σύ occurs in John 
more frequently than in all the Synoptics put together (Abbott, 
Johannine Gr., p. 297). 

3. The Third Person. It has had a more radical development 
or lack of development. As a matter of fact the Greek had and 
has no definite third personal pronoun for the nominative like 
ἐγώ and ot. No nominative was used for οὗ, οἷ, etc., and this pro- 
noun was originally reflexive. Besides it is not used in the N. T., 
though literary κοινή writers like Aristides, Arrian, Lucian, Polyb- 
ius use it.! Where another pronoun was desired for the third 
person besides that in the personal ending, various devices were 
used. The Attic writers usually employed a demonstrative (ὁ δέ, 
ὁ μέν, οὗτος, ἐκεῖνος, ὃς δέ, ὅδε, etc.). The N. T. shows examples of 
all these constructions which will be illustrated in the discussion 
of the demonstrative pronouns. But the N. T. uses also αὐτός as 
the subject, an idiom foreign to Attic writers, but found already in 
Homer? and common in the modern Greek, where indeed it has 
come to be itself a demonstrative. Simcox‘ rightly remarks that 
the main point to observe is not whether it has emphasis, but its 
appearance at all as the mere subject. All the personal pronouns 
in the nominative have more or less emphasis. The use of αὐτός 
in contrast with other persons is natural like αὐτὸς καὶ of per’ 
αὐτοῦ (Mk. 2:25). We are not here considering the intensive use 
of αὐτός as ‘self’ nor the use of ὁ αὐτός ‘the same.’ There is"no dis- 
pute as to use of αὐτός as emphatic ‘he’ in the N. T. like the Pytho- 
gorean® (Doric) αὐτὸς 6a. .So Ac. 20 : 85 αὐτὸς εἶπεν, as much as 
to say ‘The Master said.’ Cf. the way in which some wives refer 
systematically to their husbands as “He.” Other undoubted 
examples are αὐτὸς yap σώσει τὸν λαόν (Mt. 1:21). Here the em- 
phasis is so clear that the Revised Version renders:.“ For he it is 
that shall save.’ In Mt. 12 : 80 αὐτός μου ἀδελφός is resumptive, 
gathering up ὅστις, and is distinctly emphatic. Cf. likewise αὐτὸς 
βαπτίσει, referring to ὁ ἐρχόμενος in Mt. 8 : 11; ὁ τηρῶν --- καὶ αὐτός, 
1 Jo. 8:24; ὃν ἂν φιλήσω αὐτός ἐστιν, Mk. 14:44. Strong emphasis 
also appears in examples like καὶ αὐτὸς ἔστιν πρὸ πάντων (Col. 1:17). 
In Mt. 8 : 24 αὐτὸς δὲ and Mk. 4:38 καὶ αὐτός Jesus is the chief 
person in the story and the pronoun has emphasis. Cf. likewise 
Lu. 1:16, 17; 24:21; Mt. 16:20. In Lu. 19:2 W.H. and Nestle 


1 W.-Sch., p. 191. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 164. 
3 Thumb, Handb., p. 90. 

4 Lang. of the N. T., p. 60. Cf. C. and S., Sel. from LXX, p. 29. 
5 Prol., p. 86. 


680 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


follow B in reading καὶ αὐτός twice. Some emphasis is present 
both times. In Ac. 7:21 (Rec.) the pronoun αὐτόν appears three 
times. As regards καὶ αὐτή, the editors differ between this accent 
and “καὶ airy in Lu. 7:12; 8:42; 1 Cor. 7:12; Ro. 7:10. In 
Lu. 2: 37; Ro. 16: 2, Nestle agrees with W. H. in καὶ αὐτή. But 
in Lu. 2: 37 αὐτὴ χήρα may be a ‘widow by herself.’! There is 
no real reason for objecting to the feminine use of this idiom. 
The plural αὐτοί appears in Mk. 7: 36; Lu. 2:50; 9:36. The 
only remaining question is whether αὐτός occurs in the nominative 
free from any emphasis just like the personal ending in a word. 
It is in Luke’s Gospel and the Apocalypse? that such instances 
occur. It is not a question whether αὐτός is so used in ancient 
Greek. Winer? denies that any decisive passages have been 
adduced in the N. T. of such unemphatic use. Certainly the 
matter is one of tone and subjective impression to a large ex- 
tent. And yet some examples do occur where emphasis is not 
easily discernible and even where emphasis would throw the 
sentence out of relation with the context. What emphasis exists 
must. be very slight. Cf. Lu. 1:22; 2:50; 6:8; 8:1, 22; 15: 14; 
24:14, 25, 31; Rev. 14: 10; 19:15. Thus we see all grades of 
emphasis. Abbott‘ holds that in John αὐτός never means ‘he,’ 
either emphatic or unemphatic, but always ‘himself.’ But in 
Jo. 2:12 (αὐτὸς καὶ ἡ μητὴρ αὐτοῦ) there is little difference between 
the emphatic ‘he’ and ‘himself.’ Cf. also 18:1. But the inten- 
sive idea is clear in Jo. 4:2, 12. In 4:53 it might be either way. 
In the LXX we find αὐτός sometimes. unemphatic. Cf. Gen. 3 : 
15 fe  Θ τὴν τ ΡΠ θὲ. 

(ὁ) THE OBLIQUE CASES OF THE PERSONAL PRONOUNS. 

1. Originally Reflexive. In pre-Homeric times the pronominal 
stem was reflexive® The reflexive form, as distinct from the per- 
sonal pronoun, was a later development. The personal pronouns 
may be reflexive in Hesiod, the Homeric Hymns, Pindar and the 
other Lyric poets.6 Indeed, the early Attic inscriptions’ show the | 
same thing, not to mention the Dramatic poets and Herodotus.® 
It was only gradually that the distinctively reflexive form came 
into common use in the Attic prose, first for the third person, and 


1 W.-Sch., p. 195; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 164. 

2 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 61. . 

3 W.-M., p. 187. 4 Joh. Gri, p. 279. 

5 Dyroff, Gesch. des Pron. Reflex., 1. Abt., p. 16. 

6 Ib., pp. 68, 75, 80 f. 

T Ib., 2. Abt., p. 14: 8 Ib., 1. Abt., pp. 90 f., 126 f. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTOQNTMIAI) 681 


then for the first and second persons.! The use of the personal 
pronoun in-the reflexive sense survived longest in the vernacular. 
It is not “abnormal” therefore to find in the N. T. (vernacular κοινή) 
the personal pronouns where a reflexive form might have been used. 
The N. T. does not here exactly represent Attic literary prose. 
Cf. ἀράτω τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ (Lu. 9:28), μετὰ τὸ ἔγερθῆναί με προάξω 
(Mk. 14: 28; cf. Lu. 10:35), βάλε ἀπὸ σοῦ (Mt. 5:29). See Ro. 
15:16, 19. Itis not necessary to split hairs here as to whether the 
reflexive idea is present. It is in perfect harmony with the Greek 
history. Indeed English does not differ here from the Greek. 

2. Αὐτοῦ. The use of αὐτοῦ rather than οὗ and σφῶν is noticeable. 
As a matter of fact, however, αὐτοῦ had long been the main pronoun 
for the oblique cases of the third person. In archaic and poetic 
forms the early use of οὗ and σφῶν survived. In the N. T. αὐτοῦ 
is the only form found, as in αὐτῶν, αὐτοῖς, αὐτόν (Mt. 17: 22 f.), κτλ. 

3. Genitive for Possession. The genitive of the personal pro- 
noun is very common as a possessive rather than the possessive 
pronoun or the mere article. In Jo. 2 : 12 αὐτοῦ occurs twice, but 
once (of ἀδελφοί) we do not have it. These examples are so common 
as to call for mere mention, as ὁ πατήρ μου (Jo. 5 : 17), τὸν κράβαττόν 
σου (5: 8), τὸν κράβαττον αὐτοῦ (5:9). The presence of the personal 
pronoun in the genitive is not always emphatic. Thus no undue 
emphasis is to be put upon αὐτοῦ even in its unusual position in Jo. 
9 : 6, nor upon gov in 9: 10, nor upon pou in 9:15. See chapter on 
The Sentence. See also ἐπάρας τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ εἰς τοὺς μαθητὰς 
αὐτοῦ (Lu. 6 : 20), ἐν τῇ ὑπομονῇ ὑμῶν κτήσεσθε τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν (Lu. 21: 
19). See also position of μου in Mt. 8:8 and Jo. 11:32. Asa 
matter of fact the genitive of personal pronouns, as is common in 
the κοινή (Moulton, Prol., p. 40 f.), has nearly driven the possessive 
pronoun out. The use of the article with this genitive will be dis- 
cussed in that chapter (The Article). Cf. τὸν πατέρα μου (Mt. 26: 
53) and φίλοι μου (Jo. 15:14). Both ὑμῶν in Paul (1 Cor. 9 : 12) 
and αὐτοῦ (Tit. 3:5) may be in the attributive position. The 
position of αὐτοῦ is emphatic in Eph. 2: 10 as is that of ὑμῶν in 
1 Cor. 9:11 and ἡμῶν in Jo. 11:48. The attributive position of 
ἡμῶν (2 Cor. 4:16) and αὐτοῦ with other attributes (Mt. 27: 60) 
is not unusual. 

4. Enclitic Forms. The first and second persons singular have 
enclitic and unenclitic forms which serve to mark distinctions of 
emphasis in a general way. We may be sure that when the long 


1 Ib., 2. Abt., pp. 69, 89. 
2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 152. 


682 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


form ἐμοῦ occurs some slight emphasis is meant, as in ὑμῶν τε καὶ ἐμοῦ 
(Rom. 1:12). But we cannot feel sure that all emphasis is absent 
when the short form is used. Thus οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν (Mt. 
16 : 18), πάντα μοι παρεδόθη ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός μου (11:27). With prep- 
ositions (the “true”? ones) the long form is used as in ancient 
Greek except with πρός, which uniformly has we even where em- 
phasis is obvious.! Thus δεῦτε πρός we (Mt. 11: 28), καὶ od ἔρχῃ πρός 
με (8 : 14). Some editors here and in the LXX print πρὸς we. But 
in Jo. 6 : 387 πρὸς ἐμέ iS the true text. Cf. πρὸς ἐμέ also in P.Tb. 
421 (i1i/A.D.). With ood the only difference is one of accent and 
we have to depend on the judgment of the editor. It is difficult, 
if not impossible, to lay down any fundamental distinction on this 
point. On gov and σοῦ see chapter VII, tv, 4, (a). Nestle has 
ἐξομολογοῦμαί σοι (Mt. 11: 25) and κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω (16:17). CF. 
ἐγὼ oe (Jo. 17: 4) and we σύ (17: 5). Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 
168) says that ἐμοῦ and σοῦ, the emphatic forms, occur only with 
other genitives like αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐμοῦ (Ro. 16:13). Simcox (Language 
of the N. T., p. 55) argues that the enclitic form occurs always 
except when there is emphasis. But the trouble is that the en- 
clitic form seems to occur even where there is emphasis. The 
genitive of the third person can be used with emphasis. Cf. 
αὐτῶν in Lu. 24:31. See further chapter VII, v, 4. 

(c) THe FREQUENCY OF THE PERSONAL PRoNouns. It is at 
bottom a differentiation from the substantive, though the roots 
are independent of verb and substantive and antedate historical 
evidence.2. This pronoun came into play where the sense required 
it. Thus καὶ ἐπιθέντες τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῖς améAvoar (Ac. 13:3). Cf. Mk. 
6:5. There is no doubt of the fact that the N.T. uses the pro- 
noun in the oblique cases more frequently than is true of the older 
Greek.? What is the explanation of this fact? The Hebrew pro- 


nominal suffixes at once occur to one as the explanation of the 


situation and Blass accepts it.4 The LX X shows a similar “lavish 
use of pronouns.’’® But a glance at the modern Greek reveals the 
same fondness for pronouns, and the papyri abundantly prove 
that the usage belongs to the vernacular κοινή. Cf. ἀνύγω τοὺς 
ὀφθαλμούς μου Par.P. 51 (41/B.c.), Λάμπωνι μυοθηρευτῇ ἔδωκα αὐτῷ 
O.P. 299 (i/a.p.). Thumb?’ suggests that this abundance of pro- 


1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p.'165. 

2 Wundt, Volkerpsych., 1. Bd., 2. Tl., 1904, p. 47. 

3 Cf. W.-Th., p. 143; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 164. 

4 Cf. also Simcox, Lang., etc., p. 53. 6 Moulton, Prol., p. 84 f. 
5 (Ὁ, and S., Sel., etc., p. 65. 7 Hellen., p. 108 f. 


— 3 


PRONOUNS (’ANTONYMIAI) 683 


nouns is natural in the vernacular. Blass! finds ‘‘a quite peculiar 
and tiresome frequency” of the pronoun in the N. T. This is only 
true in comparison with literary Attic. The N.T. is here a natural 
expression of the vernacular. Thus in Lu. 6 : 20 note αὐτοῦ twice, 
ὑμῶν twice in Lu. 21:19, cov in Mt. 6:17 as the reflexive twice 
(ἄλειψαί cov τὴν κεφαλὴν kal TO πρόσωπόν σου νίψαι). It is not neces- 
sary to go as far as Moulton does and deny that there is any 
Semitic influence in the Ν. T. on this point. It was here in har- 
mony with the current Greek. Cf. Lu. 24:50 for three examples 
of αὐτὸν (-ols). Cf. ce — ce in Jo. 1:48. For airé=‘it’ see Ro. 7: 
20. In Lu. 1: 62 αὐτό and αὐτοῦ both refer to παιδίον. 

(4) RepuNpDANT. The pronoun was sometimes redundant. 
This was also a Hebrew idiom, but the vernacular κοινή shows sim- 
ilar examples. The two streams flow together as above. With 
participles note τῷ θέλοντι --- ἄφες αὐτῷ (Mt. 5: 40), καταβάντος 
αὐτοῦ --- ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ (ὃ : 1), ἐμβάντι αὐτῷ εἰς πλοῖον ἠκολούθησαν 
αὐτῷ (8:23). There are besides the anacolutha like ὁ νικῶν καὶ 
ὁ τηρῶν — dwow αὐτῷ (Rev. 2: 26). Cf. also τὸ ποτήριον -- οὐ μὴ 
πίω αὐτό (Jo. 18:11) which does not differ radically from the 
other examples.? Cf. also the redundant personal pronoun with 
the relative like the Hebrew idiom with the indeclinable ἜΝ, 
ov — αὐτοῦ (Mt. 8 : 12), ἧς --- αὐτῆς (Mk 7 : 25), οὺς --- αὐτούς (Ac. 
15:17), οἷς --- αὐτοῖς (Rev. 7:2). But this idiom appeared also 
in the older Greek and is not merely Semitic. It occurs in 
Xenophon and Sophocles. Indeed in Rev. 17: 9, ἑπτὰ ὄρη ὅπου 
ἡ γυνὴ κάθηται ἐπ᾿ αὐτῶν, we have ὅπου in sehse of relative pronoun 
much like modern Greek ποῦ. For the redundant antecedent see 
further under Relative. 

(6) ACCORDING TO SENSE. See also chapter X, VII, VIII, Ix. 
The personal pronouns are sometimes used freely according to the 
sense. In Ac. 26 : 24, τὰ πολλά σε γράμματα eis μανίαν περιτρέπει, the 
position of σε is probably a matter of euphony and a case in point. 
Sometimes there is no immediate reference in the context for the 
pronoun. The narrative is compressed and one must supply the 
meaning. So with αὐτοῦ (Lu. 1:17), αὐτοῖς (Mt. 8 : 4), αὐτῶν (12: 
9), αὐτῶν (Mt. 11: 1), αὐτόν (Jo. 20:15), αὐτῶν (1 Pet. 3: 14). 
But this is no peculiarity of N. T. Greek or of the κοινή. It is 
common at all times. In Jo.8 : 44, ψεύστης ἐστὶν καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ, 
the αὐτοῦ refers to ψεῦδος suggested by ψεύστης. In 2 Cor. 5:19 
αὐτοῖς refers to κόσμον, as in Ro. 2 : 26 αὐτοῦ has in mind ἀκρόβυστος 


1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 165. 2 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 281. 
Ὁ W.-Th., p. 148. Cf. C. and S., p. 65 f. 


684. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


suggested by ἀκροβυστία. So in Ac. 8:5 αὐτοῖς refers to πόλιν. In 
Mk. 5: 41 αὐτῇ follows the natural gender of παιδίον rather than 
the grammatical. But in Jo. 6: 39 αὐτό agrees grammatically 
with the abstract collective πᾶν 6. In Lu. 6 : 6 we find a usage 
much like the original Homeric absence of the pure relative.} 
We have καὶ αὐτοῦ used with ἄνθρωπος much as ov was. In Mt. 
28 : 19 αὐτούς refers to ἔθνη. In Mk. 6:46 αὐτοῖς points to ὄχλον. 

(f) REPETITION OF THE SUBSTANTIVE. Sometimes indeed the 
substantive is merely repeated instead of using the pronoun. 
Thus in Jo. 11: 22 we have τὸν θεόν --- ὁ θεός. This is usually due 
to the fact that the mere pronoun would be ambiguous as in the 
use of ᾿Ιησοῦς in Jo. 4:1. Sometimes it may be for the sake of 
emphasis as in 6 vids τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (Lu. 12:8) rather than éyo. 
Sometimes antithesis is better sustained by the repetition of 
the substantive. Thus with κόσμῳ --- κόσμου (Jo. 9:5), ἁμαρτία --- 
ἁμαρτίας (Ro. 5:12). But this is no peculiarity of Greek. 

II. The Possessive Pronouns (κτητικαὶ ἀντωνυμία!ι). 

(a) Just THE ARTICLE. It is not merely the possessive relation 
that is here under discussion, but the possessive pronoun. Often 
the article alone is sufficient for that relation. ‘Thus in ἐκτείνας 
τὴν χεῖρα (Mt. 8: 3) the article alone makes the relation clear. 
Cf. also τὰς χεῖρας (Mk. 14 : 46), τὴν μάχαιραν (14 : 47), τὸν αδελφόν 
(2 Cor. 12 : 18). The common use of the genitive of the personal 
pronoun is not under consideration. nor the real reflexive pronoun 
like ἑαυτοῦ. 

(b) ONLY FoR First AND SEcoND PERsons. There is in the 
N. T. no possessive form for the third person. The other expe- 
dients mentioned above (usually the genitive αὐτοῦ, αὐτῶν) are 
used. The personal pronouns are substantival, while the posses- 
sive forms are adjectival. In modern Greek no adjectival pos- 
sessive exists. Just the genitive occurs (Thumb, Handbook, p. 89). 
The possessive ἐμός and σός are disappearing in the papyri (Rader- 
macher, NV. 7. Gk., p.61). Originally the accent? of ἐμός was *éuos. 
The forms ἡμέτ-τερος and ὑμέ-τερος are both comparative and imply 
emphasis and contrast, the original meaning of the comparative.® 

(c) EmpHasis, WHEN Usep. When these possessive forms oc- 
cur in the N. T. there is emphasis. But it is not true, as Blass‘ 


1 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 35. 

2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 250. 3 Seymour, The Hom. Dial., p. 60. 

4 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 168. Brugmann (Vergl. Gr., ii, 283) derives the 
poss. from the gen., while Delbriick (V, i. 213) obtains the gen. from the 
poss. Who can tell? 


PRONOUNS (’ANTQNYMIAI) 685 


affirms, that there is no emphasis when the genitive forms are 
used. See I, (6), 4. The possessives do not occur often in, the 
N. T. For details see chapter VII, rv, 4, (d). 

(dq) WirnH tHE ArticuE. The possessives in the N. T. usually 
have the article save when predicate.1. Thus ἡ ἐμή (Jo. 5 : 30), τῆς 
ἐμῆς (Ro. 10 : 1), τὸ ἐμόν (Mt. 18 : 20), τῷ σῷ (Mt. 7: 3), etc. When 
the article is absent the possessive is usually predicate as in τὰ ἐμὰ 
πάντα σά ἔστιν, καὶ τὰ σὰ ἐμά (JO. 17:10; Lu. 15: 81). In μὴ ἔχων 
ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου (Ph. 3 : 9) the possessive is attributive, 
a righteousness of my own, though the article comes later. In 
Jo. 4:34 we have ἐμὸν βρῶμά ἐστιν ἵνα where the attributive use 
also occurs. But see Mt. 20 : 23. One may note ὑμῶν in predicate 
Gla@or-3i)-21). 

(ὁ) POSSESSIVE AND GENITIVE ToGETHER. Paul’s free use of 
the possessive and genitive together as attributives is well illus- 
trated by τὸ ἐμὸν πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὑμῶν (1 Cor. 16:18). In 1 Cor. 
16:17 the MSS. vary between τὸ ὑμῶν ὑστέρημα and τὸ ὑμέτερον 
(BCD) tor. Soin 1 Jo. 2:2 we have both περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν 
and also περὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων. Indeed the genitive may be in apposi- 
tion with the genitive idea in the possessive pronoun. Thus τῇ 
ἐπ xecpt Ilavdov (1 Cor. 16:21). Cf. 2 Th. 3:17; Col. 4:18; Jo. 
14 : 24. 

(f) OBsectTIvVE Usr. The possessive pronoun may be objective 
just like the genitive. This is in full accord with the ancient 
idiom. So τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν (Lu. 22:19; 1 Cor. 11: 24), τὴν ὑμε- 
τέραν καύχησιν (15:31), τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέει (Ro. 11:31), τὴν ἡμετέραν 
διδασκαλίαν (15:4). Cf. τῆς ὑμῶν παρακλήσεως (2 Cor. 1: 6). 

(g) INSTEAD OF REFLEXIVE. The possessive, like the personal 
pronoun, occurs where a reflexive might have been used. Thus 
τῷ σῷ With κατανοεῖς in Mt. 7: 3, ἀκούω τὰ ἐμὰ τέκνα (3 Jo. 4), ἔγραψα 
τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί (Phil. 19). The pronoun ἴδιος is possessive, but is best 
treated as a reflexive. 

III. The Intensive and Identical Pronoun (σύντονος ἀντω- 
vupta). The use of αὐτός was originally “purely anaphoric.”? As 
the third personal pronoun it was, of course, anaphoric. The in- 
tensive use is more emphatic. 

(a) Tue Nominative Uses or Αὐτός. As already remarked, it is 
not always clear whether we have the emphatic ‘he’ or the in- 
tensive ‘self’? with αὐτός in the nominative. Cf. αὐτὸς καὶ ἡ μήτηρ 


1 Simcox, Lang., etc., p. 54. 
2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 170. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 351, calls this the 
“determinative” pronoun. On the wholesubject of αὐτός see K.-G., 1, pp. 651 ff. 


686 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


αὐτοῦ (Jo. 2:12). The intensive αὐτός appears in all persons, gen- 
ders and numbers. Thus αὐτὸς ἐγώ (Ro: 7: 25; cf. ἔγὼ αὐτός, Ac. 
10 : 26), αὐτοὶ ἀκηκόαμεν (Jo. 4:42), δύνασαι --- αὐτός (Lu. 6:42), 
αὐτοὶ ὑμεῖς (1 Th. 4:9; ef. Ac. 18:15), αὐτὸς ὁ ᾿Ιωάνης (Mt. 3 : 4), 
αὐτοὶ προφῆται (Ac. 15: 32), αὐτὸ τὸ βιβλίον (Heb. 9:19), αὐτὰ τὰ 
ἐπουράνια (9 : 29), αὐτὰ τὰ ἔργα (Jo. 5: 90). The article is not al- 
ways used. ΟἿ αὐτὸς Aaveié (Lu. 20 : 42), αὐτὴ Σάρρα (Heb. 11: 
11), αὐτοὶ προφῆται (Ac. 15: 382). Cf. ἔγὼ δὲ αὐτός, P.Oxy. 294 
(a.p. 22). In 2 Cor. 10: 1 note αὐτὸς ἐγὼ Παῦλος. There is nothing 
particularly essential in the order whether αὐτὸς ἔγὼ or ἔγὼ αὐτός 
(see above). “Eywye is not in the N. T. 

(0) Varyinac Decrees or Empnuasis. For a list of the vari- 
ous shades of meaning possible with αὐτός see Thompson, Syntax 
of Attic Greek, p. 59 f. In Ro. 15:14 αὐτός occurs with the first 
person and αὐτοί with the second in sharp contrast. In Shake- 
speare we have ‘‘myself”’ as subject: ‘‘ Myself have letters” (Julius 
Cesar, iv. 3).1 Cf. Latin tpse. In Jo. 2: 24, αὐτὸς δὲ *Incods, we 
have Jesus himself in distinction from those who believed on 
him. In 1 Cor. 11: 14 ἡ φύσις αὐτή is ‘nature of itself.’ Note 
αὐτοὶ οἴδατε (1 Th. 3:3), ‘ye for yourselves.’ In Ac. 18:15, ὄψεσθε 
αὐτοί, we find ‘ye by yourselves.’ Each instance will vary slightly 
owing to the context. Cf. αὐτοί (Ac. 16: 37); αὐτὸς μόνος (Mk. 
6:47). Οη αὐτοὶ μὲν οὖν see Ac. 18:4. See ad’ ἑαυτῶν (Lu. 12 : 57), 
not αὐτοί. 

(ὦ Αὐτὸς witH Οὗτος. In Ac. 24:15, 20, the classical idiom αὐτοὶ 
οὗτοι occurs. Cf. εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο (Ro. 9:17), πεποιθὼς αὐτὸ τοῦτο 
(Ph. 1 : 6), αὐτὸ τοῦτο (2 Pet. 1 : 5, accusative of gen. reference). 
Cf. 2 Cor. 7:11. The other order is found in ἔγραψα τοῦτο αὐτό (2 
Cor: 2 <3); 

(d) Αὐτός ALMOST DEMONSTRATIVE. In Luke αὐτὸς ὁ is some- 
times almost a pure demonstrative as it comes to be in later Greek. 
The sense of ‘very’ or ‘self’ is strengthened to ‘that very.’ 
Thus αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ (Lu. 2 : 88), ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ καιρῷ (18 : 1), ἐν. αὐτῇ τῇ 
ἡμέρᾳ (23:12). The modern Greek freely employs this demonstra- 
tive sense. Cf. Thumb, p. 90. Moulton (Prol., p. 91) finds this 
demonstrative use of αὐτὸς 6 in the papyri. So αὐτὸν τὸν ᾿Αντάν, O.P. 
745 (i/A.D.). Moulton thinks that αὐτός is demonstrative also in 
Mt. 3:4. See vi, (A), for further discussion. 

(6) IN THE OBLIQUE CasEs. It is not so common as the nom- 
inative. So αὐτοῖς τοῖς κλητοῖς (1 Cor. 1:24). Cf. καὶ αὐτοὺς in Ac. 
15 : 27 (cf. 15:82). But examples occur even in the first and 

1 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 35. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTONTMIAI) 687 


second persons. ‘Thus ἐμοῦ αὐτοῦ (Ro. 16 : 2), σοῦ αὐτῆς (Lu. 2 : 35), 
αὐτοὺς ἡμᾶς (2 Th. 1:4), ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν (Ac. 20 : 30, probable text). 
Here the use is intensive, not reflexive. The same thing is pos- 
sible with ὑμῶν αὐτῶν in 1 Cor. 7: 35 (ef. 11:13). But I think this 
reflexive. This intensive use of αὐτός with ἐμοῦ and σοῦ is found in 
Attic. In αὐτῶν ἡμῶν and ὑμῶν only the context can decide which 
is intensive and which reflexive. Cf. Thompson, A Syntax of Attic 
Greek, p. 64. Cf. ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν νεκροτάφων, ‘from the grave-diggers 
themselves,’ P. Grenf. ii, 73 (iii/A.D.). 

(f) Adrés Stipe By SIDE WITH THE REFLEXIVE. So αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ 
(Eph. 5 : 27), αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς (Ro. 8: 23). Cf. 2 Cor. 1:9; 10:12. 
The distinctively reflexive pronouns are, of course, compounded of 
the personal pronouns and αὐτός. They will be treated directly. 
The N. T. does not have αὐτότατος (cf. Latin ipsissimus). Some 
N. T. compounds of αὐτός are αὐτάρκης (Ph. 4:11), αὐτοκατάκριτος 
(Tit. 3:11), αὐτόματος (Mk. 4 : 28), αὐτόπτης (Lu. 1: 2). 

(g) Ὁ Αὐτός. The use of ὁ αὐτός for identity (‘the same,’ ‘the 
very’) is close kin to the original ‘self’ idea. Cf. cpse and idem. 
The idiom is frequent in the N. T. Thus ὁ αὐτὸς κύριος (Ro. 10 : 12), 
ἡ αὐτὴ σάρξ (1 Cor. 15: 39), τὰς αὐτὰς θυσίας (Heb. 10 : 11), and with 
substantive understood τὸ αὐτό (Mt. ὅ : 47), τῶν αὐτῶν (Heb. 2: 
14), τὰ αὐτά (Lu. 6: 23). In 1 Cor. 11:5 we have the associa- 
tive instrumental case with it, τὸ αὐτὸ τῇ ἐξυρημένῃ. But in 1 Pet. 
5:9 we actually have the genitive (‘the same sort of’), τὰ αὐτὰ 
τῶν παθημάτων. 

IV. The Reflexive Pronoun (ἀντανακλαστικὴ ἀντωνυμία). 

(a) Distinctive Usr. As already explained in this chapter 
under Personal Pronouns, the originals of the personal pronouns 
in oblique cases were also reflexive.! Only gradually the distine- 
tion between personal and reflexive arose. But even so the per- 
sonal pronouns continued to be used as reflexive. Hence I cannot 
agree with Blass? that ἐμαυτοῦ, σεαυτοῦ, ἑαυτοῦ “have in the N. T. 
been to some extent displaced by the simple personal pronoun.” It 
is rather a survival of the original (particularly colloquial) usage. 
Thus we have in Mt. 6:19 f. θησαυρίζετε ὑμῖν θησαυρούς, 5: 29 f. 
and 18:8 f. βάλε ἀπὸ σοῦ, 6:2 μὴ σαλπίσῃς ἔμπροσθέν σου, 11: 29 
ἄρατε τὸν ζυγόν μου ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς, 17: 27 δὸς ἀντὶ ἐμοῦ καὶ σοῦ, 18:15 
ἔλεγξον. . . μεταξὺ σοῦ καὶ αὐτοῦ. Matthew has rather more of 
these survivals. But see ἀφίδω τὰ περὶ ἐμέ (Ph. 2 : 23), τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ 
πρόθυμος (Ro. 1:15). For this idiom in Attic see Thompson, Syn- 

1 Cf. Dyroff, Gesch. d. Pron. Reflex., 1. Abt., p. 16. 
2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 166 f. 


688 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


tax of Attic Greek, p. 64. This is not indeed the classic Attic 
idiom, but the vernacular Attic (as in the κοινή) 15 not so free from 
it. In particular the third person presents peculiar problems, since 
the ancient MSS. had no accents or breathings. The abbreviated 
reflexive αὑτοῦ and αὐτοῦ would look just alike. It is a matter with 
the editors. See chapter VI, tv, (f), for details. Thus W. H. give 
ἀράτω τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ (Lu. 9 : 23), but οὐκ ἐπίστευεν αὑτὸν αὐτοῖς 
(Jo. 2 : 24). In Lu. 9:24 we have τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ, but in 14: 26 
τὴν ψυχὴν ἑαυτοῦ. In the last passage ἑαυτοῦ occurs with πατέρα and 
ψυχὴν, but not with the other words. Cf. αὐτῷ, Ac. 4:32. In the 
light of the history of the personal pronouns the point is not 
very material, since αὐτοῦ can be reflexive also. The Attic Greek 
used to have δοκῶ μοι. But Luke in Ac. 26:9 has ἔδοξα ἐμαυτῷ as 
Paul in 1 Cor. 4 : 4 says ἐμαυτῷ σύνοιδα. Old English likewise used 
the personal pronouns as reflexive. Thus “I will lay me down 
and sleep,”’ ‘‘He sat him down at a pillar’s base,” οἷο. Cf. Ac. 
19 : 21, we twice. See also chapter VII, tv, 4, (c). 

(0) THe ABSENCE OF THE REFLEXIVE FROM THE NOMINATIVE. 
It is impossible to have ‘a reflexive in the nominative. The in- 
tensive pronoun does occur as αὐτὸς ἐγώ (2 Cor.10: 1). The English 
likewise, as already shown, early lost the old idiom of “‘myself,’’ 
‘himself’? as mere nominatives.? Cf. ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ, Jo. 11 : 51, where 
αὐτός could have been employed. 

(c) THE InprREcT REFLEXIVE. It is less common in the N. T. 
It does indeed occur, as in the ancient Greek. So θέλω πάντας 
ἀνθρώπους εἶναι ws Kal ἐμαυτόν (1 Cor. 7: 7), συνείδησιν δὲ λέγω οὐχὶ τὴν 
ἑαυτοῦ ἀλλὰ τὴν τοῦ ἑτέρου (10: 290). But on, the other hand, note 
ἔγὼ ἐν τῷ ἐπανέρχεσθαί με ἀποδώσω σοι (Lu. 10:85), παρακαλῶ — 
συναγωνίσασθαι wo. (Ro. 15:30). Cf. 2 Cor. 2:18. This on the 
whole is far commoner and it is not surprising since the personal 
pronoun occurs in the direct reflexive sense. Cf. ἣν ἠκούσατέ μου 
(Ac. 1:4). In Thucydides the reflexive form is generally used for 
the indirect reflexive idea.’ 

(dq) In THE StnauLaR. Here the three persons kept their sep- 
arate forms very well. Hence we find regularly ἐμαυτόν (Jo. 14: 
21), σεαυτῷ (Ac. 16 : 28), ἑαυτῷ (Lu. 18:4). Indeed ἑαυτοῦ never 
stands for ἐμαυτοῦ. For σεαυτοῦ or σεαυτόν some MSS. read ἑαυτοῦ 
in Mk. i123); Jo: 1834 eGalebc πὸ ἢ Oe ete 
10: 29 éavrod=‘ one’s own’ (Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 441; Prol., 
p. 87). There was some tendency towards this usage in the an- 


1 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 33. 3 Dyroff, Gesch. etc., Bd. I, 1892, p. 19. 
2SLD: 4 W.-Sch., Ὁ: 205. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTONYMIAI) 689 


cient Greek,! though the explanation is not perfectly clear.?- But 
the usage is clearly found in the Atticists, Dio Chrys., Lucian 
and Philost. [1.3 In Rev. 18:24 ἐν αὐτῇ is a sudden change 
from ἐν σοί of the preceding verses, but is hardly to be printed 
αὑτῇ, for it is not strictly reflexive. The same‘ use of αὐτήν rather 
than σέ appears in Mt. 23 : 37 and parallel Lu. 13 : 34. Cf. also 
Lu. 1:45. But Moulton (Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901, p. 441, April, 
1904, p. 154) finds in the papyri several examples of this ‘un- 
educated use of éavrod”’ for first and second persons singular, συγ- 
χωρῶ μετὰ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ τελευτήν, B.U. 86 (ii/A.D.). Radermacher 
(N. Τ΄. Gr., p. 61) cites ἐπέγραψα ἑαυτῷ (Petersen-Luschan, Reisen 
etc., p. 26, n. 32). Thucydides has a few possible examples and 
certainly the Latin 7s is in point (Draeger, Historische Synt. d. 
Lat. Spr., p. 84). In early Greek Delbriick finds the reflexive 
referring indifferently to either person. The recurrence is not 
surprising. In the modern Greek the singular ἑαυτοῦ occurs con- 
stantly for first and second persons and even τοῦ ἑαυτοῦ μου, τοῦ 
ἑαυτοῦ σου for emphasis. Cf. “myself,” “thyself,” “herself” and 
vulgar ‘‘hisself.”” See Simcox, Language of the N. T., p. 63. 
In translation from Semitic originals we sometimes find ψυχήν 
rather than ἑαυτόν as in Lu. 9 : 24 (cf. Mk. 8:36). Cf. Moulton, 
Prol., p. 87; Robinson, Study of the Gospels, p. 114. The form 
αὑτόν (Jo. 2 : 24), αὑτῷ (Lu. 12 : 21) is preserved in some 20 pas- 
sages by W. H. and Nestle. 

(e) IN THE PLuRAL. Here the matter is not in any doubt. It 
is rather too much to say with Simcox that ἑαυτῶν is the only form 
for the reflexive plural. This is indeed true for the first and third 
persons as ἀνεθεματίσαμεν ἑαυτούς (Ac. 28 : 14). In 2 Th. 1:4 αὐτοὺς 
ἡμᾶς is intensive, as already shown (chapter VII). In the third 
person also only ἑαυτῶν occurs as in Mt. 18:31. In the second 
person plural a few examples of the reflexive ὑμῶν αὐτῶν apparently 
survive, as in Ac. 20 : 30; 1 Cor. 5:13 and probably so in 1 Cor. 
7:35; ὑμῖν αὕτοις in 1 Cor. 11:13. But the common idiom for 
the second person plural is undoubtedly ἑαυτῶν, as προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς 
Cite lito soe eV Geez ΠΟ. 6113501 Jo. 5 21, etc. There 
are some seventy examples of ἑαυτῶν for first and second persons 
plural in the N. T. (Moulton, Prol., p. 87), as is the custom in 
the papyri, chiefly in illiterate documents. Cf. ἵνα γεινώμεθα πρὸς 
tots καθ᾽ ἑαυτούς, Tb.P. 6 (ii/B.C.); ἵνα κομισώμεθα τὰ ἑαυτῶν, Tb.P. 47. 

1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 167. 


2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 421. Cf. Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 194. 
8 W.-Sch., p. 205. 4 Ib. 


690 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


The LX X (Conybeare and Stock, Sel., p. 30) has this use of ἑαυτῶν 
for first and second persons plural. We even find reflexive and 
personal together like ὑμῖν ἑαυτοῖς (Ex. 20: 23). 

(f) ArtTicLE witH. The reflexive is used with or without the 
article and in any position with the article. But curiously enough 
σεαυτοῦ is never so found and ἐμαυτοῦ only once in sharp contrast, 
μὴ ζητῶν τὸ ἐμαυτοῦ σύμφορον ἀλλὰ τὸ τῶν πολλῶν (1 Cor. 10:33). 
Instead of this reflexive genitive (possessive) we have the genitive 
of the personal pronoun. Cf, τιμῶ τὸν πατέρα μου (Jo. 8 : 49), ἄφες 
τὸ δῶρόν cov (Mt. 5:24). The examples of ἑαυτοῦ are, of course, 
abundant as in τὴν ἑαυτοῦ αὐλήν (Lu. 11: 21), the common idiom in 
the older Greek. But note also the order τὸ ἔργον ἑαυτοῦ (Gal. 6 : 4), 
ἑαυτοῦ τοὺς πόδας (Ac. 21:11), δούλους ἑαυτοῦ (Lu. 19:13), κῆπον 
ἑαυτοῦ (Lu. 18 : 10). These are all attributive, but the sense is not 
quite the same in the two last. The use of αὐτοῦ in such examples 
has already been noted as in Mt. 16:24. Sometimes the MSS. 
vary between ἑαυτοῦ and αὐτοῦ asin Lu. 4:24. The plural ἑαυτῶν is 
likewise found thus, τοὺς ἑαυτῶν νεκρούς (Mt. 8 : 22), τῷ κυρίῳ ἑαυτῶν 
(Mt. 18:31), ἑαυτῶν τὰ ἱμάτια (Mt. 21:8). See further chapter 
XVI, The Article. 

(g) REFLEXIVE IN THE RECIPROCAL SENSE. This use of ἑαυτῶν 
does not really differ in idea from ἀλλήλων. This isin harmony with 
the ancient Greek idiom. The papyri show this same blending 
of ἑαυτῶν with ἀλλήλων. Cf. P.P. 8 (ii/B.c.) three times, O.P. 260 
(i/A.D.), C.P.R. 11 (i/A.D.) twice. Thus we may note ὅτι κρίματα 
ἔχετε μεθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν (1 Cor. 6: 7), λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς (Eph. 5:19), νουθετοῦν- 
τες ἑαυτούς (Col. 8 : 16), ete. Sometimes it occurs side by side with 
ἀλλήλων as if by way of variety, as in ἀνεχόμενοι ἀλλήλων Kal χαρι- 
ζόμενοι ἑαυτοῖς (Col. 3:13). Cf. also ἀλλήλων and αὑτούς in Lu. 
23:12. In Ph. 2:3 ἀλλήλους ἡγούμενοι ὑπερέχοντας ἑαυτῶν each word 
retains its own idea. 

(h) REFLEXIVE WITH MippLE Voice. Sometimes indeed the 
reflexive occurs with the middle voice where it is really superflu- 
OUS, aS In διεμερίσαντο ἑαυτοῖς (Jo. 19 : 24, LXX), where? Mt. 27: 
35 (free paraphrase of LX X) has only διεμερίσαντο. So also σεαυτὸν 
παρεχόμενος (Tit. 2.: 7). But usually such examples occur where 
the force of the middle is practically lost, as in ἥγημαι ἐμαυτόν 
(Ac. 26 : 2), ἀρνησάσθω ἑαυτόν (Lu. 9 : 23). On the use of the re- 
flexive in Anglo-Saxon see Penny, A History of the Reflexive 
Pronoun in the English Language, p. 8. Cf. παραλήμψομαι πρὸς 
ἐμαυτόν (Jo. 14:3). Moulton (Prol., p. 87) admits that sometimes 

1 Moulton, Prol., p. 87. 2 ΞΡ ΩΣ 


PRONOUNS (’ANTOQNYMIAT) 691 


ἑαυτοῦ occurs without great emphasis. This use of the reflexive 
with the middle may be compared with the reflexive and the 
personal pronoun in the LXX. So λήμψομαι ἐμαυτῷ ὑμᾶς λαὸν ἐμοί 
(Ex. 6 : 7), οὐ ποιήσετε ὑμῖν ἑαυτοῖς (20 : 23). So English “me my- 
self,” “you yourselves.” Cf. Thackeray, p. 191. See further 
chavter XVII, Voice. 

(1) THe Use or Ἴδιος. This adjective is frequent in the N. T. 
It is usually treated as a possessive, opposed! to κοινός or δημόσιος. 
In the N. T. we find it, especially (17 times) in κατ᾽ ἰδίαν (ef. Lu. 
9:10), in the sense of ‘private.’ So this sense occurs also in Ac. 
4:32 and Heb. 7: 27. Cf. idt@rac in Ac. 4:13 (1 Cor. 14 : 16). 
Sometimes also the word implies what is peculiar to one, his par- 
ticularity or idiosyncrasy, as 1 Cor. 3:8; 7: 7 (cf. the classic 
idiom). Cf. our “idiot.” But in general ὁ ἴδιος or ἴδιος without 
the article (cf. ἑαυτοῦ) means simply ‘one’s own,’ a strong posses-_ 
sive, a real reflexive./ To all intents and purposes it is inter- | 
changeable in sense with éavrot.f The examples of this reflexive 
idea are many. Thus in Mt. 9:1; Lu. 6:41; 10:34; Jo. 1:41; 
4:44, ete. The use of οἱ ἴδιοι for ‘one’s own people’ (cf. also of 
οἰκεῖοι 1 Tim. 5:8, classic idiom) is not strange. Cf. Jo. 1:11; 
13:1, ete. Moulton? finds the singular in the papyri as a term of 
endearment. The use of τὰ ἴδια for ‘one’s home’ (Jo. 1: 11; 19: 27; 
Ac. 21:6) is seen also in the papyri. Moulton (Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 
440) cites τὰ ἴδια, B.U. 86 (ii/a.D.), 183 (i/a.D.), 168 (4i/ili A.D.) 
bis, etc. The papyri also illustrate Jo. 1:11, οἱ ἴδιοι, for ‘one’s 
relations.’ So πρὸς τοὺς ἰδίους, B. U. 341 (ii/aA.D.). Examples with- 
out the article are δεσπόταις ἰδίοις (Tit. 2:9), καιροῖς ἰδίοις 
(1 Tim. 6:15). Cf. tévos Ndyos, B.U. 16 (ii/A.p.). Moulton, Cl. 
Rev., 1901, p. 440. In Jo. 1:41 Moulton’ rightly agrees with 
Westcott in seeing in τὸν ἴδιον an implication that some one else 
went after his brother also. The only other point that here calls 
for remark is the question whether ὁ ἴδιος is used in an “exhausted”’ 
or unemphatic sense. Blass‘ finds it so in εἰς τὸν ἴδιον ἀγρόν (Mt. 
22:5). Meisterhans (p. 235) finds a few examples in the Attic 
inscriptions and Deissmann finds the weakened use of ἴδιος in the 
literary κοινή. Deissmann?® argues further that this exhausted 
sense may be assumed in the N. T. because some examples in the 
LXX (Job 24:12; Prov. 27:15), etc., seem to occur. Moulton® 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 169. 

2 Prol., p. 90. * Gr. of No T. Gk., p. 169. 
8 Tb. Pe Bema Π look. 

6 


Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901, p. 440 f.; Prol., p. 90. 


692 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


finds that the papyri do not support this contention. Emphasis 
is beyond dispute in most of the N.T. instances like Mt. 9:1; 
Lu. 6:41; Jo. 1:41; Ac. 1:25; Gal. 6:5, etc. Moulton (Prol., 
p. 89) refers with point to Ro. 14: 5, ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ vot, as showing ἴδιος 
the equivalent of ἑαυτοῦ. The N. T. passages may be assumed to 
show emphasis in spite of the later Byzantine ἴδιος μου (cf. ἑαυτοῦ 
μου in modern Greek). Moulton! agrees with the Revisers in using 
‘own’ in Mt. 22:5 as a “counter-attraction.”’ The only diffi- 
cult passage is Ac. 24:24 where B may be wrong. But is it not 
possible that ἰδίᾳ may have a covert hint at the character of 
Drusilla? For the present she was with Felix. In Tit. 1 : 12 note 
ἴδιος αὐτῶν προφήτης. Moulton (Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 154) cites ἡμῶν 
ἴδιον, Ch. P. 4 (i1/A.D.), ἴδιον αὐτοῦ, N. P. 25 (ii/a.p.), and els ἰδίαν μου 
χρείαν, B.U. 363 (Byz., Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 440). In mod- 
ern Greek ὁ ἴδιος τε ὁ αὐτός (Thumb, Handb., p. 97) or ‘self,’ ἔγὼ ὁ 
ἴδιος, ‘I myself.’ Cf. τῆι αὐτῆι in the papyrus of Eudoxus (ii/B.c.), 
but Moulton (Prol., p. 91) observes that it does not occur in the 
N. T. in this sense. 

V. The Reciprocal Pronoun (ἡ ἀμοιβαία ἀντωνυμία). The use 
of the reflexive in the reciprocal sense has just been discussed (cf. 
personal pronouns as reflexive). From one point of view it might 
seem hardly necessary to give a separate discussion of reciprocal 
pronouns. But, after all, the idea is not exactly that of the mere 
reflexive. ᾿Αλλήλων is, of course, reduplicated from ἄλλος, one of 
the alternative pronouns. Cf. the Latin alius and alter alteri. The 
Latin idiom is common in the classic Greek and is found in Ae. 
2:12, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες; 19:32, ἄλλοι ἄλλο τι ἔκραζον; 21:34, 
ἄλλοι ἄλλο τι ἐπεφώνουν. Cf. in the papyri ἄλλο ἔγώ, ἄλλο πάντες, 
B.U. 1079 (a.p. 41). But the true reciprocal ἀλλήλων has no nom- 
inative and is necessarily plural or dual (in older Greek). It 
occurs 100 times in the N. T. (W. H.) and is fairly well distributed. 
We have examples of the genitive (Ro. 12:5 ἀλλήλων μέλη), the 
ablative (Col. 3 : 13 ἀνεχόμενοι ἀλλήλων), the accusative (1 Cor. 16: 
20 ἀσπάσασθε ἀλλήλους, 1 Jo. 4:7 ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους), the locative 
(Ro. 15:5 ἐν ἀλλήλοις), the dative (Gal. 5 : 13 δουλεύετε ἀλλήλοις). 
The prepositions are used 48 times with ἀλλήλων. This pronoun 
brings out the mutual relations involved. In 1 Th. 5:11, zapa- 
καλεῖτε ἀλλήλους Kal οἰκοδομεῖτε εἷς τὸν ἕνα, note the distributive 
explaining the reciprocal. Moulton (Prol., p. 246) compares the 
modern Greek ὁ ἕνας τὸν ἄλλον. In Ph. 2:3 note both ἀλλήλους 
and ἑαυτῶν. In 1 Th. 5:15 we have εἰς ἀλλήλους καὶ εἰς πάντας. 

1 Prol.; p.-90.' Cf. Jann:, HistsGk..Gr-p.613: 


PRONOUNS (’ANTOQNTMIAI) 693 


In 2 Th. 1: 8 note ἑνὸς ἑκάστου and eis ἀλλήλους. The N. T. does 
not, like the LXX (Ex. 10 : 23), use ἀδελφός as a reciprocal pro- 
noun. The middle voice is also used in a reciprocal sense as in 
συνεβουλεύσαντο (Mt. 26:4). Cf. chapter XVII, Voice. 

VI. Demonstrative Pronouns (δεικτικαὶ ἀντωνυμία). 

(a) Naturr Curiously enough the demonstrative pronoun, 
like all pronouns, has given the grammarians a deal of trouble to 
define. For a discussion of the various theories during the ages 
see Riemann and Goelzer.! Originally all pronouns were “‘ deictic,”’ 
“pointing.” The ‘anaphoric’? use came gradually.2, Indeed the 
same pronoun often continued to be now deictic, now anaphoric, 
as és, for instance, originally demonstrative, but later usually 
relative. Indeed the anaphoric use blends with the relative. 
Monro? marks out three uses of pronouns, not three kinds of pro- 
nouns. The “deictic” ‘marks an object by its position in respect 
to the speaker.” Thus éya, σύ, ὅδε, οὗτος, ἐκεῖνος all fall under this 
head. The “anaphoric” pronoun ‘is one that denotes an object 
already mentioned or otherwise known.’ Thus the resumptive 
use of ὅδε, οὗτος, ἐκεῖνος, ὅς, ὅστις. The “‘relative’’ in the modern 
sense would be only ὅς, ὅστις, οἷος, ὅσος, etc. As a matter of fact, 
for practical purposes the two Greek terms “‘deictic” and “‘ana- 
phoric’”? may be placed beside the Latin “demonstrative” and 
“relative.’”’ See further chapter VII, tv, 4, (e). 

(b) DIFFERENT SHADES OF MeAntnG. The demonstrative pro- 
nouns do not indeed always have the same shade of meaning. 
They may point out, as far or near (ὅδε, οὗτος, ἐκεῖνος), aS In ap- 
position (ἐκεῖνος), as well known (ἐκεῖνος), as already mentioned 
(resumptive οὗτος, ὅδε). These uses belong to the various de- 
monstratives and will come out in the context. I do not care to 
press the parallel with the personal pronouns (first, second, third 
person demonstratives) as applied to ὅδε, οὗτος, ἐκεῖνος. The pro- 
nouns had best be treated separately, not according to the spe- 
cial uses. 

(c) Ὁ, ἡ. 7¢. This was the simplest demonstrative.> The gram- 
marians® call this word ἄρθρον προτακτικόν as distinct from ὅς which 
is ἄρθρον ὑποτακτικόν. As a matter of fact ὁ, ἡ, τό is the same word 
as the Sanskrit sd (sds), sa, ἰάα.1 The Lithuanian nominative sing- 


1 Synt., p. 763 f. 

2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 168 f. 4 Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 779. 
5. ΤΡ. 5 K.-BL., I, i, p. 603. 

6 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 145. See Gildersleeve, Synt., pp. ii, 216-226. 
7 


Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 189. 


694 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ular was td-s, td, and the Greek nominative plural οἱ, ai came “‘in- 
stead of τοί, rai”? (Brugmann, Comp. Gr., vol. II], Ὁ. 327). This 
form, like der in German and this in English, was used either as 
demonstrative, article or relative. See Kihner-Gerth, I, p. 575. 
One is not to trace actual historical connection between 6 and 
der (cf. Brugmann, Ciriech. Gr., Ὁ. 559). Its old use was a sort of 
personal demonstrative (ef. σὺ δέ in Lu. 1: 76).1 Cf. also σὺ δὲ τί 
and ἢ καὶ σὺ τί (Ro. 14:10) and σὺ τίς (14:4). Cf. Brugmann, 
Griech. Gr., p. 428. This substantival use is the main one in 
Homer.? Indeed, as a demonstrative it means rather contrast 
than far or near like ὅδε, οὗτος, ἐκεῖνος, but after all ὅδε is nothing 
but ὁ with the ending -ée. The demonstrative use of ὁ is seen in 
τοὺς ὅσοι in Agathias* and τῶν ὅσα in Maximus of Tyre.* This 
demonstrative as antecedent to the relative (τοὺς ot) appears in 
Justin Martyr® and Tatian’s Oration to the Greeks. Plato shows a 
good many examples? (like τὸν és, τὸν ὅσος). We meet in Xenophon 
and Demosthenes ὃ καὶ τόν as demonstrative, especially τὸν καὶ τόν, τὸ 
καὶ τό, τὰ καὶ τά. ‘The modern Greek uses τοῦ, τῆς, τῶν, etc., as short 
forms of αὐτοῦ, etc., and Jebb® pertinently asks if this is not ‘‘a 
return to the earliest use of ὁ, ἡ, τό as a pronoun.” The demonstra- 
tive ὁ is frequent in the comic writers. Cf. Fuller, De Articulr 
in Antiquis Graecis Comoediis Usu, p. 9. Volker ( Syntax, p. 5) 
gives papyri illustrations of demonstrative ὁ (ὁ δέ, τοῦ δέ, πρὸς τοῦ, 
πρὸ τοῦ, τὰ μέν, τὰ δέ, etc.).1° The oblique cases have only two ex- 
amples in the N. T., one a quotation from Aratus, τοῦ καί (Ac. 
17: 28), the other τοὺς μέν, τοὺς δέ (Eph. 4:11), where contrast 
exists. It is possible indeed that τόν in Ph. 1 : 11 is demonstra- 
tive. Cf. also τὸν am’ ἀρχῆς in 1 Jo. 2:13 and τὴν in 1 Cor. 
10:29. In Mt. 14:2 (Mk. 6:14) ai is nearly equivalent to 
‘these.’ In Mk. 12:5 the correct text is ods μέν, etc. But in 
the nominative the examples of this demonstrative in the N. T. 
are quite numerous. ‘There are three uses of the nominative in 
the N. T. (1) One is the demonstrative pure and simple without 
any expressed contrast. So of δὲ ἐράπισαν (Mt. 26 : 67), of δὲ ἐδί- 
στασαν (Mt. 28:17). In Mt. 26 : 57 of δὲ κρατήσαντες we may have 

" Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 67. 2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 176. 

3 Reffel, Uber den Sprachgebr. des Agathias, 1894, p. 5. 

4 Dirr, Sprachl. Unters., 1899, p. 27. 

5 Cf. Gildersleeve’s ed. of First Apol., ch. 5 and note to p. 116. 

6 Otto’s ed., pp. 24, 90. 

7 Cf. Gildersleeve, Justin Martyr, p. 116, for others. 


8 Hadley and Allen, Gk. Gr., p. 216. ᾿ 
9 V. and D.’s Handb., etc., p. 297, 10 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 81. 


Ἔνι. χὰ ἃ. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTONTMIAT) 695 


this usage or merely the article. In Acts we often have of μὲν οὖν in 
this sense, usually with the participle (Ac. 1:6; 8:4, 40). But 
even in these two examples there is apparently an implied con- 
trast. In Mt. 16:14 and Lu. 9:19 the use of of δέ merely refers 
to those already mentioned in an oblique case. (2) The use of 
ὁ μέν, ὁ δέ, etc. This is no longer very frequent in the N. T.! So 
ὁ μὲν οὕτως, ὁ δὲ οὕτως (1 Cor. 7:7); of μέν, ὁ δὲ (Heb. 7 : 20, 28); 
οἱ μέν, οἱ δὲ (Ac. 14 : 4); οἱ μέν, ἄλλοι δέ, ἕτεροι δὲ (Mt. 16 : 14f.). 
In Mt. 13 : 23 we most likely have ὃ μέν, ὃ δὲ, not ὁ μέν, ὁ δέ. CF. 
ὃ μέν (Lu. 8:5). In Ac. 17:18 note τινες, of δέ, and in Ro. 14: 2 ὃς. 
μέν, ὁ δε. (3) The most common use of the demonstrative is where 
ὁ δέ, ἡ δέ, of δὲ refer to persons already mentioned in an oblique 
case. Thus in Mt. 2:5 οἱ δέ refers to παρ᾽ αὐτῶν. So in of δέ (Lu. 
23 : 21) the reference is to αὐτοῖς, while ὁ δέ in the next verse points 
ἴο αὐτόν. In Mk. 14 : 616 δέ refers to Incody, as in Ac. 12 : 15, ἡ δέ 
to αὐτήν. In Lu. 22:70 ὁ δὲ has no antecedent expressed, but it 
is implied in the εἶπαν πάντες before. 

(d) “Os. The grammarians call it ἄρθρον ὑποτακτικόν or relative? 
It did come to be chiefly relative, as already the Sanskrit yds, yd, 
ydd has lost its original demonstrative force.’ But in the Lithu- 
anian 7-2-s Brugmann (Comp. Gr., III, p. 332) finds proof that the 
pro-ethnic ἦτο was demonstrative as well as relative. Cf. also 
i-va in Homer=both ‘there’ and ‘where’ and then ‘that.’ In 
Homer és, like ὥς (ws), is now demonstrative, now relative, and was 
originally demonstrative.*| This original demonstrative sense con- 
tinues in Attic prose, as in the Platonic ἢ δ᾽ ὅς; καὶ 6s; dv μέν, ὃν δέ, 
etc.6 However, it is not certain that the demonstrative use of ὅς 
(καὶ ὅς, ἢ δ᾽ ὅς) is the same word as the relative. Brugmann® in- 
deed finds it from an original root, *so-s like Sanskrit sd-s. The 
examples of this demonstrative in the nominative are few in the 
N.T. Thus note in Jo. 5:11 (correct text) ὃς δὲ ἀπεκρίθη, and also 
ds δὲ οὐκ ἔλαβεν in Mk. 15 : 23. Indeed ὃς δή in Mt. 18 : 23 is close 
to the same idea. But this verse furnishes a good example of this 
demonstrative in contrast, ὃ μὲν ἑκατὸν ὃ δὲ ἑξήκοντα ὃ δὲ τριάκοντα. 
This example happens to be in the accusative case (cf. Ro. 9 : 21), 
but the nominative appears also as in ἃ μὲν ἔπεσεν (Mt. 13: 4), ὃς 
μὲν eis τὸν ἴδιον ἀγρόν, ds δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν ἐμπορίαν (Mt. 22 : 5), ds μὲν πιστεύει 


(Ro. 14: 2), ὃς μὲν γὰρ κρίνει --- ὃς δὲ κρίνει (14:5). Sol Cor. 11 : 21. 


1 Blass, Gr. of Ν. T. Gk., p. 145. 

2 Καὶ -ΒΙ., I, i, p. 608. _ 4 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 185. 

8 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 195. 5 Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 68. 
6 Cf. Griech. Gr., p. 241; Comp. Gr., III, p. 335. 


696 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Instances of other cases occur also. I see no adequate reason for 
refusing to consider ὃν μὲν ἔδειραν, dv δὲ ἀπέκτειναν, dv δὲ ἐλιθοβόλησαν 
‘(Mt. 21:35) examples of the demonstrative ὅς. Cf. Lu. 28 : 33. 
In the accusative plural note ods μέν, ots δέ, Mk. 12 : 5; Ac. 27: 44; 
Ju. 22f. For the dative singular, ᾧ μέν, ᾧ δέ, note Mt. 25:15. In 
1 Cor. 12 : 8 we have @ μέν, ἄλλῳ δέ, κτλ. For the dative plural see 
ois μέν, οἷς δέ, 2 Cor. 2:16. In 1 Cor. 12:28 we have ois μέν 
as demonstrative without any corresponding ois δέ. Cf. of μὲν 
οὖν in Ac. 8:4, 25; 11:19; 15:3, 30, and ὁ μὲν οὖν in Ac. 23:18 as 
above in (c). The relative at the beginning of sentences or para- 
graphs, like ἐν οἷς in Lu. 12: 1 (cf. ἀνθ’ ὧν verse 3), may indeed at 
bottom be a reminiscence of the old demonstrative. Cf. Latin and 
English usage. The demonstrative is often used to connect sen- 
tences, as in Mt. 11:25; 12:1; Mk. 8:1, etc. Cf. Blass, Gr. of 
N.T.Gk., p. 276. In Mt. 26 : 50, ἐφ᾽ ὃ πάρει, we may also have an 
instance of the demonstrative. But we do not have in the N. T. 
καὶ ὅς, καὶ τόν, τὸν Kal τόν, πρὸ ToD. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 62) 
finds demonstrative ὅσδε in an inscription in Heberdey-Wilhelm, 
Reisen, N. 170. 

(ὁ) “Ode. Brugmann? finds the enclitic —de the same that we have 
in δε-ῦρο, δή, ἰ-δὲ (?), Latin quan-de. It corresponds to the Latin 
hic, German der hier, English this here. It refers to what is 
“immediately near’’ in space or time,® and is of relatively more 
importance than οὗτος. As a matter of fact ὅδε occurs only ten 
times in the N. T. In the LX X “ὅδε is much commoner than in 
the N. T.” (Thackeray, Gr. of the O. T. in Gk., vol. I, p. 191), 
especially in the more literary parts. For its rarity in papyri and 
inscriptions see Mayser, Gr., etec., Ὁ. 308. It is already failing in 
the first century B.c. (Radermacher, N. 7. Gr., p. 62). For rade see 
chapter VII, rv, 4, (e). In Lu.16:25 ὧδε is the correct text. In 
Ac. 15 : 23 τάδε is not well supported and in 2 Cor. 12 : 19 ra δέ is 
right. In one of the remaining examples, τῇδε ἦν ἀδελφή (Lu. 10: 
39), Blass‘ bluntly calls it “ποὺ even used correctly,”’ a rather curt 
judgment. But he cites the LXX (Gen. 25:24; 38:27). In 
Winer-Schmiedel® this example is not considered as ὅδε used for 
οὗτος, but rather like the classic ὅδε ἔγώ, olde ἡμεῖς (cf. Ex. 8 : 25; 
Gen. 50:18). In Jas. 4 : 18, πορευσόμεθα εἰς τήνδε τὴν πόλιν, it 15 
hardly necessary to take τήνδε as like the classical τὴν δεῖνα or τὴν 
καὶ τήν (cf. Plato), though that is a possible construction. Cf. 

1 So Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 68, n. 3. 


2’ Griech.'Gr.; p: 242: 4; Gr. Ot N le Gkeapiaueus 
3 Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 65. S  BA216, 


Pee ee es 


PRONOUNS (’ANTONYMIAI) 697 


ποιήσομεν τοῦτο ἢ ἐκεῖνο in verse 15. Plutarch! seems to use τήνδε in 
this sense. More likely in James τήνδε merely means ‘this’ city 
which the enterprising Jew exploits for a year before he passes on 
to the next. 

(f) Οὗτος. Of doubtful etymology, possibly an original root w.? 
With this combine ὁ, ἡ, τόΞξε οὗ, ai, του. Then add το-ς, ra(n), το. 
In reality, therefore, οὗτος is a doubled demonstrative (combination 
of so and to, Giles, p. 296). It is like the Latin 7s-te (double also). 
Οὗτος is more often anaphoric than deictic.2 In Homer‘ it (deictic) 
expresses an object present to the speaker, but not near him. The 
word is limited in use in Homer and usually refers to what is 
previously mentioned (anaphoric).> It is very common in the 
N. T. and on the whole the usage accords with that of the older 
Greek. Naturally there is much diversity in the context. 

1. The Purely Deictic. 'This use is not wanting. Thus in Mt. 
3:17, οὗτός ἐστιν 6 ὑιός μου, the demonstrative identifies the one 
present as the Son of God. For further examples of the purely 
deictic use see Mt. 12: 23; 17:5; 21:10 f. (a particularly good 
Miueiravion);: 21238; 27:37, 47, 654; Mk. 6:3; 15:39; Lu. 4; 22; 
8:25, etc. But a still plainer example is in Jo. 21:21, when 
Simon pointed to John as οὗτος δὲ τί. 

2. The Contemptuous Use of οὗτος. It is merely one variation of 
the purely deictic idiom due to the relation of the persons in ques- 
tion. Itis rather common inthe N. T. Soin Mt. 26 : 61 οὗτος ἔφη 
we find a “fling”? of reproach as the witnesses testify against 
Jesus. Cf. Mt. 26:71 (parallel Lu. 22:56 καὶ οὗτος), the maid 
about Peter; Mk. 2:7, the Pharisees about Jesus; Lu. 15 : 2; Jo. 
6:42: 9:24; 12:34; Ac. 7:40, Jews about Moses; 19:26; 28: 
4, about Paul; Lu. 15 : 30, the elder son at the younger; 18 : 11, 
the Pharisee at the publican, etc. A striking example occurs in 
Ac. 5 : 28. 

3. The Anaphoric Use. The pronoun here refers to one previ- 
ously mentioned, as in Mt. 27:58 where οὗτος alludes to ᾿Ιωσήφ in 
verse 57, where note the anacoluthon. So in Heb. 7:1 οὗτος points 
to the mention of Melchizedek in the preceding verse. There are 
many variations in the anaphoric idiom. The simplest is the one 
already mentioned, where the subject of discussion is merely con- 
tinued by οὗτος, as in Mt. 3:3 (cf. the Baptist in verse 1). In 
particular observe καὶ οὗτος, as in Lu. 8:41;16:1. In Lu. 22:59 

1 Quest. conviv. 1. 6. 1, τήνδε τὴν ἡμέραν. 


2 Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 242, 428. 4 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 170. 
8 Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 65. 5 Tb. 


698 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


καὶ οὗτος is rather deictic. A striking example of the continua- 
tive οὗτος occurs in Ac. 7: 35, 36, 37, 38, 40. Here the pro- 
noun is repeated as often as is desired. So Jo. 6:42. Cf. the 
use of the pronoun because of prolepsis (Ac. 9:20). The more 
frequent use is the resumptive or epexegetical use which is rather 
more abundant in the N. T.!. Here οὗτος is really in apposition. 
In Ro. 7: 10, ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ εἰς ζωὴν αὕτη εἰς θάνατον, We seem to have the 
resumptive use with a substantive. But a clear example (different 
in number and gender)? oecurs in Mt. 13:38, τὸ δὲ καλὸν σπέρμα, 
οὗτοί εἰσιν. One may note a similar use of ἐκεῖνος (Jo. 12: 48; 16: 13) 
and of αὐτός (Jo. 12 : 49). Another plain instance is in Ac. 2: 28, 
where τοῦτον refers to Ἰησοῦν (verse 22). Cf. also τοῦτον (2d) in 
Ac. 7:35. In Ac. 4:10 ἐν τούτῳ is resumptive referring to the pre- 
ceding substantive followed by two relative clauses, while οὗτος is 
deictic. In verse 11 again οὗτος is continuative. In Ro. 9:6, of ἐξ 
᾿Ισραήλ, οὗτοι (cf. Gal. 3 : 7), the resumptive use is plain. The par- 
ticiple before οὗτος is a very common idiom, as ὁ δὲ ὑπομείνας εἰς τέλος 
οὗτος (Mt. 10 : 22; 24:18); ὁ ἐμβάψας μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ --- οὗτος (26: 23). Cf. 
1 Cor. 6:4; Lu. 9:48; Jo. 7:18, etc. The participle, of course, 
often follows otros, not resumptive, as in Jo. 11:37. The rel- 
ative is followed by resumptive οὗτος as in ὃς δ᾽ ἂν ἀπολέσῃ — 
οὗτος (Lu. 9 : 24), ὃ θέλω τοῦτο πράσσω (Ro. 7:15 f., 20). So Mt. 5: 
410 Mk.-6 2163 Acid 263,Galind 21756 273° 20 ime ae 
plural is seen in Jo. 8 : 26, 4 — ταῦτα; also in Ph. 4:9. For ἅτινα 
— ταῦτα see Ph. 3:7, and ὅσοι — οὗτοι Ro. 8: 14; Gal. 6:12; 
Ph. 4:8. Cf. Winer-Schmiedel, p. 218. See ὅταν --- τότε, καθώς — 
ταῦτα (Jo. 8:28). In Ph. 1: 22 τοῦτο resumes τὸ ζῆν. In 
2 Th. 3 : 14 τοῦτον is resumptive with εἴ τις as in Jas. 1: 23; 3: 2. 
Cf. also 1 Cor. 8:3; Ro. 8:9; Jas. 3:2.3 For ἐάν tis see Jo. 
9:31. Sometimes only the context can clear up the exact 
reference of the anaphoric otros. So in Ac. ὃ : 26 αὕτη points to 
ἡ ὁδός. 

4. In Apposition. See also chapter X, 1x. οὗτος itself may be 
expanded or explained by apposition. The simplest form of this 
construction is where a substantive‘ is in apposition as in 2 Cor. 
13:9, τοῦτο καὶ εὐχόμεθα, τὴν ὑμῶν κατάρτισιν, Where agreement in 
gender does not occur. Cf. the nominative ἡ πίστις in 1 Jo. 5:4. 
Cf. 1 Th. 4:3. Οὗτος is, of course, the antecedent of the rela- 
tive és, as in Mt. 11:10; Jo. 7: 25; τοῦτο ὅ in Jo. 16:17. In 

1 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 65 f. 


2. Th; 3 Ib., p. 66. 
4.Cf. Blass, Gr. of NT. GE.; p: 171. 


et ee ee | 


"nie a δε 


PRONOUNS (’ANTONYMIAI) 699 


Ph. 2:5 note τοῦτο --- ὃ καί. Sometimes a-clause is in apposition 


with ovros which may be either nominative or in an oblique case. 
Thus with ὅτι we have the nominative (with feminine predicate 
noun), as in αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ κρίσις ὅτι (70. ὃ : 190). Cf. 1Jo. 1: δ; 5:9, 
11,14. In Mk. 4:41, τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν ὅτι, the ὅτι is almost equal 
to ὥστε. The accusative with ὅτι we have in τοῦτο ὅτι (Ro. 2 : 8; 
eto elite LO Pe eA cr 24  ΟΟΣ 12125915: 5092: Cored": 
ΠΝ (str eee bho ΡΠ πο (αὐτὸ rovro); 25.».1 Tim? EP; 
9; 2 Tim. 3:1; 2'Pet. 1:20; 3:3, 8. Cf. also διὰ τοῦτο᾽ ὅτί in Jo. 
12:39.1 In Gal. 3:17, after τοῦτο λέγω, we have the direct dis- 
course without recitative ὅτι, but the quotation is really in the 
accusative in apposition with τοῦτο. Cf. also Lu. 12:18, τοῦτο 
ποιήσω" καθελῷ pov τὰς ἀποθήκας, and Jo.4:17. The genitive with 
ὅτι appears in περὶ τούτου ὅτι (Jo. 16:19). The locative appears in 
ἐν τούτῳ ott, 1 Jo. 4:9, 10, 13. Cf. ἐν τούτῳ ὅτι (Jo. 16:30; 1 Jo. 
3:19, 24) in a slightly different sense where ὅτι is really the accu- 


sative. But in general these substantive clauses have the same 


case as τοῦτο. 

Closely allied to this use of ὅτι is that of ἵνα. Thus the nom- 
inative, πόθεν μοι τοῦτο ἵνα ἔλθῃ, occurs In Lu. 1:48. In Jo. 17:3, 
αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ aiwvios ζωὴ ἵνα, the pronoun is feminine because of 
the predicate substantive. Cf. Jo. 15:12; 1 Jo. 3:11, 28; 5:3; 
2 Jo. 6. The accusative as the direct object of the verb is seen 
in τοῦτο προσεύχομαι ἵνα in Ph. 1:9. Cf. also tadra— ἵνα, Jo. 
15:11, 17; 1 Jo.5:18. The feminine substantive occurs in the 
accusative also, as in ταύτην τὴν ἐντολὴν ἔχομεν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ἵνα, 1 Jo. 
4:21. The accusative is found also with prepositions. So εἰς- 
tovro, wa, Ac. 9:21; Ro. 14:9; 2 Cor. 2:9; 1 Pet. 3:9; 4:6; 1 
Jo.3:8. In Eph. 6 : 22 we have εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἵνα. Cf. Col. 4:8. 
Likewise note διὰ τοῦτο, ἵνα in 2 Cor. 13:10; 1 Tim. 1: 16; Phil. 15. 
In 2 Cor. 2 : 3, ἔγραψα τοῦτο αὐτὸ ἵνα, we probably have the direct 
accusative, though τοῦτο αὐτό could be adverbial accusative, ‘for 
this very reason.’ The locative appears in ἐν τούτῳ ἐδοξάσθη iva, 0. 
15:8. Cf.1 Jo.4:17. The ablative case appears in Jo. 15: 13, 
μείζονα ταύτης ἀγάπην οὐδεὶς ἔχει, ἵνα. In 3 Jo. 4 the ablative plural 
is found, μειζοτέραν τούτων — iva. The apposition in these various 
constructions varies in degree of directness. An example of ὅπως 
with eis αὐτὸ τοῦτο Occurs in Ro. 9 : 17 quoted from the LXX (Ex. 
9:16). Cf. also στελλόμενοι τοῦτο μὴ in 2 Cor. ὃ : 20. 

In 1 Pet. 2:19 note also the use of εἰ with τοῦτο (though χάρις 


1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 217, where it is observed that elsewhere often διὰ τοῦτο 
points to what goes before. 


700 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


is predicate), τοῦτο yap χάρις εἰ. Here the εἰ clause is in the same 
case as τοῦτο, nominative. Soin Jo. 2:3 we have ἐάν in apposition 
with ἐν τούτῳ (locative). 

In 1 Jo. 5: 2 the correct text has ὅταν in similar apposition with 
ἐν τούτῳ. The infinitive also occurs in apposition with τοῦτο. In 
Heb. 9:8 the perfect infinitive in indirect discourse with the ac- 
cusative is in apposition to τοῦτο which is itself accusative, τοῦτο 
δηλοῦντος τοῦ πνεύματος TOD ἁγίου, μήπω πεφανερῶσθαι τὴν KT. In 
Eph. 4 : 17 likewise μηκέτι περιπατεῖν, in apposition to τοῦτο (after 
λέγω), iS in indirect discourse, though here it is indirect com- 
mand, not indirect assertion. But in 1 Cor. 7:37 τηρεῖν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ 
παρθένον is merely explanatory of τοῦτο κέκρικεν. The same thing 
is true in 2 Cor. 2:1, where the article is added to the infinitive 
which is also in the accusative, ἔκρινα ἐμαυτῷ τοῦτο, TO μὴ --- ἐλθεῖν. 
In Ac. 26 : 16 the infinitive προχειρίσασθαι is in the accusative like 
eis τοῦτο. Cf. οὕτως, 1 Pet. 2:15. The nominative infinitive in 
Jas. 1:27 is in apposition with αὕτη (θρησκεία καθαρὰ --- αὕτη, ἐπι- 
σκέπτεσθαι). So also note οὕτως ἐστὶν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ --- φιμοῖν in 
1 Pet. 2:΄15.: Cf. Ro. 1:12 where τοῦτο --- συνπαρακληθῆναι are 
merely subject and predicate. In 2 Cor. 7: 11 the nominative 
infinitive, τὸ λυπηθῆναι, occurs with αὐτὸ τοῦτος. Indeed in Mk. 12: 
24 the causal participle is really explanatory of τοῦτο (διὰ τοῦτο 
πλανᾶσθε, μὴ εἰδότες). It is possible to see a similar example? in 
Lu. 8:21, ἀδελφοί μου οὗτοί εἰσιν of —adxotovres. Here in truth 
οὗτοι Seems unnecessary. 

5. Use of the Article. The article commonly occurs with the noun 
when the noun is used with οὗτος. The noun is by no means always 
necessary with otros. See 6. Indeed the demonstrative alone is 
often sufficient, as in Jo.1:2,7, etc. So αὐτοὶ οὗτοι (Ac. 24:15, 
20). In a sense a double demonstrative thus occurs, since the ar- 
ticle was originally demonstrative. This is in exact accord with 
classic usage and calls for no special comment, except that it is 
an idiom foreign to Latin and English. The modern Greek pre- 
serves this idiom with the demonstrative. So τούτη ἡ γυναῖκα, 
αὐτὸς ὁ ἄνδρας (Thumb, Handb., p. 92). It is immaterial whether 
οὗτος comes first, as οὗτος 6 τελώνης (Lu. 18 : 11), or last, as ὁ ἄνθρω- 
πος οὗτος (Lu. 28 : 47). Cf. Jo. 9:24. When an adjective is used 
with the substantive, then the article may be repeated with the 
adjective, as ἡ χήρα αὕτη ἡ πτωχή (Mk. 12 : 48), or οὗτος may, like 
the adjective, be brought within the rule of the article. So τίς ἡ 


1 Yor exx. in earlier Gk. and literary κοινή see W.-Sch., p. 217. 
2 W.-Sch., p. 218. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTONYMIAI) 701 


καινὴ αὕτη [ἡ] ὑπὸ cod λαλουμένη διδαχή (Ac. 17:19)... Even if the 
second article be admitted here, the point made still applies. The 
position of οὗτος with the article, οὗτος ὁ rather than ὁ otros, does 
not mean simply the predicate idea, though the position is predi- 
cate. But not so τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην ἅπασαν in Lu. 4:6. Here 
the real predicate notion appears. In Kiihner-Gerth (I, p. 628) 
the explanation is given that it is either apposition (οὗτος ὁ ἀνήρΞε 
‘this, the man’) or predicative sense (ὁ ἀνὴρ οὗτος = ‘the man here’). 
Probably so, but in actual usage the connection is much closer 
than that. See Lu. 15: 24, οὗτος ὁ vids μους Cf. the French idiom 
La République Francaise. Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 324) takes the 
predicate explanation. See also chapter XVI, The Article. 

6. Article Absent. The article does not always occur with sub- 
stantives when οὗτος is used. When οὗτος occurs with proper names 
in the N. T., the article is present. So Ac. 1: 11 οὗτος ὁ ᾿]ησοῦς, 
19 : 26 ὁ Παῦλος οὗτος, 7:40 ὁ γὰρ Mwions οὗτος, 2:32 τοῦτον τὸν 
᾿Ιησοῦν, Heb. 7: 1 οὗτος γὰρ ὁ Μελχισεδέκ, except in Ac. 6: 14 ᾽Ι]ησοῦς 
ὁ Ναζωραῖος οὗτος, where the article is used with the adjective, not 
with ’Incots. So uniform indeed in the Greek is the presence of 
the article with the noun and οὗτος, that the absence of the article 
causes something of a jolt. In Ro. 9:8 the conjunction of the 
words ταῦτα τέκνα must not deceive us. The copula ἐστιν must 
be supplied between. The American Revision indeed calls in the 
English relative to render the idiom ov τὰ τέκνα τῆς σαρκὸς ταῦτα τέκνα 
τοῦ θεοῦ. Cf. the simple predicate use in 1 Cor. 6 : 11, καὶ ταῦτά τινες 
ἦτε. In Lu. 1:36, οὗτος μὴν ἕκτος ἐστίν, the substantive is predicate. 
The same thing is clearly true of Lu. 2:2, αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη 
ἔγένετο. Cf. also τοῦτο ὑμῖν σημεῖον in Lu. 2:12. Some MSS. have 
τό, but in either case the copula is supplied. The remaining exam- 
ples are not so simple, but ultimately resolve themselves into the 
predicate usage unless one has to except Ac. 24: 21 (see below). In 
Lu. 7:44, ταύτην τὴν γυναῖκα, the article does not occur in L 47%, 
Winer? considers the reading without the article “unexception- 
able,’”’ since the woman was present. In Lu. 24:21 the predicate 
accusative really is found, τρίτην ταύτην ἡμέραν aye ad’ ov ταῦτα 
ἔγένετο, 2 common Greek idiom difficult to put into English. 
It is not ‘this third day,’ but ‘this a third day.’ Cf. also 2 Pet. 
3:1, ταύτην δευτέραν ypadw ἐπιστολήν. In this instance the English 
translation resorts to the relative ‘that’ to bring out the predi- 
cate relation, ‘this is the second epistle that I write.’ In Jo. 2:11, 


1 See Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 331, for this “pseudo-attributive position.” 
2 W.-Th., p. 110. 


702 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ταύτην ἐποίησεν ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων, even the American Revision 
has a wrong translation, ‘this beginning of miracles.’ It is rather 
‘this Jesus did as a beginning of miracles.’ But δὲ and Chrys. 
here have τήν. In Jo. 4:18, τοῦτο ἀληθὲς εἴρηκας, the English rela- 
tive is again necessary, ‘this is a true thing that thou didst say’ 
or ‘thou didst speak this as a true thing.’ The translation ‘truly’ 
rather obscures the idea. In Ac. 1: 5, οὐ μετὰ πολλὰς ταύτας ἡμέρας, 
several difficulties appear. The litotes, οὐ μετὰ πολλὰς, does not 
have the usual order.1. Cf. Ac. 27: 14 for per’ οὐ πολύ. There is be- 
sides a use of μετά Somewhat akin to that of πρό in πρὸ ἕξ ἡμερῶν τοῦ 
πάσχα (Jo. 12:1).2 The order would more naturally be οὐ πολλὰς 
ἡμέρας μετὰ TaVTas OF οὐ πολλῶν ἡμερῶν μετὰ ταύτας. However, the 
predicate use of ταύτας without the article permits the condensa- 
tion. The free translation ‘not many days hence’ is essentially cor- 
rect. It is literally ‘after not many days these’ as a starting-point 
(from these). In Jo. 21:14, τοῦτο ἤδη τρίτον ἐφανερώθη ᾿Ιησοῦς, the 
matter is very simple, ‘this already a third time,’ or to use the 
English relative, ‘this is now the third time that.’ So also in 
2 Cor. 12:14 and 13:1, τρίτον τοῦτο. The most difficult instance 
to understand is in Ac. 24:21, περὶ μιᾶς ταύτης φωνῆς ἧς ἐκέκραξα. 
Here ‘concerning this one voice which I cried’ makes perfectly 
obvious sense. The trouble is that it is the only N. T. example 
of such an attributive usage without the article. Blass* takes 
it to be equivalent to ἡ φωνὴ ἣ ἐγένετο ἢν μία αὕτη. This is, of 
course, the normal Greek idiom and is possibly correct. But one 
wonders if a lapse from the uniform idiom may not occur here. 
Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 92) cites τούτου πράγματος, ταῦτα ἀδική- 
ματα, τοῦτο κτῆμα from inscriptions in Magnesia (Petersen-Luschan, 
Reisen in Lykien, p. 35, n. 54) and ἔστησαν τόδε μνῆμα from a Bi- 
thynian inscription (Perrot, Haploration arch. de la Galatie, p. 24, 
N. 34). Hence one had best not be too dogmatic as to Luke’s 
idiom in Ac. 24:21. After all, the predicate use may be the orig- 
inal use, as with ἐκεῖνος. Cf. Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 426 f.; 
Thompson, Syntax of Attic Greek, p. 67. See also chapter XVI. 
7. Οὗτος in Contrast with ἐκεῖνος. The distinction between ὅδε 
for what follows and οὗτος for what precedes‘ (not strictly observed 
in the ancient Greek) amounts to little in the N. T., since ὅδε is 
so rare. But οὗτος does, as a rule, refer to what is near or last 
mentioned and ἐκεῖνος to what is remote. See αὕτη and οὗτος in 
1 W.-Sch.; p. 221. 


* Cf. Blass» Gr. of N. TeGky pp.1262.1383. 
ΕΠ aki ae 4 Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 66. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTONTMIAI) 703 


2 Jo. 6 f. and τοῦτο in 2 Cor. 18:9. This idiomatic use of οὗτος 
is plain in Ac. 7:19. In 1 Jo. 5:20 οὗτος really refers to αὐτοῦ 
(ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ) and so no difficulty exists. In Ac. 4:11 οὗτος is 
resumptive and takes up the main thread of the story again (cf. 
οὗτος in verse 9). In Ac. ὃ : 26 αὕτη may refer to Γάζαν, but more 
probably (see 3, end) refers to ὁδός, a more remote substantive, 
indeed. In Lu. 16:1 again only the sense! makes it clear (ἄνθρω- 
mos τις ἣν πλούσιος ὃς εἶχεν οἰκονόμον, Kal οὗτος) that οὗτος refers to 
οἰκονόμον. In Lu. 1ὃ : 14, κατέβη οὗτος δεδικαιωμένος εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ 
παρ᾽ ἐκεῖνον, the two pronouns occur in sharp contrast, one point- 
ing out the publican, the other the Pharisee. In such contrasts 
ovros refers to the last mentioned. This is clearly one example 


(besides 2 Jo. 6 f.) in the N. T., which curiously enough Blass 


(Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 171) does not recognise. - Cf. also Jo. 
13 : 24; ἐκεῖνος τούτῳ in Jo. 5: 88, and ταῦτα ἐκείνοις in 1 Cor. 
10:11. In Jo. 1:7f. both οὗτος and ἐκεῖνος are used of John 
and in proper idiom.? Instead of ἐκεῖνος we might have had 
οὗτος properly enough because of αὐτοῦ, but ἐκεῖνος calls us back 
pointedly to ᾿Ιωάνης. Cf. Abbott, Johannine Grammar, p. 250. 
Note otros ὁ λόγος---ὁ μαθητὴς ἐκεῖνος in Jo. 21:23. In 1 Cor. 
0 : 18, ὁ δὲ θεὸς καὶ ταύτην καὶ ταῦτα καταργήσει, we find οὗτος used 
for both the near and the remote. The number and gender 
make it clear. In 1 Cor. 9:3 αὕτη points to what follows. In 
a case like ἐν τούτῳ χαίρω (Ph. 1:18), the main thought is meant 
by the demonstrative. So with ἐν τούτῳ δίδωμι" τοῦτο yap ὑμῖν 
συμφέρει (2 Cor. 8:10). Cf. τοῦτο Ac. 24 : 14, ete. 

8. As Antecedent of the Relative Pronoun. The absence of the 
demonstrative pronoun before the relative pronoun will be dis- 
cussed later. This absence is in the case of a possible pronoun 
before the relative and after it also. The resumptive use of the 
demonstrative pronoun after the relative sentence has been al- 
ready treated. But? it is ‘‘the normal correlative’ otros — ὅς. So 
οὗτος περὶ ov (Mt. 11: 10), οὗτος ὅν (Jo. 7: 25), οὗτος ὅς (Ac. 7: 40), 
τοῦτο — 6 (Ph. 2:5). See interrogative demonstrative and rela- 
tive in τίς ἐστιν οὗτος ὅς (Lu. 5: 21; 7:49); τί τοῦτο 6 (Jo. 16:17 f.). 
Cf. Lu. 24:17. On the whole, however, the demonstrative before 
the relative is not common in the N. T. In Gal. 2 : 10 both αὐτό 
and τοῦτο are incorporated into the relative clause, ὃ καὶ ἐσπούδασα 
αὐτὸ τοῦτο ποιῆσαι. 


- Blass, Gr. of N. ΠΟ. 171. 
2 Blass, ib., p. 172, explains ἐκεῖνος as showing that the discourse passes from 
John to Jesus. But ἐκεῖνος refersto John. ὃ Thomp., Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 66. 


704 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


9. Gender and Number of οὗτος. See chapter X. In general, 
like other adjectives, otros agrees with its substantive in gender 
and number, whether predicate or attributive. Cf,Jo.2:11. In 
1 Cor. 6:18, καὶ ταύτην καὶ ταῦτα, note the number and gender. 
But sometimes the construction according to sense prevails. 
So the masculine, not feminine, in Ac. 8:10, οὗτός ἐστιν ἡ Abva- 
puts τοῦ θεοῦ. So σκεῦος ἐκλογῆς ἐστίν μοι οὗτος (Ac. 9: 15), οὗτοι and 
ἔθνη (Ro. 2:14). Cf. also Ju. 12, οὗτοι --- νεφέλαι, δένδρα, κύματα, 
ἀστέρες; 2 Pet. 2 : 17, οὗτοί εἰσιν πηγαὶ, and οὗτοι --- ἔλαϊαι (Rev. 11 : 
4). In these examples assimilation to the gender of the predicate 
does not occur. Cf. ταῦτα ri, Jo.6:9. In Mt. 21:42 (Mk. 12: 11), 
παρὰ κυρίου ἔγένετο αὕτη, the feminine occurs where the neuter would 
be natural in Greek. This is a piece of ‘‘translation’”’ Greek (Ps. 
118 : 23). In Hebrew the feminine is the case for abstract words, 
the Hebrew having no neuter gender. In Eph. 2 : 8, τῇ γὰρ xapurt 
ἐστε TETWOMEVOL διὰ πίστεως" Kal τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν, there is no reference 
to πίστεως ἴῃ τοῦτο, but rather to the idea of salvation in the clause 
before. But in 1 Pet. 2:19 f. we have two examples of the neuter Ὁ 
(τοῦτο) on purpose to present a more separate and abstract notion 
than αὕτη would have done, an ancient Greek idiom, τοῦτο γὰρ 
χάρις εἰ --- τοῦτο χάρις παρὰ Oe. In 1 Cor. 10:6 the same prin- 
ciple applies, ταῦτα δὲ τύποι ἡμῶν ἔγενήθησαν. A striking example 
is found in 1 Cor. 6:11, καὶ ταῦτά τινες ἦτε. Here ταῦτα is much 
like τοιοῦτοι, but more definite and emphatic. For this use of 
οὗτος see also Jo. 12:34. In Ph. 3:7, ἅτινα ἦν μοι κέρδη, ταῦτα 
ἥγημαι --- ζημίαν, assimilation to the gender of the predicate 15 also 
absent. 

Sometimes the plural ταῦτα occurs where a single object is really 
in mind. The adverbial phrase μετὰ ταῦτα (Lu. 12:4) can refer 
either to one or more incidents. It is not necessary to consider 
ταῦτα as singular in idea in Jo. 19:36 and 1 Cor.9:15. But the 
usage does appear in 3 Jo. 4, μειζοτέραν τούτων οὐκ ἔχω χάριν (or 
χαράν), and the adverbial accusative καὶ ταῦτα in Heb. 11: 12. 
Some MSS. have καὶ ταῦτα instead of καὶ τοῦτο in 1 Cor. 6:8. 

But assimilation to the predicate both in gender and number 
occurs. So in Lu. 8:14f., τὸ... πεσόν, οὗτοί εἰσιν of ἀκούσαντες. 
The same thing! appears in Gal. 4:24, ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα" 
αὗται yap εἰσιν δύο διαθῆκαι. Note the assimilation of αὕτη in Lu. 
2:2; 8311; 22 δῦ; Jo.13 19) ΠΟΣῚ ΤΊ ἩΓΟΥ͂ 
25: Dio, 4,97 115 eter οὗτος ἢν 5 eae: 

10. The Adverbial Uses of τοῦτο and ταῦτα. See chapter XII. 

| 1 W.-Sch., p. 219. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTONTMIAI) 705 


Here we have καὶ τοῦτο (adverbial accusative or nominative ab- 
solute) like Latin idque (English ‘and that too’) in 1 Cor. 6:6 
(CD? ταῦτα), 8 (L ταῦτα Ὁ Ro. 13:11; Eph. 2:8 (this last could 
be otherwise explained). Καὶ ταῦτα, the usual classical idiom,! ap- 
pears in Heb. 11:12 with a concessive participle. In τοῦτο μέν, 
τοῦτο δὲ (Heb. 10 : 33) Blass? sees a literary usage. In 2 Cor. 2:3 
Paul has τοῦτο αὐτό in the adverbial sense, while Peter (2 Pet. 
1:5) turns the phrase around καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο δέ. Cf. the adverbial 
use of κεφάλαιον in Heb. 8:1. The case of οὗτος in Jo. 21:21 is 
noteworthy. 

11. The Phrase τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν. See also chapter X, vit, (c). It is 
used without any regard to the number, gender or case of the word 
in apposition with it, exactly like the Latin zd est. There are 
eighteen examples of it given in Moulton and Geden’s Concord- 
ance, all but three of them from the Acts, Romans, Philemon 
and Hebrews. It is a mark of the more formal literary style. In 
Mt. 27: 46 the case explained is the vocative, in Mk. 7: 2 the 
instrumental, in Ro. 7:18 the locative, in Heb. 2: 14 the accu- 
sative, in Heb. 9:11 the genitive, in Heb. 7: 5 the plural, in 
1 Pet. 3:20 the plural. In Ro. 1:12 the uncontracted form 
occurs with δέ. In 1 Mace. 4:52 οὗτος ὁ μὴν Χασελεῦ is in appo- 
sition with the genitive. Here οὗτος performs the function of 
τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν. Cf. the case-irregularities in the Apocalypse. 

12. In Combination with Other Pronouns. Mention may be 
made of ἐν τούτῳ οὗτος (Ac. 4 : 10) and other instances of the double 
use of οὗτος. Cf. Mk. 6:2. Cf. οὗτος οὕτω in Mk. 2:7, ταῦτα 
o’rws (Ac. 24:9), ows τοῦτο (1 Cor. 5:3), and in 2 Pet. 3:11 
τούτων οὕτως πάντων. Examples of αὐτὸ τοῦτο are common in Paul 
Bie ia asl omc Ora LL Ph. 5.6. Cf, 20Pete di: 5).4For 
τοῦτο αὑτό see 2 Cor. 2:3, αὐτὸ τοῦτο Ro. 13:6. For αὐτοὶ οὗτοι 
see Ac. 24:15, 20. For τοῦτο ὅλον cf. Mt. 1:22; 26:56. There is 
no doubt some difference between ταῦτα πάντα (Mt. 4:9; Lu. 
12 : 30; 16:14) and πάντα ταῦτα (Mt. 6:32). “In the first ex- 
pression, πάντα is a closer specification of ταῦτα; in the second, 
πάντα is pointed out demonstratively by means of tadra.’’4 

13. Ellipsis of οὗτος. The demonstrative is by no means always 
used before the relative. Often the relative clause is simply the 
object of the principal verb, as in ὃ λέγω ὑμῖν ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ εἴπατε 
(Mt. 10:27). Sometimes the implied demonstrative must be 
expressed in the English translation. The simplest form of this 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 171. 3 W.-Sch., p. 219. 
2. ΤΌ, 4 W.-Th., p. 548. 


706 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


idiom is where the case of the demonstrative would have been 
the same as that of the relative. Thus συγγενὴς ὧν οὗ ἀπέκοψεν 
Πέτρος τὸ ὠτίον (Jo. 18: 26). Cf. ὅν in Ac. 1: 24. In Ac. 8: 24 ὧν 
is for τούτων ἃ by attraction. But the ellipsis occurs also when a 
different case would have been found.! So in Mt. 19 : 11 οἷς δέδοται 
would have been οὗτοι οἷς 6€6. In Jo. 13 : 29 ὧν would have been 
preceded by ταῦτα. Cf. also Ac. 8 : 19; 13 : 37, etc. In Ro. 10: 14, 
πῶς πιστεύσωσιν οὗ οὐκ ἤκουσαν, the antecedent of οὗ would be either 
τούτῳ (or ἐπὶ τούτῳ) or more probably εἰς τοῦτον (preposition also 
dropped). When a preposition is used, it may belong to the rela- 
tive clause, as in πῶς ἐπικαλέσωνται eis ὃν οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν (Ro. 10: 14; 
cf. Jo. 19 : 37), or to the implied demonstrative, as in ἵνα πιστεύσητε 
εἰς ὃν ἀπέστειλεν (Jo. 6:29). In Ro. 14:21 ἐν @ illustrates the prep- 
osition with the relative, while in the next verse it illustrates the 
preposition with the antecedent. In Jo. 11:6 ἐν ᾧ τόπῳ is an 
example where ἐν would have been used with both antecedent and 
relative. So as to ἀφ᾽ ὧν in 2 Cor. 2 : 3, etc.2 The same principle 
of suppressed antecedent applies to relative adverbs, as in ἦλθεν 
ὅπου ἣν (Jo. 11:32), strictly ἐκεῖσε ὅπου. 

14. Shift in Reference. It is possible that in Ac. 5: 20, λαλεῖτε 
ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τῷ AAG πάντα τὰ ῥήματα τῆς ζωῆς ταύτης, a Slight change in 
sense has occurred, ταὐτῆς more naturally going with ῥήματα. Cf. 
ἐκ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ θανάτου τούτου (Ro. 7: 24). But the point is not 
very material. 

(g) ᾿Εκεῖνος. Cf. Latin cle. The old form (Epic, Pindar, Tragic 
poets) was κεῖνος or κῆνος (Doric and Lesbian). Brugmann‘ indeed 
connects it with the old Indo-Germanic root ko. The locative 
adverb é-xet (cf. κεῖ-θι, κεῖτθεν, Doric, Lesbian) is the immediate 
source of the pronoun ke?-vos, é-xet-vos. Cf. English hi-ther. The 
original usage was therefore predicate.® Thus in Thue. i, 52. 2, 
νῆες ἐκεῖναι ἐπιπλέουσι (‘ships yonder are sailing ahead’), we must 
not confuse it with αἱ νῆες ἐκεῖναι (‘those ships’). Cf. the “‘adver- 
bial” use of οὗτος. By a strange coincidence, while at work on 
this paragraph (Nov., 1908), I received a letter from Rev. R. H. 
Graves, D.D., of Canton, China, concerning Chinese pronouns, 
suggested by the chapter on Pronouns in my Short Grammar of 
the Greek N.T. He says: “The ordinary pronoun for the third 
person is k’ev. In Canton we also use k’nt. Compare ἐκεῖνος." 
He mentions other accidental similarities, but I dare not venture 
into Chinese etymology. 

1 W.-Th., p. 158. 5. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 242 f. 5 Tb., p. 426 f. 

2 Cf. ib., p. 159. Ads 


PRONOUNS (’ANTONYMIAI) 707 


1. The Purely Deictic. We have a few examples in the N. T. 
So in Jo. 13: 26, ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν @ ἔγὼ βάψω τὸ ψωμίον καὶ δώσω αὐτῷ, for 
Judas was present at the table. In Mt. 26 : 23 we have otros. A 
gesture may also have accompanied the remark of the Pharisees 
in Jo. 9:28, σὺ μαθητὴς εἶ ἐκείνου. Cf. also Jo. 19:21. If ἐκεῖνος in 
Jo. 19 : 35 be taken as an appeal to God as a witness to the truth 
of what the writer is saying (possible, though by no means cer- 
tain), the usage would be deictic. Blass! considers that ‘every- 
thing is doubtful” as to this verse, a doubt shared by Abbott.? 
For myself I think that ἐκεῖνος is here anaphoric and refers to 
αὐτοῦ (cf. the similar reference of otros to αὐτοῦ in 1 Jo. 5:20; 
but see Remote Object). Another possible deictic example is in 
Jo. 7:11. Jesus was not present, but in the minds of the people 
a subject of discussion. Cf. also 9 : 12. 

2. The Contemptuous Use (cf. οὗτος). It appears unmistakably 
(see 1) in Jo. 9 : 28, σὺ μαθητὴς εἶ ἐκείνου. It may also exist? in Jo. 
19:21. Cf. the solemn repetition of ἐκεῖνος with ὁ ἄνθρωπος in 
Mt. 26 : 24, as well as the change from οὗτος in verse 23. 

3. The Anaphoric. 'This is the more frequent use of this pro- 
noun. Thus in Jo. 1:8 ἐκεῖνος takes up otros of verse 7 (’Iwavns of 
verse 6). In Jo. 18:15 ὁ δὲ μαθητὴς ἐκεῖνος resumes the story of ἄλλος 
μαθητής immediately preceding. Cf. ἄλλος and ἐκεῖνος in Jo. 5 : 48. 
In Jo. 18:25 ἐκεῖνος refers indeed to the preceding τούτῳ (cf. 


ἐκεῖνος οὕτως). In Jo. 5:19 the reference is to πατέρα just before. 


Cf. Jo. 4:25. ’Exetvos δὲ (Jo. 2:21) is continuative like οὗτος. 
The articular participle may be followed by the resumptive ἐκεῖνος. 
So 6 πέμψας pe — ἐκεῖνος Jo. 1: 83). Cf. Jo. 5:11; 2 Cor. 10:18. 
So in Jo. 1:18 the pronoun refers to θεός followed by ὁ ὦν. Cf. 
Mk. 7: 20 ἐκεῖνο. See Jo. 14:21. For distinction between ἐκεῖνος 
and αὐτοῦ see 2'Tim. 2 : 20:8 :9. 

4. The Remote Object (Contrast). This is not always true, as is 
shown by Jo. 18:15. Cf. Tit. 3:7. It is common thus to refer 
to persons who are absent. So in Jo. 3: 28 (cf. Jo. 7: 11) John 
speaks of Christ in contrast to himself, ἀπεσταλμένος εἰμὶ ἔμπροσθεν 
ἐκείνου. So in verse 30, ἐκεῖνον --- ἐμέ. In 1 Cor. 9:25 note ἐκεῖνοι 
pev — ἡμεῖς δέ. So in 10: 11 ἐκείνοις --- ἡμῶν, 15:11 εἴτε ἔγὼ εἴτε 
ἐκεῖνοι. In Ac. 3:13 the contrast is sharp between ὑμεῖς --- ἐκείνου, 
and in 2 Cor. 8:14 between ὑμῶν --- ἐκείνων (οἷ. ἐκείνων --- ὑμῶν in 
same verse). Cf ὑμῖν --- ἐκείνοις in Mt. 18:11. In Jo. 5:39 ἐκεῖναι 

Gee or Noel: Gk p. 172: 2 Joh. Gr., pp. 285, 567. 


§ Abbott, ib., p. 568. He cites Mt. 27: 19, 63 as exx. of the good and the 
bad sense of ἐκεῖνος. Cf. Lat. dle. 


708 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


is in opposition to ὑμεῖς, as ἐκεῖνος to ὑμεῖς in the preceding verse. 
Cf. 2 Cor. 8:9. For a contrast between those present in the same 
narrative see οὗτος and ἐκεῖνος in Lu. 18:14. Cf. ἐκεῖνος and αὐτός 
in 1 Jo. 2:6 and τοῦτο ἢ ἐκεῖνο in Jas. 4:15. It is common in ex- 
pressions of place, like διὰ τῆς ὁδοῦ ἐκείνης (Mt. 8: 28), εἰς ὅλην 
τὴν γῆν ἐκείνην (9 : 26; cf. ἐν 9:31), etc. It is frequent also with 
general phrases of time, like ἐν rats ἡμέραις ἐκείναις (Mt. 3:1). Cf. 
Mk. 8:1; Lu. 2:1. It usually occurs at a transition in the nar- 
rative and refers to something previously mentioned. Blass! notes 
that Lu. (1:39) uses also ταύταις in this phrase and that in 6: 12 Ὁ 
has ἐκείναις rather than ταύταις. In particular observe the phrase 
ἐκείνη ἡ ἡμέρα for the Last Day (Mt. 7:22; Mk. 14:25; Lu. 21: 
54:17 231 90. 10. 28. ete C10. 00 weber): 

5. Emphasis. Sometimes ἐκεῖνος is quite emphatic. Abbott? 
notes that in John’s Gospel, outside of dialogue, éxetvos usually has 
considerable emphasis. Instance Jo. 1:8, 18, 33; 2:21; 3:30; 
4:25; 5:19, 38; 6:29; 8:42; 14:26; 15:26, etc. In the First 
Epistle of John he observes that it occurs only seven times and 
all but one refer to Christ. He is the important one in John’s 
mind. Cf. αὐτός in Ac. 20:35. But ἐκεῖνος is not always so em- 
phatic even in John. Cf. Jo. 9:11, 25; 10:6; 14:21; 18:17; 
Mk16 S109 ΔΕ ΤῊ οὐ 3} 

6. With Apposition. Τῦ 15 not common with words in apposition. 
But note Jo. 16 : 19, ἐκεῖνος, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας (cf. Jo. 14 : 26). 
Note also ἐκεῖνο γινώσκετε, ὅτι (Mt. 24 : 43) after the fashion of 
οὗτος with ὅτι. Cf. also the resumptive uses with participles (Jo. 
1:18, etc.). 

7. Article with Nouns except when Predicate. When the noun 
is used with ἐκεῖνος in the N. T., the article always appears, except 
when predicate. In Jo. 10 : 1, ἐκεῖνος κλέπτης ἐστίν, the substantive 
is predicate, as in 10:35, ἐκείνους εἶπεν θεούς. With adjectives we 
may note the repetition of the article in Jo. 20:19 and the am- 
biguous position of ἐκείνη in Heb. ὃ : 7 due to the absence of διαθήκη. 
With ὅλος we find this order, eis dAnv τὴν γῆν ἐκείνην (Mt. 9 : 26, ete.) 
and πᾶς the same, πᾶσαν τὴν ὀφειλὴν ἐκείνην (Mt. 18 : 32, etc.). 

8. As Antecedent to Relative. So ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν ᾧ (Jo. 18 : 26), 
ἐκεῖνον ὑπὲρ οὗ (Ro. 14 : 15) ἐκείνοις δι’ ods (Heb. 6:7). Note also 
ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαπῶν (Jo. 14:21) where the articular participle is 
the practical equivalent of a relative clause. 

9. Gender and Number. Little remains to be said about varia- 
tions in gender and number. Two passages in John call for re- 

LeGr, ON, £. Gk. peli. 2 Joh. Οὐ p. 283: 


PRONOUNS (’ANTQNYMIAI) 709 


mark, inasmuch as they bear on the personality of the Holy Spirit. 
In 14 : 26, ὁ δὲ παράκλητος, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ὃ πέμψει ὁ πατὴρ ἐν TO 
ὀνόματί μου, ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς διδάξει, the relative ὅ follows the grammatical 
gender of πνεῦμα. ’Exetvos, however, skips over πνεῦμα and reverts 
to the gender of παράκλητος. In 16:13 a more striking example 
occurs, ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, TO πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας. Here one has to 
go back six lines to ἐκεῖνος again and seven to παράκλητος. It is 
more evident therefore in this passage that John is insisting on 
the personality of the Holy Spirit, when the grammatical gender 
so easily called for ἐκεῖνο. Cf. 6in Jo. 14:17, 26 and αὐτό in 14:17. 
The feminine ἐκείνης in Lu. 19 : 4 evidently refers to ὁδοῦ unex- 
pressed. 

10. Independent Use. The frequency of ἐκεῖνος in John’s Gospel 
may be noticed, but the Synoptics and Acts are not far behind. 
More curious, however, is the fact that in the Synoptics ἐκεῖνος is 
nearly always used with a substantive (adjectival) while the in- 
dependent pronominal use of the singular is almost confined to 
the Gospel of John (and First Epistle).!_ All the uses in the First 
Kpistle and nearly all in the Gospel are independent. As excep- 
tions note Jo. 4 : 39, 53; 11: 51, 53; 16 : 23, 26, ete. On the other 
hand only two instances appear in the Apocalypse (9 : 6; 11: 18) 
and both with substantives. 

(h) Αὐτός. It has undoubtedly developed in the κοινή a demon- 
strative force as already shown in 3, (d), and as is plain in the mod- 
ern Greek. Moulton? quotes plain examples from the papyri (see 
above). In the N. T. it is practically confined to Luke (and Mt. 
3:4 perhaps), where it is fairly common, especially in the Gospel. 
So ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ οἰκίᾳ (Lu. 10 : 7), ‘in that house.’ Moulton’ notes that 
in Mt. 11:25 (parallel to Lu. 10:21) we have ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ 
and in Mk. 18:11 ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ (parallel to Lu. 12:12 ἐν αὐτῇ 
Th wpa). The tendency was not foreign to the ancient Greek and 
it is common enough in the modern vernacular‘ to find αὐτὸς 6= 
‘this.’ 

(ἢ THe CoRRELATIVE DEMONSTRATIVES. Only four occur in 
the N. T. One of them appears only once and without the article, 
φωνῆς ἐνεχθείσης αὐτῷ τοιᾶσδε (2 Pet. 1:17). It has died in the ver- 
nacular (Radermacher, N. 7’. Gr., p. 63) like ὅδε, τηλικόσδε and 
τοσόσδε. TndtKodros appears once as predicate, τηλικαῦτα ὄντα (Jas. 


1 Abbott, ib. For the Joh. use of ἐκεῖνος see Steitz and A. Buttmann, 
Stud. in Krit. (1859, p. 497; 1860, p. 505; 1861, p. 267). Cf. Blass, Gr. of N.T. 
Gk. p. 172. 

4) Prol.; p..91. 8 Tb. 4 Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 320, 351. 


710 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


3:4), elsewhere attributive. The article is not used. This cor- 
relative of age always refers to size in the N. T. (2 Cor. 1:10; 
Heb. 2:3). Once indeed it is in connection with οὕτως μέγας 
(Rev. 16 : 18) and so redundant. The other two are τοιοῦτος and 
τοσοῦτος. Τοιοῦτος is the demonstrative of quality (Latin talis) 
and it is used with a good deal of freedom. It is, of course, merely 
τοῖος and οὗτος combined. The compound form alone occurs in the 
N. T. and became more frequent generally.! Τοιοῦτος without a 
substantive is used either without the article (Lu. 9 : 9) or more 
usually with the article in the attributive position (Mt. 19: 
14° Aci197125 Rolls 32501 Cor. 27283 2 iors <diretcs ae 
Jo. 4:23, τοιούτους ζητεῖ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας, the articular parti- 
ciple is in the predicate accusative. When used with substan- 
tives τοιοῦτος may be anarthrous, as in Mt. 9:8; 18:5; Mk. 4: 
33; Heb. 7:26; 8:1; Jas. 4:16, etc., but the article occurs also 
(Mk. 6:2; 9:37; 2 Cor. 12:3). In Mk. 6:2 we have the order 
ai δυνάμεις τοιαῦται (ef. οὗτος, ἐκεῖνος). It comes before the substan- 
tive (Jo. 9:16) or after (Ac. 16:24). It is used as the antece- 
dent of οἷος (Mk. 18:19; 1 Cor. 15:48; 2 Cor. 10:11) following 
οἷος. But note also τοιούτους ὁποῖος in Ac. 20 : 290, τοιοῦτος ὅς in 
Heb. 7:20 f.; 8:1, and in 1 Cor. ὅ : 1 τοιαύτη ἥτις. We even have 
τοιοῦτος ws in Phil. 9. Cf. ποῖος --- τοιοῦτος in a Logion of Jesus, 
P.Oxy. IV, p. 3,1. Τοσοῦτος (τόσος, οὗτος) is the pronoun of degree 
(Latin tantus), both size, τοσαύτην πίστιν (Mt. 8 : 10), and quantity, 
ἄρτοι τοσοῦτοι (Mt. 15:33). It occurs with the article only once, 
ὁ τοσοῦτος πλοῦτος (Rev. 18:16). Sometimes it appears without a 
substantive, as in Ac. 5:8; Gal. 3:4; Heb. 1:4, etc. It is the 
correlative with ὅσος in Heb. 1: 4 τοσούτῳ — ὅσῳ, 7: 20-22 καθ᾽ 
ὅσον — κατὰ τοσοῦτο, and in 10:25 τοσούτῳ --- dow. It is worth 
while at this point to note the correlative adverbs, οὕτως ὥστε 
(Ac. 14 : 1), οὕτως ws (1 Cor. 4 : 1), οὕτως --- ὅπως (Mt. 5: 16). 
wate — οὕτως δὲ (Ro. 15:20). 

VII. Relative Pronouns (ἀναφορικαὶ ἀντωνυμία!). 

(a) List ΙΝ tHE N. T. The only relatives in the N. T. (not 
counting adverbs) are és, ὅστις, οἷος, ὁποῖος, ὅσος, ἡλίκος, and ὁ in 
the Apocalypse. The others have fallen by the way. Some MSS. 
read ὅνπερ in Mk. 15:6, while ὁσδήπερ in Jo. 5:4 is not in the 
critical text. The LXX has ὅπερ (ἅπερ) five times,? but ἡλίκος not 
at all. These relative pronouns do not occur with uniform fre- 
quency as will be seen. “Os is the only one very common. 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 162, 
2 Thack., Gr of ΟΝ ΟΕ vole, Ὁ 10». 


PRONOUNS (’ANTQNYMIAI) 711 
(Ὁ) Toe Name “ReEwLAtive.” It is not very distinctive.! The 
idea of relation (anaphoric use) belongs to the demonstrative and 
to the personal pronouns also. The anaphoric demonstrative use 
is indeed the origin of the relative.2 The transition from demon- 
strative to relative is apparent in Homer in the case of both 
ὁ and ds. Sometimes it is difficult in Homer to tell the demon- 
strative and the relative apart. Cf. English that, German der. 
Homer often used re and τις with ὁ and és to distinguish the rela- 
tive from the demonstrative. Gradually the relative use, as dis- 
tinct from the anaphoric demonstrative, won its way. 

(c) A Bonp BETWEEN CxLaAussEs. The relative becomes then the 
chief bond of connection between clauses: Indeed many of the 
conjunctions are merely relative adverbs, such as ὡς, ὅτε, ὅπως, 
etc. The relative plays a very important part in the structure 
of the subordinate sentence in Greek. That matter will receive 
due treatment in chapter XIX, Mode. The agreement of the 
relative with antecedent in person, number, gender, and some- 
times case, is Just the natural effort to relate more exactly the 
two clauses with each other. These points will receive discussion 
under és-which best exemplifies them. The assimilation is at 
bottom the same that we see in other adjectives (cf. demon- 
strative pronouns). The assimilation of the relative in person, 
gender, number, and even case of the antecedent may be com- 
pared to assimilation in the adjective and even verbs (com- 
pound verbs especially) and prepositions. Cf. Josef Liljeblad, 
De Assimilatione Syntactica apud Thuc. Questiones, 1900, p. 1). 

πος. 

1. In Homer. See discussion of the demonstrative ὅς for origin.® 
But already in Homer the relative sense, ἄρθρον ὑποτακτικόν, is the 
main one, and the demonstrative is on the decline.® 

2. Comparison with Other Relatives. Though és in the N. T. 
far outnumbers all the other relatives, yet the distinction between 


1 Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 81. 

2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 556; Baron, Le Pron. Rel. et la Conj., 1891, p. 25. 
He notes that és went from dem. to rel. before 6 did. 

8 Monro, Hom. Gr., pp. 186 ff. 

4 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 35. Ὅστε survives in Pindar, Bacch., Ion. and 
Trag. choruses. Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 68 f. 

5 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 195. Baron, Le Pron. Rel. et la Conj. en Gree, p. 
35. Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., III, p. 295 f.; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 243. 

6 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 186. So ὃς γάρ is ambiguous. On the anaphoric 
demonstr. és cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., III, p. 310; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 
241. 


712 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ὅς and the other relatives is breaking down. Indeed in the ver- 
nacular it may be questioned if it was ever preserved. One may 
compare the unchangeable Hebrew "WX. Moulton! observes that 
in Polybius the distinction between és and ὅστις has “worn rather 
thin.” In the LXX és is frequent,” but in the modern Greek és 
“ig used rarely even in writing.”’* It is wholly absent in the 
vernacular. The modern Greek vernacular uses ποῦ or ὅπου. In 
the oblique cases the conjunctive pronoun τοῦ, τῆς is added to ποῦ 
(cf. the Hebrew idiom). See Thumb, Handb., p. 93. Jebb (Vin- 
cent and Dickson’s Handb., ete., p. 303) calls it “a curious ex- 
ample of false analogy”? and finds an instance in Aristophanes 
(Birds, 1300), μέλη ὅπου. Here drov=e ois. The vernacular car- 
ried it further. He cites modern English vernacular, ‘‘The men 
as he met.” Indeed in Rev. 2:18 ὅπου really points to an un- 
expressed παρ᾽ ὑμῖν. In Col. 3:11 ὅπου is almost personal. The 
occasional apparent confusion between ὅς and interrogative pro- 
nouns will be discussed directly. On the whole, ὅς in the N. T., 
as in the κοινή generally, is still used in accord with the classic 
idiom. 

3. With Any Person. In itself, of course, ὅς, like all-relatives, 
has no person. So the first person in 1 Cor. 15:10, the second 
person in Ro. 2 : 23, the third person in Mt. 5:19; Lu. 6:48 f.; 
1 Cor. 4:17. These examples may suffice. 

4. Gender. This is not so simple. The normal thing is for the 
relative to agree with the antecedent in gender, as in 1 Cor. 4 : 17, 
Τιμόθεον, ὅς ἐστίν μου τέκνον. So in Col. 1: 24 ὑπὲρ τοῦ σώματος 
αὐτοῦ, ὅ ἐστιν ἡ ἐκκλησία; Col. 2:10 ἐν αὐτῷ, ὅς ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλή (cf. 
Eph. 4: 15); Col. 2 : 17 σαββάτων, ἅ (some MSS. ὅ) ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν 
μελλόντων; Rev. 5:6 ὀφθαλμοὺς ἑπτά, οἵ εἰσιν τὰ [ἑπτὰ] πνεύματα. In 
Rev. 21:8, τὸ μέρος αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ λίμνῃ τῇ καιομένῃ πυρὶ καὶ θείῳ 6 ἐστιν 
ὁ θάνατος ὁ δεύτερος, the agreement is regular, but the idea of 6 may 
be more inclusive than merely‘ μέρος. Cf. 1 Pet. 3: 4. 

On the other hand the relative is assimilated in gender to the 
predicate substantive. This is also a perfectly natural agreement. 
Winer? considers that this is true particularly when the predicate 
presents the main idea. See Mk. 15: 16, τῆς αὐλῆς, 6 ἐστιν πραιτώριον; 
Gal. 3:16, τῷ σπέρματί σου, ὅς ἐστιν Χριστός; Eph. 6:17, τὴν μάχαιραν 


1 Prol., p. 92. 2 Thack., Gr., vol. I, p. 192. 

3 V. and D., Handb., ete., p. 56. “The disuse of és in common speech is 
characteristic; so simple a form ceased to satisfy the desire of emphasis.” 
Jebb in V. and D., p. 302. 

4 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 231 f. 5 W.-M., p. 207. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTONYMIAI) 713 


τοῦ πνεύματος, ὅ ἐστιν ῥῆμα θεοῦ; Rev. 4 : 5, λαμπάδες --- ἅ εἰσιν τὰ ἑπτὰ 
πνεύματα (but some MSS. ai). Cf. 2 ΤῊ. 8:17. The MSS. vary 
in a number of instances between agreement with antecedent and 
predicate. So Col. 1:27, τοῦ μυστηρίου τούτου --- ὅς (or 6) ἐστιν 
Χριστός. Cf. also 1 Tim. 3 : 16, where the true text és is changed 
in the Western class of documents to 6 to agree with μυστήριον. 
See also Eph. 1:13 f., τῷ πνεύματι --- 6 (MSS. ὅς) ἐστιν ἀρραβών. 
So αἵ ordain Rev. 5:8. In Mt. 13:31 f. κόκκῳ is followed first by 
ὅν and then by 4 (cf. σπερμάτων). 

In another group of passages the change is made according to 
the real gender rather than the grammatical. Thus in Ac. 15:17 
τὰ ἔθνη ἐφ᾽ οὕς (cf. 26:17), Jo. 6:9 παιδάριον ὃς ἔχει, Ro. 9 : 23 fF. 
σκεύη ἐλέους --- οὕς, Col. 2:19 κεφαλὴν ἐξ οὗ, Phil. 10 τέκνου ὅν, Rev. 
13 : 14 θηρίῳ ὅς. In Gal. 4:19 οὕς is preceded by both ὑμᾶς and 
rexvia. In 2 Jo. 1, ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῆς, οὕς, the gram- 
matical gender (feminine and neuter followed by masculine) is 
ignored entirely. Cf. Ph. 2 : 15. 

In a passage like 1 Cor. 15:10, εἰμὲ 6 εἰμι, there is no mistake. 
See ὅς above in verse 9. It is not ‘who I am,’ but ‘what I am,’ not 
exactly οἷος either, but a more abstract idea than that. Cf. 6 in 
Jo. 4 : 22, used twice for the object of worship, God. So in 1 Jo. 
1:1 observe ὃ ἦν — ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν (cf. verse 3) for Jesus. 
One may recall here that the collective abstract neuter, πᾶν 6 
(Jo. 6:37, 39; 17: 2), is used for the disciples. Cf. 6 — κἀκεῖνοι 
ΓΟ} 7:24}: 

Sometimes also the relative agrees neither with the antece- 
dent nor with a predicate substantive, but gathers the general 
notion of ‘thing.’ A good example occurs in 1 Jo. 2: 8, ἐντολὴν 
καινὴν γράφω ὑμῖν, 6 ἐστιν ἀληθές, ‘which thing is true.’! So Eph. 
5 : 5, πλεονέκτης, 6 (Western and Syrian classes read ὅς) ἐστιν εἰδω- 
λολάτρης, ‘which thing is being an idolater.’ A particularly good 
example is Col. 3 : 14 where 6 comes in between a feminine and a 
masculine, τὴν ἀγάπην, ὅ ἐστιν σύνδεσμος. In Mk. 12 : 42 we have a 
similar example, λεπτὰ δύο, ὅ ἐστιν κοδράντης. 

Indeed 6 ἐστιν comes to be used as a set expression, like τοῦτ᾽ 
ἔστιν, without any regard to the antecedent or the predicate, as 
6 ἐστιν viol βροντῆς, Mk. 3:17. Three phrases go together in this 
matter, 6 ἐστιν, ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται, ὃ λέγεται. The two latter occur in 
the periphrastic form also. Indeed the examples just noted above 
may very well be explained from this point of view. So Mt. 1: 
23, ᾿Εμμανουὴλ 6 ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν ὁ θεός, where ob- 

1 Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 302. 


714 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


serve the neuter participle like 6. Cf. Ac. 4:36. In Mt. 27: 33, 
Τολγοθὰ ὅ ἐστιν κρανίου τόπος λεγόμενος, the participle is masculine 
like τόπος (cf. Mk. 15:22). In Jo. 1:39 ὃ λέγεται μεθερμηνευό- 
μενον connects two vocatives. Cf. 20:16. In Jo. 1:41 note 
the accusative and nominative connected with neuter participle, 
Μεσσίαν 6 ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον Χριστός. So 6 ἐστιν occurs between 
verb-forms, as in Mk. 5:41; 7: 34; or genitives as in Heb. 7: 2; 
Rev. 20: 12; 21: 17; or whole clauses, as in Mk. 15:34. But see 
Jo. 9:7; Rev. 20:2. In Ac. 9:36, however, the personal con- 
struction occurs, Ταβειθά, ἣ διερμηνευομένη λέγεται Δορκάς. See also 
chapter X, vil, (c). 

Once more, 6 is used to refer to a verbal idea or to the whole 
sentence. Instance Mt. 12:4, τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγον ὃ 
οὐκ ἐξὸν ἣν αὐτῷ φαγεῖν. Here probably τὸ φαγεῖν is the idea referred 
to,! though in Mk. 2: 26 and Lu. 6:4 we have οὕς. The neuter 
gender is only natural here. In Ac. 2 : 32 οὗ is most likely ‘where- 
of,’ though ‘of whom,’ referring to ᾿]ησοῦν, is possible. So as to 
3:15. But there is no doubt as to Ac. 11: 80, ὃ καὶ ἐποίησαν; 
20 : 10, ὃ καὶ ἐποίησα; Gal. 2:10, ὃ καὶ ἐσπούδασα αὐτὸ τοῦτο ποιῆσαι 
(note here the use of αὐτὸ τοῦτο in the relative clause); Col. 1 : 29 
els ὃ καὶ κοπιῶ (cf. εἰς 6 in 2 Th. 1:11; 2:14; 1 Pet. 2:8). Cf. also 
ὃ καὶ ὑμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦν σώζει βάπτισμα (1 Pet. 83:21). Per contra 
see in the papyri ὅν used like 6 after analogy of τοιοῦτο(ν).Σ Note in 
passing ὃ ὁ in Lu. 2:15, like ἣ ἥ τε in Heb. 9 : 2. 

5. Number. Here again, as a rule, the relative concurs with the 
antecedent in number, as in ἀστὴρ ὅν (Mt. 2 : 9), θεοῦ ὅς (Ro. 2 : 6). 
The construction according to sense is not infrequent, as in πλῆθος 
οἵ (Lu. 6:17 f.), κατὰ πόλιν πᾶσαν ἐν ais (Ac. 15:36, note distributive 
idea), μωρολογία ἢ εὐτραπελία & (Eph. 5:4, where feminine singular 
could have occurred because of 7), γενεᾶς --- ἐν οἷς (Ph. 2 : 15), dev- 
τέραν ὑμῖν ypadw ἐπιστολήν, ἐν ais (2 Pet. 3:1, referring to both, 
probably). Cf. 6 — λέγοντας (Rev. 5:13). On the other hand note 
the change from the plural to the singular in ἡμέραι δώδεκα ἀφ᾽ ἧς 
(Ac. 24:11), and ἐν οὐρανοῖς --- ἐξ οὗ (Ph. 3:20). For the neuter 
plural in the relative (cf. ταῦτα) to cover a vague general idea 
see av in 1 Tim. 1: 6, 40’ dv Lu. 1: 20, & ots Lu. 12:1 (cf. Ac. 
26 3:12), ¢buolssRonG:. ΣΤ; ἀι ο ΟΥ̓ ecole? τὸν 

6. Case. 

(a) Absence of attraction normal. The obvious way is for the 
case of the relative to be due to the construction in which it is 
used or to follow the same law as other nouns and pronouns (so 

1 W.-Sch., p. 233. 2 Mayser, Gr., p. 310. 


PRONOUNS (ANTONYMIAI) (15 


with prepositions). That is to say, assimilation of case is not a ne- 
cessity. It was indeed in a sense an after-refinement. One must 
not get the notion that assimilation of case had to be. Thucy- 
dides,! for instance, did not use it so extensively in his rather com- 
plicated sentences, where the relative clauses stand to themselves. 
Indeed the absence of it is common enough in the N. T., outside 
of Luke. Cf. Mt. 13 : 44 ἀγρῷ ὅν, Mk. 13 : 19 κτίσεως ἥν, Jo. 2 : 22 
λόγῳ ov (cf. 4:50), Jo. 4:5 χωρίου 6 (CD οὗ), Tit. 3:5 ἔργων &, 
Mt. 27 : 60 μνημείῳ 6, Ac. 8:32 γραφῆς ἥν. Not to be exhaustive, 
one may refer to the rather long list in Winer-Schmiedel? (Mt. 
13 : 44, 48; 23 :35; Lu. 18:19, 21;-Ac. 1:4;4:10; 1 Tim. 6:21; 
Heb. 6:19; 8:2; 9:7; 1 Pet. 1:8; Rev. 1:20, etc.). The absence 
of assimilation in case is not only common in the old Greek, but 
also in the LXX, the Apocrypha and the papyri. In Aristotle 
attraction is nearly confined to the more recondite essays (Schind- 
ler, De Attractionis Pronominum Rel. Usu Aristotelico, p. 94). 

(8) Cognate accusative. The accusative in Ro. 6:10, ὃ ἀπέθανεν, 
ὃ ζῇ, and Gal. 2:20, ὃ ζῶ, may be called adverbial. In reality 
it reproduces the idea of the verb (cognate acc.). Cf. Mk. 10 : 38 f. 

(y) Attraction to the case of the antecedent. This is very com- 
mon in the N. T., especially in the writings of Luke. The 
papyri, even “the most illiterate of them,’’*® show numerous ex- 
amples of attraction, ‘‘a construction at least as popular in late 
as in classical Greek.’’ This applies to the LXX also. The MSS. 
naturally vary sometimes, some having attraction, others not. 
Indeed Blass‘ finds this ‘‘always”’ in the passages in W. H. with- 
out attraction save in Heb. 8:2. Cf. ἥν (js) in Mk. 18 : 19, ὅν (3) 
in Jo. 2: 22; 4: 50, ete. On the whole attraction seems the more 
common. But this ‘idiomatic attraction of the relative” “occurs 
only twice in Matthew (18:19; 24:50) and once in Mark (7: 18),” 
whereas it ‘is very common in Luke’’ (Plummer, Comm., p. li). 
The effect of “this peculiar construction”’ was to give “ἃ sentence 
more internal unity and a certain periodic compactness.”> No 
instance of attraction of a nominative to an oblique case occurs 
in the N. T., though this idiom is found in the ancient Greek.® 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 173. 2 P. 226. 

3 Moulton, Prol., p. 93. Attraction of the relative to the case of the ante- 
cedent is not unknown in Lat. Cf. Draeger, Hist. Synt., Bd. I, p. 507. Hom. 
shows only one instance. Middleton (Analogies in Synt., p. 19) considers 
analogy the explanation of the origin of attraction. 

4 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 173. 5 W.-Th., p. 163. 

6 Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 71; W.-Sch., p. 227. 


716 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


It is usually the accusative case that is assimilated into another 
oblique case. Thus the accusative may be attracted into the gen- 
itive, as πράγματος οὗ (Mt. 18 : 19), λόγου οὗ (Jo. 15 : 20), πάντων ὧν 
(Ac. 1:1; 3:21; 22:10), ὁιαθήκητι js (Ac. 3:25), érayyedias js 
(7:17), ἐθνῶν ὧν (7:45), πνεύματος ἁγίου οὗ (Tit. 3:6). Cf. also 
Ac. 9 : 36; 22: 10; 1 Cor.6: 19; 2 Cor. 10:8, 13; Eph. 1:8; Heb. 
6:10; 9:20; Jas. 2:5. In several instances it is the accusa- 
tive of the inner object that is attracted. Cf. Eph. 1:19f. So 
παρακλήσεως ἧς παρακαλούμεθα (2 Cor. 1:4), χάριτος ἧς ἐχαρίτωσεν 
(Eph. 1 : 6), κλήσεως ἧς ἐκλήθητε (4 : 1), φωνῆς ἧς ἐκέκραξα (Ac. 24 : 21), 
ἔργων ἀσεβείας ὧν ἠσέβησαν (Ju. 15).: There are examples also of 
the accusative attracted to the ablative. So ἐκ τῶν κερατίων ὧν 
(Lu. 15 : 16); ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος οὗ (Jo. 4 : 14), ἀπὸ τῶν ὀψαρίων ὧν (21 : 10), 
ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος οὗ (1 Jo. 8 : 24). Cf. Jo. 7:31. Then again the 
assimilation of the accusative to the pure dative might have been 
expected, but curiously enough I find so far no example of it in 
the N. T. In 1 Cor. 7:39 there is an instance of the relative at- 
tracted from the accusative to the dative of an omitted antece- 
dent, ἐλευθέρα ἐστὶν ᾧ θέλει γαμηθῆναι, unless γαμηθῆναι be repeated, 
when @ is the necessary case. However, several examples occur 
where the accusative is attracted to the locative or the instru- 
mental. Instances of the locative are found in ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἢ — ἐν 
ὥρᾳ 7 (Mt. 24: 50. This is not an instance of one preposition 
for antecedent and relative), ἐπὶ πᾶσιν οἷς (Lu. 2:20; 9:48; 24: 25), 
ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί cov @ (Jo. 17:11 f.), ἐν τῷ μνήματι @ (Ac. 7 : 16), ἐν 
ἀνδρὶ ᾧ (17 : 81), ἐπὶ τῷ λόγῳ @ (20 : 88), ἐπὶ τῇ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ ἣ (2 Cor. 
12 : 21), ἐπὶ ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς οἷς (Eph. 2 : 10),? ἐν --- θλίψεσιν αἷς (2 Th. 
1:4), ἐν τῷ ποτηρίῳ ᾧ (Rev. 18:6). This is probably true also 
of 1 Cor. 7: 20, ἐν τῇ κλήσει ἣ ἐκλήθη, Where ἥν would have been the 
cognate accusative.’ For attraction to the instrumental see παρα- 
δόσει ἣ (Mk. 7: 19), δόξῃ ἣ Jo. 17 : 5, but W. H. have ἥν in margin), 
σημείοις οἷς (Ac. 2 : 22), θυσίαις ats (Heb. 10:1, but W. H. as). In 
a few instances it is an open question whether we have attraction 
or not. Thus in Jo. 18 : ὅ, τῷ λεντίῳ ᾧ jv διεζωσμένος, either the in- 
strumental ᾧ or the accusative ὅ (cf. Jo. 21:7) is correct. In Ac. 
9:17, ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ ἢ ἤρχου, the cognate accusative ἥν is possible, though 
the locative originally is more likely. In 1 Th. 3:9, ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ 
χαρᾷ ἢ χαίρομεν, ἃ cognate accusative was possible (ἥν) attracted 


1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 174; Moulton, Prol., p. 93. 

2 But in W.-Sch. (p. 225) οἷς is held to be essential to the structure. For 
attraction in John see Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 298. 

8 But see per contra W.-Sch., p. 228. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTONTMIAI) 717 


to the locative or an original instrumental. In Col. 1 : 23, τοῦ εὐ- 
αγγελίου οὗ ἠκούσατε, either the accusative or the genitive might 
occur with ἀκούω. But in 2 Tim. 1:18, λόγων ὧν παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἤκουσας, 
the accusative was almost certainly the original form.! Cf. Ac. 
1:4 ἣν ἠκούσατε wou. Plummer (On Luke, p. li) notes that this 
attraction in Luke is particularly frequent after πᾶς (Lu. 2 : 20; 
3:19; 9: 48, etc.). In Lu. 5:9, ἐπὶ τῇ ἄγρᾳ τῶν ἰχθύων ὧν (ἢ) 
συνέλαβον, the attraction in some MSS. is to the locative, in others 
to the genitive. 

A few instances are found in the N. T. where the attraction is 
from some other case than the accusative. <A clear case of a loca- 
tive assimilated toa genitive appears in Ac. 1: 22, ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἧς 
ἀνελήμφθη. ‘This is in accord with the ancient Greek idiom. The 
very same construction appears in the LXX (Lev. 28:15. Cf. 
Bar. 1:19). In 1 Tim. 4:6 A reads διδασκαλίας 7 παρηκολούθηκας, 
but the rest have ἧς. A dative has been. attracted into the geni- 
tive along with incorporation and the preposition in Ro. 4:17, 
κατέναντι ov ἐπίστευσεν θεοῦ = κατέναντι τοῦ θεοῦ ᾧ ἐπίστευσεν. So the 
phrase ἀφ᾽ ἧς (Ac. 24:11; 2 Pet. 3:4, but Lu. 7:45 ὥρας) is an ab- 
breviation of ad’ ἡμέρας 7 (locative attracted to ablative). In 
Ac. 20:18 we actually have ἀπὸ πρώτης ἡμέρας ad’ ἧς ἐπέβην, but 
as a point of departure (ablative) rather than a point of location 
(locative). Cf. also ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἡμέρας (Col. 1 : 6, 9) where the incorpo- 
ration resolves itself into ἀφ᾽ ἡμέρας 7. So likewise ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας 
(Mt. 24 : 38; Lu. 1 : 20; 17:27; Ac. 1:2) really comes from ἄχρι 
ἡμέρας 7 (locative to genitive). In Heb. 3 : 9 οὗ can be regarded as 
adverb ‘where’ or as relative ‘wherewith’ (marg. of the Ameri- 
ican Revision). If it is relative, 6 was probably the unattracted 
form (instrumental to genitive like πειρασμοῦ). In Mk. 10:38 f., 
τὸ βάπτισμα ὃ βαπτίζομαι, the relative is in the cognate accusative 
retained with the passive verb.2, See further chapter on Cases. 

(6) Inverse attraction. What is called inverse attraction is due 
to the same tendency to identify antecedent and relative, only the 
assimilation is that of the antecedent to the relative. [ἢ itself this 
phenomenon is no more peculiar than the other. Plato, who 
uses the ordinary attraction very often, seldom has inverse attrac- 
tion (Cleef, De Attractionis in Enuntionibus Rel. Vsv Platonico, 
pp. 44-46). No inverse attraction is found in Pisidian Greek 
(Compernass, De Serm. Gr., p. 13). The examples are not very 
numerous in the N. T., but the ancient Greek amply supports the 


1 W.-Sch., p. 225. Hort in note to text says: “ὧν probably a primitive 
error for év.” 2 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 226 f. 


718 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


idiom.! One example, λίθον ὃν ἀπεδοκίμασαν, occurs in Mt. 21:42, - 
Mk. 12:10; Lu. 20:17. Itis from the LXX'(Ps. 118: 22). In ° 
1 Pet. 2:7 W. H. read λίθος. Cf. also Lu. 1 : 73, ὅρκον ὃν ὥμοσεν, 
which might have been ὅρκου οὗ after μνησθῆναι.2 See also 1 Cor. 
10 : 16, τὸν ἄρτον ὃν κλῶμεν. Hence also τὸ ποτήριον ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν of 
verse 15. If ὅν is ἃ part of the text (not W. H.) in Ac. 10 : 36, we 
have τὸν λόγον ὅν.) Sometimes anacoluthon occurs also as in πᾶν 
ῥῆμα ἀργὸν 6 — περὶ αὐτοῦ, Mt. 12 : 36; πᾶς ds ἐρεῖ — ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ, 
Lu. 12:10; παντὶ ᾧ ἐδόθη — ζητηθήσεται παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ, 12:48; πᾶν ὃ 
δέδωκεν ---ἐξ ἀυτοῦ, JO. 6 : 389; πᾶν ὃ δέδωκας αὐτῷ δώσει αὐτοῖς, 17 : 2. 
In 2 Cor. 12 : 17, μή τινα ὧν --- δι᾽ αὐτοῦ, we have anacoluthon, but 
not attraction. In Mt. 28 : 24, συνάγεις ὅθεν οὐ διεσκόρπισας, We 
have ἐκεῖθεν ὅπου shortened to ὅθεν. There is not inverse attrac- 
tion in οὐδεὶς ὅς (1 Cor. 6 : 5) since ἔνι precedes οὐδείς. 

(e) Incorporation. But the most striking instance of this close 
unity between antecedent and relative is the incorporation of the 
antecedent into the relative clause with identity of case. I count 
54 such examples in Moulton and Geden.*’ They are fairly well 
distributed through the different portions of the New Testament. 

1) The simplest form of such incorporation is where no change of 
case is required. Thus Lu. 24 : 1, φέρουσαι ἃ ἡτοίμασαν ἀρώματα; Jo. 
6 : 14, ἰδόντες ἃ ἐποίησεν σημεῖα (W. H.); Mt. 7: 2, ἐν ᾧ γὰρ κρίματι 
κρίνετε κριθήσεσθε, καὶ ἐν ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε μετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν, ΜΚ. 4: 
24; Lu. 6:38; Mt. 24:44, ἣ οὐ δοκεῖτε ὥρᾳ-τε [κι. 12:40 (not Mt. 
24:50). For further examples of this simple incorporation see 
Mt. 23:37=Lu. 13:34 (the set. phrase, adverbial accusative, ὃν 
τρόπον), so also Ac. 1:11; 7:28; 15:11; 27:25; Mk. 2:19 (dcop 
χρόνον; but not 12:46=Mt. 24:50); 17:29f.; Jo. 6:14; 9:14; 
1163.17 333 AC. 725203 25 3 183) probablya2Gr aie πο Lo re 
19; 9 : 24 (ots —- ἡμᾶς note); 16: 2; Ph. 3:18 (but probably only 
predicate accusative like Mk. 15:12); 2 Tim. 1:6 (6 ἥν). In 
1 Jo. 2: 25 there is not exactly incorporation, but apposition to 
the relative. In Lu. 8: 47; Ac. 22:24 and Heb. 2:11 the case 
is the same also, but the preposition would have been needed 
only with the relative. Cf. Phil. 10; 2 Tim. 1:12; Heb. 13:11. 
See ὧν — rovnpav, Ac. 25:18, where there is incorporation and 
attraction to the case of the antecedent. The same thing is true 


1 Cf. Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 71. 

2 Blass, Gr. of..N.. T..Gk., p.1 75. 

8 Cf. Blass, ib., and Comm. on Acts in loco. 

4 This is more than “occasional,” as Blass says (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 174). 
He rightly notes the absence of the article. 


a Ὁ» 


PRONOUNS (’ANTONYMIAI) 719 


of Rev. 17:8, where βλεπόντων agrees with ὧν. In Heb. 13:11, 
ὧν ζώων --- τούτων, the substantive is incorporated, but the demon- 
strative is repeated afterwards. Cf.also ὃ---- αὐτὸ τοῦτο (Gal. 2: 10). 
It is possible that Ro. 4:17 belongs here, the preposition κατέναντι 
being understood twice. The same thing may be true of Lu. 1:4, 
περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης λόγων τὴν ἀσφάλειαν (either λόγων [or περὶ λόγων] 
περὶ ὧν OF περὶ λόγων οὕς). 

2) But sometimes besides incorporation there has resulted a 
change of case also. The antecedent may be drawn into the case 
of the relative (cf. inverse attraction) as in Mk. 6: 16, ὃν ἔγὼ ἀπε- 
κεφάλισα ᾿Ιωάνην οὗτος ἠγέρθη. Here the demonstrative pronoun is 
resumptive. The change is made from nominative to accusative. 
The same thing is true of the spurious passage in Jo. 5:4, ᾧ 
δήποτε κατείχετο νοσήματι (change from genitive to instrumental). 
This is probably true of Ac. 21:16, ἄγοντες παρ᾽ ᾧ ξενισθῶμεν Mva- 
σωνί τινι Kurpiw. The resolution of this passage is not certain, 
but it may be ἄγοντες Mvacwva παρ᾽ ᾧ (change from accusative 
to locative).1 But πρὸς Mvaowva may be correct. 

In Ro. 6:17, ὑπηκούσατε εἰς dv παρεδόθητε τύπον διδαχῆς, the resolved 
form would probably be τύπῳ διδαχῆς εἰς ὃν παρεδόθητε. In Heb. 
7:14, eis ἣν φυλήν, the substantive would have been in apposition 
with ἐξ ’Iovéa (the ablative). In Heb. 10:10 ἐν ᾧ θελήματι the ac- 
cusative τὸ θέλημα is present in the preceding sentence. The same 
thing is true of 1 Pet. 1:10, περὲ ἧς σωτηρίας (σωτηρίαν just before). 
In 2 Cor. 10 : 13 we have in the same sentence the substantive re- 
peated (once incorporated and attracted to the case of the relative, 
but the relative itself attracted to the case of κανόνος), κατὰ τὸ μέτρον 
τοῦ κανόνος ov ἐμέρισεν ἡμῖν ὁ θεὸς μέτρου. 

3) Ina few instances the attraction has been that of the relative 
to the case of the antecedent, transferred to the relative clause. 
See Ac. 25: 18, ὧν ἔγὼ ὑπενόουν πονηρῶν. For examples with prepo- 
sitions (see chapter on Prepositions) note: περὶ πάντων ὧν ἐποίησεν 
πονηρῶν (Lu. 3:19), περὶ πασῶν ὧν εἶδον δυνάμεων (19 : 37), where 
the incorporation is only partial. It is clear therefore that in 
the great majority of instances there is no change of case re- 
quired. Very many also are set phrases like ὃν τρόπον, ἣ ὥρᾳ, ἣ 
ἡμέρᾳ, δι᾽ ἣν αἰτίαν, etc. For presence of the antecedent see Jo. 
ΤΟ}: 

7. Absence of Antecedent. It so often happens that the rela- 
tive has no antecedent that it calls for special consideration. 


1 Thompson (Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 71 f.) finds this change only in the acc. 
But this is not Attic. 


720 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


The clause indeed often becomes a substantive rather than an 
adjective clause. “Os thus occurs in general statements as in Mt. 
10: 14; 23:16, 18 (cf. also was ὅς, Lu. 12 : 48; 14:33; Ac. 2: 21; 
Gal. 3:10). Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 173) gives a large number 
of such instances of the general or indefinite use of ὅς. So ὃς ἔχει 
Ora ἀκούειν ἀκουέτω (Mk. 4:9), where the relative clause is the sub- 
ject of ἀκουέτω. This is the indefinite relative. Cf. Mk. 4: 25. 
Here the relative and the antecedent (if expressed) are in the same 
case (nominative). Cf. 1 Cor. 15:10, εἰμὲ 6 εἰμι; Lu. 9 : 50, ete. 
Both may be in the accusative as in ὃ δὲ ὑμῖν λέγω πᾶσιν λέγω (Mk. 
13 : 37), μὴ εἰδὼς δ᾽ λέγει (Lu. 9:33). Cf. Mk. 15:12; Lu. 11:6; 
Jo. 1:46; 6 : 29; 19: 37, etc. But the relative may be in the ac- 
cusative when the antecedent would have been in the nominative. 
So ὃ λαλεῖ γίνεται (Mk. 11 : 23). Cf. Jo. 1 : 26; 4: 18, ete. 

So both may be examples of the genitive, as συγγενὴς ὧν οὗ ἀπέ- 
κοψεν Πέτρος τὸ ὠτίον (Jo. 18 : 26) where ob=7ovrov ov. So in 1 Cor. 
7:1 περὶ ὧν-ε περὶ τούτων (or πραγμάτων) περὶ ὧν. But in ἄχρι οὗ 
(Rev. 2 : 25) we really have ἄχρι καιροῦ ᾧ (or ἐν ᾧ). In Lu. 28 : 41, 
ἄξια ὧν ἐπράξαμεν, the resolution is τούτων & (gen. and acc.). So in 
Jo. 17:9 περὶ ὧν δέδωκας ΞΞ- περὶ τούτων ots. In Ac. 21 : 24 ὧν κατή- 
Xnvrat περὶ σοῦ οὐδέν = τούτων a, etc. Exactly so ὧν in Lu. 9 : 36; 28 : 
14: Aces 3245225; 153 251 Te Rosld 21832: Gora 2enliie aineves 
26:16, μάρτυρα ὧν τε εἶδές με ὧν τε ὀφθήσομαί σοι, it is the second 
ὧν that gives trouble. The antecedent would be τούτων and the 
relative before attraction either @ (acc. of general reference) or 
ois (locative or instrumental). In Ro. 4:7 ὧν has as its unex- 
pressed antecedent οὗτοι. Cf. also Ac. 13:25. In Mt. 6:8 (so 
Jo. 13:29), ὧν χρείαν, the antecedent would be in the accusative. 
So also περὶ ὧν, Ac. 24:18. In Lu. 17:1 δι᾽ οὗ is resolved into τούτῳ 
dv’ ov (dative). In Ro. 10:14, πῶς πιστεύσωσιν οὗ οὐκ earth we 
probably have ot =eis τοῦτον (or τοὐτῳ) ov. 

The examples of the ablative are not many. See The 7:31 
where ὧν after πλείονα σημεῖα is to be resolved into τούτων & (abl. 
and acc.). So in Ac. 26: 22 ἐκτὸς ὧν-Ξ ἐκτὸς τούτων &. In Heb. 5:8 
ἀφ᾽ ὧν-- ἀπὸ τούτων &, while in 2 Cor. 2:3 ἀφ’ ὧν-- ἀπὸ τούτων ἀφ᾽ ὧν. 
Cf. Lu. 6:34, zap’ ὧν; 1 Cor. 10:30. In Ac. 18:99, ἀπὸ πάντων ὧν, 
the one preposition covers both ablatives. 

For the dative I note οἷς δέδοται (Mt. 19 : 11), where the antece- 
dent like πάντες would have been in the nominative. Cf. Lu. 7: 48, 
47 @; Ro. 15:21 ots and 2 Pet. 1:9. In 1 Cor. 7:39, 6 b&e 
γαμηθῆναι, the antecedent would have been in the dative also. 
So also 2 Cor. 2:10 @; Ro.6:16 6 twice. In 2 Tim. 1: 12, οἶδα ᾧ 


PRONOUNS (’ANTQNYMIAI) ial 


πεπίστευκα, it is the accusative rather followed by dative, αὐτὸν 6. 
In Mt. 20:23 (Mk. 10:40) the antecedent of οἷς is probably 
τούτων. In Ro. 10:14 the antecedent of οὗ would be τούτῳ. 

Some few examples of the locative appear also. Cf. ἐφ᾽ ots, Ro. 
6 : 21, where the antecedent would have been ἐπὶ τούτοις. So Ro. 
2:1 and 14 : 22 ἐν ᾧ implies ἐν τούτῳ (cf. also 1 Pet. 2 : 12; 3 : 16), 
but not so verse 21 where ἐν @ refers to an involved τι or μηδέν. In 
Ro. 7:6 ἐν ᾧ may involve τούτῳ ἐν @ In Heb. 2:18 ἐν 6 (=& 
τούτῳ ἐν @) really has a causal force. In Ph. 4:11 ἐν οἷς ΞΞ ἐν τού- 
τοις ἐν οἷς, but in 2 Tim. ὃ : 14 ἐν ois=é τούτοις ἅ. Cf. 2 Pet. 2:12 
(but ταῦτα ἐν ots may be correct). 

I have noticed no examples of the instrumental. But great 
freedom and variety are manifest. 

8. Prepositions with the Antecedent and Relative. The prep- 
osition may be used twice! ‘‘in the case of a sharper division of 
the relative clause.”’ So els τὴν γῆν ταύτην, eis ἥν, Ac. 7:4; ἀπὸ 
πρώτης ἡμέρας ἀφ᾽ ἧς, 20:18. Then again the preposition may occur 
with the antecedent, but not with the relative, though implied, 
as in ἐν παντὲ χρόνῳ @ εἰσῆλθεν, Ac. 1:21. So the margin in Ro. 
2:16 ἐν ἡμέρᾳ 7. Cf. Lu. 1:25. It is possible also so to under- 
stand ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ ἣ ἤρχου, Ac. 9:17. But it is clearly true of ἀπὸ πάν- 
των av, Ac. 13:39. 

On the other hand the preposition may occur with the relative, 
but not with the antecedent. Thus ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ ἐν 7, Jo. 4:53. 

When the antecedent is absent, the preposition may be the one 
common to both, as in ἀφ᾽ ὧν (2 Cor. 2:3), or which belongs to only 
one. Cf. zap’ ὧν (Lu. 6 : 34), ἐφ᾽ οἷς (Ro. 6 : 21), ἐν οἷς (Ph. 4:11), 
ὑπὲρ ov (1 Cor. 10 : 30), ἐν ᾧ (Ro. 14: 22), eis ὅν (Ro. 10 : 14), περὶ 
ὧν (1 Cor. 7:1), etc. This ‘“one’’ may be the antecedent, as in 
ἀφ᾽ ὧν (Heb. 5:8) =ard τούτων ἅ, eis ὅν (Jo. 6 : 20)-Ξ εἰς τοῦτον ὅν, 
περὶ ὧν (Jo. 17: 9) ΞΞ περὶ τούτων οὕς, ὑπὲρ ἅ (1 Cor. 4 : θ)-- ὑπὲρ ταῦτα 
ἅ, ad’ ὧν (Heb. 5 : 8)-Ξ- ἀπὸ τούτων ἅ, εἰς ὅν (Jo. 19 : 37)-Ξ εἰς τοῦτον ὅν, 
etc. Or the “ὍΠ6᾽ may be the relative, as 6’ οὗ (Lu. 17: 1)= 
τούτῳ δι᾽ ov, ἐφ᾽ ὅν (Heb. 7:13)=octros ἐφ᾽ ὅν, etc. The use of 
prepositions is common in the same way with the relative and its 
incorporated antecedent. See ἐν ᾧ κρίματι (Mt. 7:2), ἄχρι ἧς 
ἡμέρας (Lu. 1 : 20), de’ ἣν αἰτίαν (Lu. 8 : 47), παρ᾽ 6 — Μνάσωνι (Ac. 
21:16), eis ὃν --- τύπον (Ro. 6:17), ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἡμέρας (Col. 1:9), περὶ 
ἧς σωτηρίας (1 Pet. 1:10), etc. Cf. Ro. 16: 2. 

9. Relative Phrases. Some of the abbreviated prepositional 
clauses come to be used at the beginning of principal sentences 

1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 174. 


(22 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


like the free use of conjunctions and relatives. Cf. Latin use of 
qui. Cf. Draeger, Hist. Syntax, Bd. I, p. 512. So ἀνθ’ ὧν (Lu. 
12:3), ἐν. οἷς (12:9), 616 (Hebiee 27) rept ὧν ΟΡ (ai) τοὺ 
χάριν (Lu. 7:47), δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν (2 Tim. 1:6). Cf. ὅθεν (Heb. 3: 1). 
Indeed (Winer-Schmiedel, p. 228) ἐν ᾧ may be here equal to ἐν 
τούτῳ ὅτι, ἀνθ᾽ ὧν-ε ἀντὶ τούτων ὅτι, ἐφ᾽ @= ἐπὶ τούτῳ ὅτι (2 Cor. 5:4), 
διότι (1 Th. 2 : 8)-Ξ διὰ τοῦτο ὅτι, ἐφ᾽ ots (Ro. 6 : 21), etc. The tem- 
poral and causal use of the relative phrases is common. Cf. ἐν 
ᾧ (Heb. 2:18). Indeed καθό (Ro. 8 : 26) is καθ᾽ 6, καθότι (Ac. 2 : 45) 
is καθ᾽ ὅτι, καθάπερ (Ro. 4 : 6) is καθ᾽ ἅπερ. Cf. ἐφ᾽ ὅσον (Mt. 9 : 15), 
καθ᾽ ὅσον (Heb. ὃ : 8). 

Adverbs show the same phenomena as other relative forms. 
Thus in Ro. 5:20 οὗ has no antecedent. In 1 Cor. 16:6 oj= 
ἐκεῖσε ov. SO ὅπου in Jo. 11 :382=éxetoe ὅπου and in Jo. 20:19 
ἐνταῦθα ὅπου. In 2 Sam. 14:15 6=conjunction. 

10. Pleonastic Antecedent. The redundant antecedent incorpo- 
rated into the relative clause has attracted considerable attention. 
In Herodotus 4, 44 ὃς --- οὗτος occurs,! and Blass? cites Hyper. 
Eux. ὃ 3, ὧν --- τούτων. But in ancient Greek it was a very rare 
usage. In Winer-Schmiedel* examples of pleonastic οὗτος are cited 
from Xenophon, Diodorus Siculus, Pausanias, Sophocles. Pleo- 
nastic αὐτός appears in Aristophanes, Birds, 1237, οἷς θυτέον αὐτοῖς. 
Reference also is made to Sophocles and Lucian. In the LX X the 
idiom is extremely common, manifestly under the influence of 
the Hebrew 35 "Gx (cf. Aramaic 7). It “is found in all parts of 
the LXX and undoubtedly owes its frequency to the Hebrew 
original. But the fact that it is found in an original Greek work, 
such as 2 Mace. (xii, 27 ἐν # . . . ἐν αὐτῇ) and a paraphrase such 
as 1 Esdras (iui, 5, 9; iv, 54, 68; vi, 32), is sufficient to warrant its 
presence in the xow7.’’4 For numerous examples of the idiom in 
the LX X see Winer-Schmiedel, p. 200, and Winer-Moulton, p. 185. 
Cf. also Conybeare and Stock, Selections, pp. 65 ff. As a matter 
of fact the examples are not very numerous in the N. T. It occurs 
several times in Rev. (3:8 ἣν --- αὐτήν, 7:2 οἷς ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς, 7:9 
ὃν —aitov, 13:8 οὗ --- αὐτοῦ, 20:8 ὧν --- αὐτῶν). Outside of the 
Apocalypse, which so strongly bears the influence of the ΠΧ Χ, the 
usage is very rare. See Mt. 3:12, οὗ τὸ πτύον ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ, an 
example hardly parallel as a matter of fact. But a clearer instance 
is Mk. 1:7 (and Lu. 3 : 16), ob — αὐτοῦ, and still more so 7: 25, ἧς 
εἶχε τὸ θυγάτριον αὐτῆς. Cf. also ola — τοιαύτη (Mk. 13 : 19), οἷος --- 

1 K.-G., II, p. 483. 3 P. 201. Cf. also W.-M., p. 185. 
3*Gri oP Nat. Gkiap. aro: 4 Thack., Gr. of O. T. in Gk., p. 46. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTQNYMIAI) 20 


τηλικοῦτος (Rev. 16 : 18), ofa — οὕτως (Mk. 9 : 8), ὅπου --- exe? (Rev. 
12 : 6, 14), ὅπου --- ἔπ᾽ αὐτῶν (Rev. 177 : 9).}: In Ac. 15:17, ἐφ᾽ obs — 
ἐπ᾿ αὐτούς, we have a quotation from the ΤΠ ΧΧ (Amos 9:12). ‘‘The 
N. T. examples are all from places where Aramaic sources are 
- certain or suspected”’ (Moulton, Prol., p. 95). One almost wonders, 
after this admission, why Moulton, p. 94, seems so anxious to 
prove that the idiom in the N. T. is not a Hebraism. By his own 
admission it seems a practical Hebraism there, though the idiom 
had an independent development in the Greek. The early sporadic 
examples in the ancient Greek? blossom out in the later Greek 
again and in the modern Greek become very common. Psichari® 
considers it rather far-fetched in Moulton to appeal to the modern 
Greek vernacular, ὁ γιατρὸς ποῦ τὸν ἔστειλα, ‘the doctor whom I 
sent for,’ since the modern Greek vernacular just as readily uses 
ποῦ without αὐτόν. Psichari complains that Thumb‘ also has 
not explained clearly this idiom. But Psichari believes that the 
idiom existed in the vernacular κοινή (and so fell in readily with 
the Hebrew usage) and has persisted to the present day. He 
considers® the example from a papyrus of the third century A.D. 
(P.Oxy. 1,117,15) decisive, ἐξ ὧν --- ἐξ αὐτῶν. See also P. Amh. IT, 
11, 26, ὅπερ φανερὸν τοῦτο éyevero. Moulton® has given abundant ex- 
amples from Old English. So in Chaucer (Knightes Tale, 1851 f.): 


“Namely oon, 
That with a spere was thirled his brest-boon.”’ 


He compares also the German der du bist. Simcox’ cites vernacu- 
lar English ‘a thing which I don’t like 10. Evidently therefore 
the idiom has had independent development in various languages 
in the vernacular. According to Jannaris (Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 353) 
the relative is in such cases regarded as “a mere connective.” 

In Gal. 3 : 1, ots — ἐν ὑμῖν, W. H. reject ἐν ὑμῖν. In Gal. 2 : 10, ὃ--- 
αὐτὸ τοῦτο, we have the intensive use of αὐτό, but τοῦτο is pleonastic. 
In 1 Pet. 2 : 24, 6s — αὐτός, we have again intensive αὐτός. 

11. The Repetition of ὅς. Winer® rightly remarks that it is a 
misapprehension of the Greek genius to expect the relative rather 
than αὐτός or οὗτος in a case like Jo. 1:6; Lu. 2:36; 19:2; Ac. 


1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 175; Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 59. 

2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 175, cites οὗ ἡ πνοὴ αὐτοῦ, from Clem. Cor. i, 21. 9. 
3 Essai sur le grec de la Sept., p. 182. 

4 Hellen., p. 128. 

5. Cf. also Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 353. 6 Prol., p. 94. 

7 Lang. of the N. T., p. 59. Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 113. 

8 W.-M., p. 186. 


794 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


10:36. The old Greek could, and commonly did,' use οὗτος or 
more usually αὐτός with καί to continue the narrative. Blass? 
rather curiously calls it “negligent usage.” Cf. Lu. 13 : 4, ἐφ᾽ ods 
ἔπεσεν ὁ πύργος καὶ ἀπέκτεινεν αὐτούς; 1 Cor. 8 : 6, ἐξ ob — καὶ εἰς αὐτόν 
and δι᾽ οὗ --- καὶ δί αὐτοῦ (cf. Heb. 11:4); 2 Pet. 2:3, ots Καὶ 
αὐτῶν; Rev. 17: 2, μεθ᾽ ἧς --- καὶ αὐτῆς. In Lu. 17: 81 1Χκα τ ΟΌσΟΤΕ 
rather than καὶ αὐτός. Cf. Λδο. 13:24. In Jo. 1:33, ἐφ᾽ ὃν --- καὶ ἐπ᾽ 
αὐτόν, the repetition of the relative would have been impracticable. 
But in 1 Cor. 7:13 Paul might very well have written ἥτις — καὶ 
ὅς rather than καὶ οὗτος (a sort of parenthesis). It is common,’ 
also, to have neither the relative repeated nor the demonstrative. 
So ὅς ye τοῦ ἰδίου υἱοῦ οὐκ ἐφείσατο, adda ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν πάντων παρέδωκεν 
αὐτόν (Ro. 8:32). Cf. Ph. 4:9. 

But the relative may be repeated. A good many such examples 
occur in the N. T. Kai may be used, as ὧν καὶ ὧν (Ro. 4:7). Cf. 
also ob — ᾧ καί (Ac. 27 : 23) and ὧν re — ὧν re — (Ac. 26:16). Cf. 
1 Cor. 15:1f., ὃ--- ὃ cal— ἐν & xai—6v ob καὶ. See Jo. 21: 20. 

But examples occur also of the repetition of the relative with- 
out any conjunction, as in 6s — dv — παρ᾽ οὗ (Ac. 24:6). See 1 Cor. 
4:17. Cf. ὅσα --- ὅσα, etc. (Ph. 4:8). This repetition of ὅς is 
specially frequent in Paul. Cf. Col. 1:24, 28f.; Eph. 3:11 f.; 1 
Cor. 2:7 f., though it is not exactly “peculiar” to him (Winer- 
Moulton, p. 209). In 1 Jo. 1:1 ὅ 15 repeated without conjunction 
three times, while in verse 3 6 is not repeated with the second 
verb. In 1 Pet. 1: 6-12 four sentences begin with a relative. In 
Ro. 9:4 f. we have οἵτινες --- av — dv — καὶ ἐξ ὧν. 

The use of ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ὅσα together (Lu. 12 : 3) finds abundant par- 
allel in the LXX, easily falling in with the Hebrew construction‘ 
with "4x. Thus a double relative occurs. 

In Ro. 4 : 21 the conjunction of ὅτι 6 is merely accidental; but 
that is not true of --- ὅτι in 1 Jo. 4:3. Cf. also οἷον ὅτι in Ro. 9 : 6. 

12. A Consecutive Idea. This may be implied in ὅς. Thus in 
Lu. 7: 4, ἄξιός ἐστιν ᾧ παρέξῃ τοῦτο. One is reminded of qui in 
Latin.® Cf. also ris ἐστιν οὗτος ὃς καὶ ἁμαρτίας ἀφίησιν; (Lu. 7:49). 
A particularly good example is 1 Cor. 2:16, τίς yap ἔγνω νοῦν 
κυρίου, ὃς συνβιβάσει αὐτόν; See chapter XIX, Mode. 

13. Causal. “Os may also introduce a causal sentence. So és 


1 Bernhardy, p. 304; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 354; Jelf, 833.2; K.-G., II, 
p. 4382. “ΤΟ ΝΎ ΟΠ Ὁ 170. 

8. “Normal” indeed. Thompson, Synt., p. 70. - 

4 Thack., Gr. of O. T. in Gk., p: 25: 

δ Cf. Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 369. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTQNTMIAI) 720 


γε in Ro. 8:32. Cf. Latin quippe qui. This is perfectly regular 
in ancient Attic. Cf. Thompson, Syntax of Attic Greek, p. 374. 
See also chapter XIX, Mode. 

14. In Direct Questions. The passage in Mt. 26: 50, ἑταῖρε, 
ἐφ᾽ ὃ πάρει, is the only one in the N. T. where such a construction is 
possible. There is no doubt as to the occasional use of ὅστις 
(see (6), 9), ὁπόσος, ὁπότερος, ὅπως in direct questions in the ancient 
Greek. For examples see Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 473 f. See 
further chapter XIX, Mode. This double use of relative pronouns 
is on a par with the double use of interrogative stems (cf. indefi- 
nite) so common in the Indo-Germanic tongues.!. The Latin qui 
and quis are kin in root and usage. Moulton? rightly considers it 
‘superfluous to say that this usage cannot possibly be extended to 
direct question.’’ Winer® explained the ‘‘misuse”’ as belonging to 
late Greek. A few examples‘ of és in a direct question do occur. So 
in Kuseb., P. HL. vi, 7.257 d, Gaisford edition, ὧν ἕνεκα; Just., Cohort. 
5 (p. 253 A), δι᾿ ἣν αἰτίαν --- προσέχεις ‘Ounpw; Apophth., 105 Ὁ, 
᾿Αρσένιε, bu’ ὃ ἐξῆλθες; Certainly the idiom was chiefly in the ver- 
nacular and rare even there. Blass® conjectures a slip in the text, 
aipe having been changed to ἑταῖρε, and Chrysostom had an 
imperative in his text. We may suppose “ἃ rather harsh ellipsis”’ 
of the principal verb and treat it as an ordinary relative.® Ὅς may 
indeed here be demonstrative as suggested by Noah K. Davis.” 
There was undoubtedly in the later Greek considerable confusion 
in the use of the relatives and the interrogatives. It is not im- 
possible for és here to be interrogative. That is as much as one 
can at present say. Blass thought it “quite incredible.” 

15. In Indirect Questions. Here the matter is much clearer. 
Even Blass® admits that “relatives and interrogatives become 
confused in Greek as in other languages.” In the classical lan- 
guage ὅς (still more ὅστις) is “frequently”? so employed. This use 
comes from Homer on down and occurs in Aristophanes, Sophocles, 
Herodotus, Xenophon, Plato, Lysias. Thucydides® uses it side 
by side with ὅστις. The papyri have it as Moulton has shown.” 


1 Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gr., p. 74. 


2 Prol., p. 93. 3 W.-M., p. 208. 
4 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 331; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 474. 
(ΤΟΝ se ak. pki. 6 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 68. 


7 Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 178. 

BRT ΟΡ 1 (Ὑ|- 0: 110. 

9 Thompson, Synt., p. 74. Cf. also Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 473; Moulton, 
ΒτΟ ΤΡ. 95. 

10 Prol., p. 98; Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901, p. 441. 


726 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Cf. φράζοντες ἐν ἧι κώμηι οἰκοῦσιν, R. L. 29 (iii/B.c.); φροντίσας δι’ ὧν 
δεῖ ταῦτα ἐργασθῆναι, P.P. ii. 37 (ii/B.c.). It is a little surprising, 
however, to find Blass! saying that this usage “is wanting in the 
N.T.” W.F. Moulton? in his footnote gives undoubted examples 
of ds in indirect questions after verbs of knowing, declaring, etc. So 
οἷδεν — ὧν χρείαν ἔχετε, Mt. 6 : ὃ; ἀπαγγείλατε ἃ ἀκούετε, 11:4; eiduta 
ὃ γέγονεν, Mk. 5: 83; ἀνέγνωτε ὃ ἐποίησεν, Lu. 6:3 (cf. Mt. 12: ὃ 
τί); μὴ εἰδὼς ὃ λέγει, 9 : 38; δι᾿ ἣν αἰτίαν ἥψατο αὐτοῦ ἀπήγγειλεν, ὃ : 47 
(cf. Ac. 22:24); διδάξει ὑμᾶς ἃ δεῖ εἰπεῖν, 12:12. But not 2 Tim. 1:12. 
And then in 1 Tim. 1:7 we find ἃ λέγουσιν and περὶ τίνων διαβε- 
βαιοῦνται used side by side after μὴ voodyres. Cf. also Jo. 18: 21. 
One may compare?® also Lu. 11:6, οὐκ ἔχω ὃ παραθήσω αὐτῷ, with 
Mk. 8:2 (Mt. 15 : 32), οὐκ ἔχουσιν τί φάγωσιν. See also ὡς ἰάθη 
in Lu. 8:47, and note ὡς in Lu. 23 : 55; 24: 35, not to mention 
ὅσος, ὁποῖος. 

10. The Idiom οὐδεὶς ἐστιν ὅς. It occurs in the N. T., as Mk. 
9:39; 10:29; Lu. 1:61; 18:29; 1 Cor. 6:5. For ovdels στιν ds 
οὐ see Mt. 10:26 (cf. Lu. 8:17). Here one is reminded of the old 
idiom οὐδεὶς ὅστις. Mayser (Grammatik, p. 310) calls attention to 
the papyri use of év=6 after analogy of τοσοῦτο(ν). Cf. ris — ds οὐ 
in Ac. 19:35. The N. T. does not use* ἔστιν ὅς, εἰσὶν ot=TIis, τινές. 

(e) Ὅστις. 

1. Varied Uses. The form is, of course, merely ὅς and τις. But 
we have seen a variety of uses of ὅς, and τις likewise is not entirely 
uniform. Hence the combination cannot be expected to be so. 

2. The Distinction between ὅς and ὅστις. It was not ironclad 
in the ancient language, as may be seen by reference to the Epic, 
Ionic, Attic poets, and to Herodotus (once Thucydides).> Blass® 
finds that the distinction between them is no longer regularly 
preserved in the N. T., least of all in Luke, best of all in Paul. 
Moulton? finds some examples in the papyri of ὅστις in the sense 
of és, but doubts if the two relatives are ever absolutely convert- 
ible and thinks that on the whole the classical distinction remains 
undisturbed, though sometimes during the κοινή period it had worn 
rather thin.’ But Jannaris® holds that ὅστις, having a wider scope 


1-Gr. of N. T.-Gk., p. 175: 8 W.-Sch., p. 237. 
2 W.-M., p. 207 f. ‘Ib., ps 236. 

5 Cf. Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 69, for the exx. 
Orr eons Ne Le GR api ets 

7SProhimsO1 

8. Ib.; Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901, p. 441 f. 

® Hist. (τ pe3s2: 


PRONOUNS (’ANTQNYMIAI) C2E 


than és, in postclassical times was used indiscriminately for ds. 
He is supported by Kaelker about Polybius.!. But in the vernacu- 
lar modern Greek ὅτι is alone common, other forms of ὅστις being 
rare, though ὅτινος and ὅτινων are found (Thumb, Handb., p. 93 f.). 
Kriiger? calls és “objective” and ὅστις “qualitative and generic.”’ 
W. F. Moulton?’ defines ὅστις as properly indicating the class or 
kind to which an object belongs. But no exact parallel can be 
drawn nor uniform distinction preserved. Each has its own his- 
tory. Jebb‘ takes ὅστις to refer to class in ancient Greek and hence 
is either indefinite or causal. In the modern Greek it is still in- 
definite, but has also in the vernacular displaced és in the mascu- 
line and feminine nominative. In the LXX ὅστις is less frequent 
than és and is almost confined to the nominative and accusative.® 
In the papyri® it is less frequent than és and is usually in the nom- 
inative as in the N. T. (Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 154). 

3. The Indefinite Use. This is, as a matter of fact, still the most 
frequent in the N. T. Cf. Latin quicumque. The examples are 
too numerous to give save a few samples. Cf. ὅστις σὲ ῥαπίζει εἰς 
τὴν δεξιὰν σιαγόνα (Mt. 5:39), ὅστις ἀρνήσηταί με (10:33), ὅτι ἂν 
αἰτήσητε (Jo. 14:18), ὅστις ἐὰν ἢ (Gal. ὃ : 10). Thus it is used with 
indicative or subjunctive, with or without ἄν (ἐάν). Cf. Mt. 18 : 12. 
In Mk. 8: 34 εἴ τις does not differ very greatly from ὅστις. Cf. 
also ἐάν μή, Mk.10: 30. Πᾶς ὅστις is, of course, indefinite also. Thus 
Mt. 7: 24; πᾶν 6 τι ἐὰν ποιῆτε (Col. 3:17), etc. For πᾶσα ψυχὴ ἥτις av 
see Ac. 3:23 (LXX). In P. Par. 574 (iii/a.p.) note ὅστις ποτ᾽ οὖν εἶ. 

4. The Definite Examples. These are chiefly causal clauses. Some 
indeed seem merely descriptive. Thus Mt.7: 15, τῶν ψευδοπροφητῶν 
οἵτινες ἔρχονται. Cf. also Mt. 7: 26; 13 : 52; 21+ 33, etc. The value 
of the pronoun sometimes does not differ greatly from οἷος and ex- 
presses quality. Thus εὐνοῦχοι οἵτινες, Mt. 19 : 12; ἄλλοις γεωργοῖς 
οἵτινες, 21:41; παρθένοις αἵτινες, 25:1, etc. Once indeed we actu- 
ally have τοιαύτη ἥτις (1 Cor. 5:1). Cf. also ποταπὴ ἡ γυνὴ ἥτις (Lu. 
7:39). See also Gal. 4:24, 26. Then again it may be merely 
explanatory as in γυναῖκες πολλαὶ --- αἵτινες ἠκολούθησαν τῷ “Inood 
ΕΟ ΟΜ 5.37 vise 261 Col 8:5; πον 11, 
etc. This use of ὅστις is particularly frequent with proper names. 


1 Quest., p. 245 f. 

2 Gr., p. 139. For the confusion between és and ὅστις see also Brug., 
Griech. Gr., p. 558 f. 

3 W.-M., p. 209, n. 3, where a very helpful discussion occurs. 

4 V. and D., Handb. to Mod. Gk., p. 302. 

δ Thack., Gr., p. 192. 6 Mayser, Gr., p. 310. 


728 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


So Lu. 2:4, εἰς πόλιν Δαυεὶδ ἥτις καλεῖται Βηθλεέμ. Cf. also Lu. 
8:26; Ac. 16:12, etc. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 303, takes the ex- 
planatory or illustrative examples=‘now he,’ ‘one that.’ Moul- 
ton! points out that ὅστις at the beginning of a parable (cf. Mt. 
20:1) is really a type and so appropriate. In an example like 
Lu. 1:20, τοῖς λόγοις μου οἵτινες πληρωθήσονται, Moulton takes it to 
be ‘which for all that’ (almost adversative), while in Lu. 10 : 42 
ἥτις οὐκ ἀφαιρεθήσεται a’tas=‘and it shall not be taken away from 
her.’ There is no doubt about the causal use of ὅστις (cf. qui and 
quippe qui). See Jo. ὃ : 53, ᾿Αβραὰμ ὅστις ἀπέθανεν (‘seeing that he 
died’); Ac. 10 :47, οἵτινες τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἔλαβον (‘since they re- 
ceived the Holy Spirit’). Cf. also Ac. 7: 53; Ro. 2:15; 6:2; Heb. 
86°10 335; Hphe:3 2.13; Phi473; Gols; Jas. 42 143 Ret 
Zid l) ete. 

δ. Value of és? It is a matter of dispute whether in the N. T., 
as-usually in modern Greek, ὅστις has come already to have merely 
the force of és. There are undoubted examples where it is equal 
to ὅσπερ (‘which very’). So Ac. 11:28, ἥτις ἐγένετο, ἐπὶ Κλαυδίου. 
Cf. also Ac. 13 : 31; 16: 16; 1 Cor. 3:17, etc. Blass? goes further 
and finds ὅστις in Luke purely in the sense of ὅς. He is supported 
by Jebb*® who says that “πὸ natural interpretation can make it 
more in Lu. 2:4.” In Acts at any rate a fairly good case can be 
made out for this weakened sense of ὅστις. Cf. ὃ : 14 f. Πέτρον καὶ 
᾿Ιωάνην οἵτινες, 12 : 10 τὴν πύλην ἥτις, 17:10. See also Rev. 12 : 18. 
Moulton‘ gives an exact parallel from the papyri for Mt. 27: 62, 
τῇ ἐπαύριον ἥτις ἐστὶν μετὰ τὴν παρασκευήν (αὔριον ἥτις ἐστὶν te). He 
quotes Hort also (Comm., 1 Pet, 2 : 11) in favour of the position 
that in some places-in the N. T. no distinction can be drawn be- 
tween ds and ὅστις. Blass® denies that Paul uses ὅστις as the equiv- 
alent of és. I confess that I fail to see a great deal of difference 
between οἵτινες and οἷς in Ro. 16:4, οἵτινες and ot in 16:7. Cf. 
also és and ἥτις in verses 5 f. 

6. Case. There is little here that calls for comment. We do 
not have attraction nor incorporation. As a matter of fact only 
three cases occur (nom., gen., acc.).6 The stereotyped phrase 


1 Prol., p. 92. Ὅστις as ‘who indeed’ is common in Pisidia. Cf. Comper- 
nass, De Serm. Graec., p. 13. 

2:Gr. oft Nao Gk apaii3: 4-Prokp pr 91]. 

$V. and D., Handb., p. 302. & Gr. of sN. ΠΡ 175: 

6 ‘The pap. show the same situation. Moulton, Cl. Rev., April, 1904, p. 154. 
Thus ἥντινα BM 77 (viii/A.D.), ὅντινα inser. J.H.S., 1902, p. 349, ἐξ ὅτου BM 
190 (i/?), ἕως ὅτου NP 56 (iii/A.D.). 


PRONOUNS (’ANTQNTMIAI) 729 


with ἕως and the genitive, ἕως ὅτου, is rather frequent. Cf. Mt. 
5:25; Lu. 12:50 (Luke three times, Matthew and John once 
each). This is the only form of the shortened inflection. The 
LXX once! (2 Mace. 5:10) has ἥστινος, elsewhere ὅτου. The accu- 
sative is found in the N. T. only in the neuter singular ὅτι (absent 
from modern Greek). But see (note 6, p. 728) occasional ὅντινα 
and ἥντινα in the papyri. So Lu. 10:35, ὅτι ἂν προσδαπανήσῃς. Cf. 
ὅτι av, Jo. 2:35; 142138; 15:16; ὅτι ἐάν, Mk. 6: 23;'1 Cor. 16: 
2feaCol. 5.216; ὅτιν alone; Jo. 8:25; Ac. 9 ::6..'The? other’ ex-= 
amples are all in the nominative. 

7. Number. In*general the number of ὅστις agrees with that 
of the antecedent. But in a few instances ὅστις agrees with the 
predicate. So with 1 Cor. 3:17, ναὸς οἵτινες --- ὑμεῖς, Eph. 3 : 13, 
θλίψεσιν ἥτις — δόξα. Cf. Ac. 16: 12. 

8. Gender. Likewise ὅστις in general agrees with the antece- 
dent in gender. So Eph. 1:22 f. ἐκκλησία ἥτις --- τὸ σῶμα, Gall. 
4:24 μία ἥτις ---“Δγαρ. Cf. Rev. 11:8. But the gender of the 
predicate may be followed as in Ac. 16:12, Φιλίππους (fem., H. 
Scott says, but Thayer has of) ἥτις --- πόλις; 1 Tim. 3:15, οἴκῳ 
θεοῦ — ἥτις — ἐκκλησία. In Ph. 1: 28, ἥτις --- ἔνδειξις, the antece- 
dent is the general idea of the preceding clause. One example of 
ὅτι is neuter singular (2 Cor. 3:14, ὅτι ἐν Χριστῷ καταργ εἴται), 
and several times the neuter plural (Jo. 21 : 25, ἅτινα ἐὰν ypadn- 
tat). So Gal. 4:24; 5:19. Cf. the absence of the neuter in the 
modern Greek. The masculine and feminine, both singular and 
plural, iare very) frequent. .Cfi. Mt. 2:6;:7: 15; (Lus.2 74;:23: 
δῦ. See further for number, gender and case, chapter X, VII, 
VIET xs 

9. Direct Questions. Examples of ὅστις in direct questions are 
found in Aristophanes and Plato as quoted by Jannaris.2. An ex- 
ample of it occurs also in 1 Chron. 17:6, ὅτι οὐκ ὠκοδομήσατέ μοι 
οἶκον κέδρινον; Here the Hebrew has ΠΡ. Cf. also 2 Ki. 8: 14 
in AB, ὅτι where other MSS. have τί. In Barn. Ep. c. 10 we have 
ὅτι δὲ Μωῦσῆς εἴρηκεν; Vulgate has quare.* Jannaris* gives a 
number of instances for the later Greek. And yet Blass® calls it 
“quite incredible,” a remark impossible to justify in the light of 
the facts. It is, indeed, unusual, but there is no a priort reason 


1 Thack., Gr., p. 192. 2 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 473. 

3 Cf. W.-M., p. 208. 

4 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 473. It is more usual in the second of two questions. 
Cf. Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 398. 

ΟΝ Leuk). 170: 


730 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


why the N. T. writers could not occasionally use ὅστις as a direct 
interrogative. One may note also the use of εἰ in a direct question.' 
The N. T. examples are all confined to 6 τι. In Mt. 7:14 ὅτι is 
certainly merely causal, not exclamatory nor interrogative. In 
Mk. 2:16 ὅτι isread by BL 33 and is accepted by W. H. and 
Nestle as interrogative. AC al. read τί ὅτι, while ND have διὰ τί. 
It is possible, to be sure, that ὅτι may be an ‘“‘abbreviation’’? or 
“ellipsis’’* for τί ὅτι. But it is more probable that it is here re- 
garded as tantamount to an interrogative (ri ὅτι or διὰ τί). Moul- 
ton (Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 154) quotes ὅτι τί in B.U. 607 (ii/A.D.) γράψον 
μοι ὅτι τί ἔπραξας. But in Mk. 9: 11 the Greek uncials all give the 
first ὅτι. This is all the more remarkable since the second ὅτι is 
clearly a conjunction. The Latin MSS. give variously quare, quia, 
quid, etc., and some Greek cursives πῶς οὖν. ‘Why’ is the natural 
and obvious idea.t’ So in Mk. 9:28 ὅτι is read by the great 
mass of MSS. (including NBCL), though AD and a number of 
others have διὰ τί, some even have ὅτι διὰ τί (conflate reading), a 
few ri ὅτι. In John 8: 25 both W. H. and Nestle print as a ques- 
tion, Τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅ τι Kal λαλῶ ὑμῖν; The Latin versions have quod or 
quia. Itis avery difficult passage at best. Τὴν ἀρχὴν 6 τι may be 
taken to mean ‘Why do I speak to you at all?’ (τὴν apxnv= ὅλως). 
But there may be ellipsis,>5 ‘Why do you reproach me that (ὅτι) 
I speak to you at all?’ If necessary to the sense, ὅτι may be 
taken here as interrogative.6 Moulton’ admits the N. T. use of 
ὅστις IN a direct question. Recitative ὅτι is even suggested in 
Winer-Schmiedel,*® but the occasional interrogative use of ὅτι is 
sufficient explanation. But the passage in Jo. 8 : 25 is more than 
doubtful. Chrysostom takes ὅτι there as relative, Cyril as causal.° 

10. Indirect Questions. In ancient Greek ὅστις is exceedingly 
common in indirect questions, sharing the honours with τίς. The 
astonishing thing about this use of ὅστις is its almost entire ab- 
sence from the N. T. (cf. modern Greek, where it is not used in 
this sense). No example has yet been shown from the papyri. 
Indeed the relative forms, the so-called indirect interrogatives, 
are not common in the N. T. in that sense. The direct interroga- 


1 Lachmann, Praef., p. 43. 5 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 176. 
Δ Blasay {τ ΟΝ TD. 170: 6 Simcox, Lang. of N. T., p. 68. 
ὃ W.-M., p. 208. 7 Prol., p. 94. 

4 


Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 68. 
8 P. 238. The use of ὅτι τί lends colour to the notion of recitative ὅτι. 
9 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 148. 
10 Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 473. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTONYMIAI) 731 


tives are the rule in the N. T. in indirect questions. Only one 
instance of ὅτι in an indirect question is found in the N. T., Ac. 
9:6, λαληθήσεταί σοι ὅτι σε δεῖ ποιεῖν. Even this reading, though 
supported by NABC, Blass? rejects “in view of the general 
practice elsewhere,’’ a needless conclusion. Why not call it a 
“literary”? mark in Luke? Ὅπως is so used once (Lu. 24 : 20), 
ὅπου not at all (not even Jo. 14:4), οἷος in 1 Th. 1:5, and ὁποῖος 
Online Core alos GaAlsiaO blo. b. 1.19: Jas.) 1: 246° See 
further chapter XIX. 

(f) Otos. 

1. Relation to ὅς. This correlative form is related to és as 
qualis is to qui. The antecedent τοιοῦτος is not, of course, always 
expressed. But it is qualitative, and not a mere relative like és or 
even ὅστις. In the modern Greek the word has disappeared except 
the form déyzos (ὁ οἷος) in the dialects and is rare (14 times) in 
the N. T. Maysert merely mentions it in his Grammatik d. 
griech. Papyrt. It is in the N. T. usually without τοιοῦτος, as 
in Mt. 24:21, but it is several times followed by τοιοῦτος, as in 
1 Cor. 15 : 48; 2 Cor. 10:11. A rather unusual instance is οἷος --- 
τηλικοῦτος σεισμὸς οὕτω μέγας (Rev. 16:18). In 2 Cor. 12 : 20 οἷον 
is, of course, first person. So οἷοι 1 Th. 1: 5. 

2. Incorporation. No instance of attraction occurs, but an ex- 
ample of incorporation is found in 2 Tim. 38:11, οἵους διωγμοὺς 
brnveyxa. In Rev. 16:18 the addition of τηλικοῦτος οὕτω μέγας 
after οἷος is by way of explanatory apposition. But in Mk. 13 : 19, 
οἵα οὐ γέγονεν τοιαύτη, the incorporation is redundant after the 
fashion of ὃν --- αὐτόν. 

3. Indirect Question.» Like ὅς we have οἷος so used. Cf. 1 Th. 
1:5, οἴδατε οἷοι ἔγενήθημεν. In 2 Tim. 3:11 we may have an in- 
direct: question also. The Textus Receptus for Lu. 9:55 (Ὁ 
has ποίου) has another instance of the use of οἷος in an indirect 
question, οὐκ οἴδατε οἵου πνεύματός ἐστε ὑμεῖς. 

4. Number. Οἷος may agree in number with the predicate 
rather than the antecedent. So 1 Cor. 15:48, οἷος --- τοιοῦτοι. 
Note the difference in the position of the negative in οὐχ οἵους and 
otov ob, 2 Cor. 12:20. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 179, calls rov 
αὐτὸν --- οἷον (Ph. 1: 80) peculiar. 


1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 175; W.-Sch., p. 236 f.; Viteau, Prop., pp. 
62 ff. 

ΟΝ τ Crk, D170. 

5. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 87, 168; Thumb, Handb., p. 94. 

ἘΠ 51:5 6 Cf. K.-G., II, p. 439, for exx. in the older Gk. 


132 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


5. Οἷόν τέ ἐστιν. The only example! in the N. T. is in Ro. 9: 
6, οὐχ οἷον δὲ ὅτι, where note the absence of τε. It does not occur 
in exclamations. 

(g) .Οποῖος. 

1. Qualitative. It corresponds to the interrogative ποῖος. It 
is very rare in the N. T. (see Declensions), but occurs in modern 
Greek vernacular for ‘whoever’ (Thumb, p. 93). In the literary 
modern Greek ὁ ὁποῖος, Jannaris” thinks that the use of the article 
was due to the Italian 21 quale and the French lequel (cf. Old 
English the which), since educated scribes objected to the ver- 
nacular ὅπου and ποῦ. 

2. Double Office. Like οἷος, ὅσος and ἡλίκος it has the double 
office of relative and indirect interrogative.t| Four of the N. T. 
instances are indirect questions (1 Cor. 3:13; Gal. 2:6; 1 Th. 
1:9; Jas. 1:24). In Gal. 2 : 6, ὁποῖοί ποτε, we have the indefinite 
form (‘whatever kind’).> Note here the use of τι and ὁποῖοι. In 
1 Cor. 3:13 the antecedent is expressed and repeated by redun- 
dant αὐτό. 

3. Correlative. Only one instance is correlative, Ac. 26 : 29, 
τοιούτους ὁποῖος. Cf. qualiscumque. Note here the difference in 
number. 

(h) Ὅσος. 

1. Quantitative. It is found in the LXX like οἷος and ὁποῖος 
and survives in the modern Greek.’ There are a hundred and 
eight instances in the N. T. (W. H. text) which display great 
variety of usage. Radermacher (ΛΝ. 7. Gr., p. 63) notes that in 
Philo ὅσος is often equal to οἵ. 

2. Antecedent. The presence of the antecedent is not common 
outside of πάντες ὅσοι (Ac. 5:36, 37), πάντα ὅσα (Very common, as 
Mt. 7:12; 13:46; 18:25; Mk. 11: 24, etc.), ὅσοι --- οὗτοι (also 
frequent, as Ro. 8: 14; Gal. 6:12, οἷο). Cf. ὅσοι --- αὐτοῖς in Jo. 
1:12. But in Mk. 3:28 ὅσα has ἁμαρτήματα and βλασφημίαι as 
antecedents and naturally is neuter. Cf. Ac. 3:24; 9:39; Rev. 
21:16. It is common without antecedent both in the masculine 
(ὅσοι Mt. 14 : 36) and the neuter (ὅσα Mk. 9 : 13). 

3. Attraction. This was possible in Jo. 6:11, ἐκ τῶν ὀψαρίων 


1 For a different explanation Ξε οὐ δή που ἐκπεπτ. see Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., 
p. 179. * Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 167. 

3 V. and D., Handb., p. 308. 4 Moulton, Prol., p. 93. 

5 Blass, Gr. of N: T. Gk., p. 318. It is rare in anc. Gk. in this sense. K.-G., 
II, p. 439. Cf. ὅπως Lu. 24 : 20. 

6 Thack., Gr., p. 192. 7 Jann, Hist. Gk. Gr.,.p: 168: 


PRONOUNS (’ANTQNTMIAI) 733 


ὅσον ἤθελον, but it does not occur. In Lu. 11:8, δώσει αὐτῷ ὅσων 
χρήζει, the regular construction occurs. In Winer-Schmiedel! it 
is stated that attraction is found in the N. T. with ὅσος. I find 
no real examples outside of the few cases of incorporation now 
to be mentioned.” 

4. Incorporation. In Ac. 9 : 18 ὅσα κακά is an instance. Mk. 
2:19 has ὅσον χρόνον. The other examples (Ro. 7:1; 1 Cor. 
7:39; Gal. 4:1) are all instances of ἐφ᾽ ὅσον χρόνον. | 

5. Repetition. In Mk. 6:30 we have in W. H. ὅσα καὶ ὅσα 
(not Tisch.). But in Ph. 4:8 ὅσα is repeated six times without 
καί. In Heb. 10 : 37 ὅσον ὅσον (LXX) is in imitation of the Hebrew 
in Hab. 2:3. Cf. also Is. 26:20 and D on Lu. 5:3 where ὅσον 
dcov= ὀλίγον of the other MSS.? But that this is not an essential 
Hebraism, but a vernacular idiom in harmony with the Hebrew, 
is now Clear.* 

6. With av. Note the use as an indefinite relative (Mk. 6 : 56; 
Lu. 9:5; Jo. 11:22; Ac.::2:39; 3:22, etc.) and with ἐάν (Mt. 
Bae Boris: 2a Ὁ ΚΙ ϑὺ: 25,.eUC.) « 

7. Indirect Questions. The instances are fairly numerous. So 
ἀκούοντες ὅσα ποιεῖ (Mk. 3:8); ἀπάγγειλον ὅσα — πεποίηκεν (δ : 19). 
{20 Aes 8050 210) ΑῸΣ 41:25: Tim. 1:18, ete: 

8. In Comparison. “Ὅσον (ὅσῳ) is used in comparative sentences 
usually with τοσοῦτο (τοσούτῳ). Cf. Mk. 7:36; Heb. 1:4; 8:6; 
10 : 25. 

9. Adverbial. ’Ed’ ὅσον (Mt. 9:15; 25:40; Ro. 7:1, etc.) and 
καθ᾽ ὅσον (Heb. 3:3; 7: 20; 9: 27) partake of the nature of con- 
junctions. 

(t) Ἡλίκος. This form was used to express both age and size. 
Hence the corresponding ambiguity of ἡλικίαᾳ. Cf. for age Jo. 
9:21, for stature Mt. 6:27. The pronoun is absent from the 
LXX, never very common, but survives in the literary modern 
Greek.’ It appears also in the papyri.® Like the other relatives it 
might have had a double use in the N.T. (relative and indirect in- 
terrogative). But the few examples are all indirect interrogatives: 
Col. 2:1 εἰδέναι ἡλίκον ἀγῶνα ἔχω, Jas. 3:5 ἰδοὺ ἡλίκον πῦρ ἡλίκην 


1 Ῥ 224: 

2 But in the pap. Moulton finds ἀρουρῶν --- ὅσων (Prol., p. 93). As a matter 
of fact in the N. T. ὅσος nowhere occurs outside of the nom. and acc. except 
in Lu. 11:8 and Heb. 1:4; 8:6; 10:25. 

3 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 179. Blass also cites Aristoph., Vesp., 213. 

4 Moulton, Prol., p. 97; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 330. 

§ Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 168. 6 Mayser, Gr., p. 311. 


734 $A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ὕλην ἀνάπτει. The examples in James may be regarded as exclam- 
atory. Note also that ἡλίκον refers to smallness and ἡλίκην to great- 
ness of the size. In Gal. 6:11 W. H. and Nestle read πηλίκοις in 
the text and ἡλίκοις in the margin. This again is indirect question 
after ἴδετε. 

(j) Ὃ as Revative. The use of the τ forms of ὁ, ἡ, τό as relative 
is very old in Greek. It appears in Homer! and is common in 
Herodotus. In Arkadian 6 appears as demonstrative, as article 
and as relative (Meister, Die griech. Dialekten, Bd. II, p. 116). 
Cf. also South Ach. (Hoffmann, Griech. Dial., pp. 257, 292-800). 
Jannaris? gives examples of it from Ionic (where very common), 
Doric and Attic (inseriptions), and sporadically in the later Greek. 
In modern Greek it survives only in sententious sayings with ra 
and in Crete and Southeast Greek (Thumb, p. 94). Mayser? finds 
a few doubtful instances in the papyri. Wilcken (Archiv, 1) gives 
some examples from B. M. as τό μοι δέδωκες (p. 292), τὴν ἀγάπην τὴν 
ποιεῖς (p. 301), and Moulton (Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 155) quotes πρὸς τὸ 
dvvoue from B.U. 948 (iv/v a.p.) “very illiterate.”’ Mayser (op. 
cit.) gives numerous examples of ὁ καί which “first in Roman time” 
appears in the nominative. He compares this with the relative 
use ὃς καί and is inclined to regard ὁ καί as relative. The analogy 
of the Latin qui et favours the relative idea, but the article alone is 
sufficient in Greek. I would not insist on the relative for Σαῦλος ὁ 
καὶ Παῦλος (Ac. 13:9), though admitting the possibility of it. It 
means (Deissmann), not ‘Saul who is henceforth Paul,’ but ‘also 
Paul.’ Cf. also Hatch, Jour. of Bibl. Int., Pt. IT, p. 141 f., 1908. 
In truth this use of ὁ καί with double names was very common in 
N. T. times.’ Dieterich® sees no instance of ὁ as relative in the 
N.T. But in Rev. 1:4, 8; 11:17, we have ὁ ἦν. One either has 
to say that here 6 is used as a relative or that it is a relative. It 
all comes to the same in the end. It may be a bit artificial, 6 dp 
καὶ ὁ ἦν Kal ὁ ἐρχόμενος, but the antique and vernacular relative ὁ 
came in as a resource when John did not wish to use γενόμενος of 
God, and since there is no aorist participle for εἰμί. Psychologically 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., pp. 182 ff. For hist. of the matter see K.-BI., I, pp. 

608 ff. 

2 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 353. Cf. also Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 560; Meisterh., Gr., 
p. 156; Dieterich, Byz. Arch., pp. 1, 198 f. δ᾽ Gr., pp. 310 ff. 

4 See Schmid, Der Atticismus, III, 0. 338; Vélker, Synt. d. griech. Pap., 
p. 6; Ramsay, Cities and Bish. of Phrygia, XTX, 429; Deiss., B.S., pp. 318 ff.; 
Moulton, Prol., p. 89. 

5 Unters., p. 199. Winer (W.-Th., p. 107) rejects ὁ καί as relative. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTQNTMIAI) oO 


the article is called for here between two articles, but grammar 
can do nothing with it. If ἣν is treated as a substantive, that 
would call for τό as in τὸ δέ ’AvéBy (Eph. 4:9). Moulton! finds 
several examples in late papyri of 6 as relative (for 6 as demon- 
strative see pp. 693 ff.), like τὴν xipa τὴν δέδωκεν (p. 804). The only 
real difficulty in Rev. 1:4, 8, etc., is the nominative use, and 
that was not insuperable when the exigencies of the sentence de- 
~ manded it. It is possible that this phrase had come to be a set 
phrase among the Christians for the eternity and unchangeable- 
ness of God. For the possible use of ris as relative see under 
VIII. 

VIII. Interrogative Pronouns (ἀντωνυμίαι ἐρωτητικαί). 

(a) Τίς, The root of the interrogative ris (Thess. xis. Cf. Ionic 
κῶς, κότερος), indefinite τις (cf. τε), is at bottom the same as the 
Indo-Germanic root quis and Latin quis (aliquis, que).? Curiously 
enough some of the grammars, Monro’s Homeric Grammar, for 
example, give no separate or adequate discussion of the inter- 
rogative pronouns. 

1. Substantival or Adjectival. Tis is either adjectival as τίνα 
μισθὸν ἔχετε; (Mt. 5 : 46), or, as more commonly, substantival like 
τίς ὑπέδειξεν; (Mt. ὃ : 7). 

2. The Absence of Gender. That it appears only in the nom- 
inative and accusative is noteworthy. This fact probably had 
something to do with the gradual retreat of ris before ποῖος." The 
neuter in the N. T. occurs with adjectives only, as ri ἀγαθόν in 
Mt. 19 : 16. 7 

3. Τίςτε ποῖος. An opposite tendency is seen in the use of ris= 
ποῖος Hatzidakis® has shown examples of this idiom as early as 
Euripides. As New Testament illustrations one may note τίς 
οὗτός ἐστιν ὅς (Lu.7: 49), τίνες of λόγοι οὗτοι ods ἀντιβάλλετε (Lu. 
24:17; cf. ποῖα 24:19), τίς ἐστιν οὗτος ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (Jo. 12: 34). 
Cf. Lu. 4:36. Only once® is ποῖος used with the article (Jas. 
4:14, and here B omits ἡ), while we find ris ἡ σοφία (Mk. 6: 2), 
᾿ τίς ἡ αἰτία (Ac. 10 : 21), ete. Sometimes ris and ποῖον are used to- 
gether. It might seem at first as if the distinction were here 
insisted on, as in els τίνα ἢ ποῖον καιρόν (1 Pet. 1:11) and ποῖον 
οἶκον — ἢ τίς τόπος (Ac. 7:49). But tautology seems plain in the 
last example and may be true of 1 Pet. 1:11, but not certainly 


1 Cl. Rev., April, 1904, p. 155. 

2 Cf. Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 194; Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 117, 244. 

8 Jann., Hist. Gk. Οἱ.) p. 163. 5 Hinl., p. 207 f. 

4 Ib., p. 164. ὃ Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 176. 


736 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


so. In Mk. 4:30 W. H. read ἐν τίνι, but some MSS. have ἐν ποίᾳ. 
Cf. also ris καὶ ποταπός in Lu. 7:39, which is not tautological. 

4. Indeclinable τί. In Jo. 18 : 38, τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια, the neuter in . 
the predicate calls for no special remark. So Gal. 3:19. Cf. 
Latin quid and English what in such a sentence. ‘This idiom be- 
longs to the ancient Greek and distinguishes between the essence 
of a thing (τί) and the classification of a thing (τίς), as Gilder- 
sleeve puts it (Syntax of Cl. Gk., p. 59). Cf. ὑμεῖς τίνες ἐστέ; (Ac. 
19:15) and τί ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος (Heb. 2:6). But this explana- 
tion will not hold for 1 Jo. 3:2, ri ἐσόμεθα, nor Ac. 13 : 25, ri 
ἐμὲ Urovoetre. The text in Acts is not certain. The κοινή shows 
this development outside of the N. T.2. In the modern Greek ‘“‘the 
neuter τί is used with all genders and cases both in the singular 
and plural’? (Vincent and Dickson, Handb., p. 55). Cf. τί dpa 
εἶναι; ‘what o’clock is it?’ Τί γυναῖκα; ‘which woman?’ Thumb, 
Handb., p. 94. It is not unusual in classical Greek* to have τί as 
predicate to ταῦτα, as in Lu. 15 : 26 ri ἂν εἴη ταῦτα, Jo.6:9 ταῦτα τί 
ἐστιν. So probably τί ταῦτα ποιεῖτε; (Ac. 14:15), though τί here 
may be ‘why’ and not predicative. The usual construction ap- 
pears in Ac. 17:20 τίνα θέλει ταῦτα εἶναι (cf. Jo. 10 : 6), 11:17 ἔγὼ 
τίς ἤμην; cf. Lu. 8:9. In Ac. 21:33 τίς and τί are sharply dis- 
tinguished. The use of τί with γίνομαι is hardly in point here 
(Ac. 5:24; 12:18) as it is found in the Attic* ri γένωμαι. In 
Jo. 21:21 οὗτος δὲ τί; we must supply γενήσεται. 

5. Predicate Use of τί with τοῦτο. In Ac. 28 : 190, τί ἐστιν ὃ ἔχεις, 
we find the full expression. In Lu. 16: 2, τί τοῦτο ἀκούω περὶ σοῦ, we 
meet the abbreviated idiom. Cf. Ac. 14:15 τί ταῦτα (see also 
9). Cf. Lu. 1:66; Ac. 5:24. The phrase τί πρὸς ἡμᾶς (Mt. 27: 
4), τί πρὸς σέ (Jo. 21: 22) is matched by the Attic τί ταῦτ᾽ ἐμοί 
(Kiihner-Gerth, II, 417; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 177). Ce. 
οὗτος τί (Jo. 21:21). Blass (7b.) also compares ri γάρ μοι τοὺς 
ἔξω κρίνειν (1 Cor. 5:12) with the infinitive in Arrian, Diss. 
Eict., 1, 17. 14. Ti ἐμοὶ cat coi (Jo. 2:4, etc.) is in the LXX 
(2 Ki. 3:18), but it is also a Greek idiom (ellipsis, Kihner- 
Gerth, 7b.). 

6. In Alternative Questions. Quality in general is nearly gone 
from the κοινή. Tis when πότερος might have been used is not 
unknown in ancient Greek.6 Indeed even in Latin quis occurs 
sometimes instead of the more usual uéer.6 In the LXX πότερος 

1“ Blass, Gre ofeN;(L., Delite 4 ΤΌ. 


2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 164. 5 Jelf, 874, obs. 4. 
éDiass; ΟἾΟΝ ΠΟΘΙ 177 6 Draeger, Hist. Synt., p. 103. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTQNYMIAI) (Ey; 


is supplanted by τίς and the particle πότερον occurs only once, and 
that in Job (literary)... Moulton? finds only one example of πότε- 
pos in the papyri, and that unintelligible. So in the N.T. πότερος 
does not occur as an adjective. So in Mt.9:5 τί γάρ ἐστιν εὐκο- 
πώτερον εἰπεῖν --- ἢ εἰπεῖν, 21: 51 τίς ἐκ τῶν δύο ἐποίησεν, 27: 21 τίνα 
θέλετε ἀπὸ τῶν δύο. Cf. also 23: 17,19; 27:17; Mk. 2:9; Lu. 7: 42: 
22:27; 1 Cor. 4: 21; Ph. 1:22. Moulton’ notes that ‘whether, 
adjectivally, is as archaic as πότερος,᾽᾽ and predicts that “the best 
of the two” will be the English of the future. 

7. The Double Interrogatie. Cf. ris πόθεν in Soph., Tr. 421. 
It is common in other Indo-Germanic languages.4 Cf. τίς τίνος 
ἐστὶν ἐργάτης, Hom. Clem. 2, 33. So τίς τί ἄρῃ in Mk. 15: 24. 
Some MSS. have τίς τί also in Lu. 19: 15, but not NBDL (W. H. 
and Nestle read ri). Cf. ἡλίκον ---- ἡλίκην in Jas. 3: 5. 

8. As Relative. Just as ὅς and ὅστις came to be used as inter- 
rogatives, so τίς drifted occasionally to a mere relative. We have 
seen (1 Tim. 1:7) how the relative and the interrogative come to 
be used side by side. ‘‘In English, the originally interrogative 
pronouns ‘who’ and ‘which’ have encroached largely on the use 
of the primitive relative ‘that.’’’®> Moulton’s sketch of the facts® 
makes it clear that in the N.T. ris may be relative if the exigencies 
eall for it. Moulton finds it only in the illiterate papyri, but the 
usage is supported by inscriptions’ and by the Pontic dialect to- 
day. Moulton® gives from the papyri, εὗρον γεοργὸν τίς αὐτὰ 
ἑλκύσῃ, B.U. 822 (iii/A.D.); τίνος ἐὰν χρίαν ἔχῃς, B. M. 239 (iv/a.p.). 
From the inscriptions see τίς ἂν κακῶς ποιήσει, J.H.S., XTX, 299. 
Moulton® also quotes Jebb on Soph., O. 7. 1141: “Tis in clas- 
sical Greek can replace ὅστις only where there is an indirect ques- 
tion.’ The plainest New Testament example of ris as és appears 
to be Mk. 14 : 36 ov τί ἐγὼ θέλω ἀλλὰ Ti σύ. Cf. Mt. 26 : 39 οὐχ ὡς 
ἐγὼ θέλω, ἀλλ᾽ ws σύ. But it is not much more so than Mt. 15 : 32 
οὐκ ἔχουσιν τί φάγωσιν (cf. Mk. 8:1f.) and Mk. 6:36 tva— ἀγο- 
ράσωσιν ἑαυτοῖς τί φάγωσιν. Cf. οὐκ ἔχει rod — κλίνῃ (Mt. ὃ : 20), 
but ὅπου --- φάγω (ΜΚ. 14 : 14). See in the papyri, οὐδὲν ἔχω τί ποι- 
how σοι, B.U. 948 (iv/v A.D.), as quoted by Moulton (Cl. Rev., 1904, 
p.155). But even so Xenophon has this idiom, and Sophocles, Oed. 


1 Thack., Gr., p. 192. 4 Thompson, Synt., p. 74. 

BETO ΤΌΣ ΖΕ: 5 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 67. 

3 Tb. 6 Prol., p. 93f.; Cl. Rev., Apr., 1904, p. 154 f. 

7 Dieterich, Unters., p. 200. 

8 Thumb, Theol. Literzaturzeit., xxviii, p. 423 (quoted in Moulton, Prol., 
p. 94). 9 Prol., p. 93. 


738 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Col. 317, has οὐκ ἔχω τί φῶ, which looks like an indirect question. 
Cf. Winer-Moulton, p. 211; Winer-Schmiedel, p. 240. It is not 
necessary to bring! under this construction οὐ yap ἤδει τί ἀποκριθῇ 
(Mk. 9:6) nor Mk. 18:11. Here the idiom is really that of in- 
direct question (deliberative question). Cf. the direct question in 
Mt. 6:31 with the indirect in 6:25. So in Mt. 10:19 (first ex- 
ample) and see 9. But the second example in Mt. 10 : 19 (δοθήσε- 
tat — τί λαλήσητε) May be the relative use. Cf. also Lu. 17:8. 
In Ac. 13 : 25 the punctuation can (so Nestle, but not W. H.) be 
made so that: τί is relative, τί ἐμὲ ὑπονοεῖτε εἶναι, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἔγώ. It is 
possible also thus to construe Lu. 19 : 8, ἰδεῖν ᾿Ιησοῦν τίς ἐστιν, in- 
stead of taking τίς ἐστιν as an accusative of general reference. Cf. 
Mk. 1: 24, οἶδά σε ris εἶ (Lu. 4 : 84 also). Cf. the prolepsis σὺ τίς 
εἶ in Jo. 8:25. So Ro. 14:4, 10. The rhetorical questions in 
Lu. 11:5; 15:4, 8; Jas. 3:18 are not, of course, instances of this 
usage.2 Perhaps the anacoluthon in Lu. 11: 11 (τίνα δὲ ἐξ ὑμῶν τὸν 
πατέρα αἰτήσει — ἐπιδώσει;) may have arisen because of this idiom. 
The distinction between τίς and ὅς is, of course, usually maintained 
(Jo. 16:18; Ac. 28 :19f.; Heb. 12:7). It is at least noteworthy 
that in 1 Cor. 15:2 Paul changes from és (used four times) to τίνι 
λόγῳ. An indirect question comes with a jolt and makes one 
wonder if here also the relative use of τίς does not occur. In Mt. 
26 : 62 (οὐδὲν ἀποκρίνῃ Ti οὗτοί σου καταμαρτυροῦσιν;) we may have 
an indirect question (cf. Mk. 14:60), though πρός would be usual 
(cf. Mt. 27:14). It is better to follow W. H. with two separate 
questions® and even so ri=ri ἐστιν 6. The use of τίς as relative 
Blass‘ calls ‘‘ Alexandrian and dialectica].”” The LXX (Lev. 21: 
17 ἄνθρωπος τίνι ἐὰν ἢ, Deut. 29 : 18 ἀνὴρ — τίνος, Ps. 40 : 6 οὐκ ἔστιν 
tis) does show examples of it, but it is not confined to Egypt, as 
has been already shown.’ Brugmann (Griech. Gr., p. 561) finds 
τίς as relative in Boeotian and even rarely in the older Attic. 

9. Adverbial Use. The neuter accusative ri is frequently used 
in the sense of ‘why’ in the N. T. This is classical and common 
and calls for little comment. It still appears in modern Greek 
(Thumb, p. 94). See Mt. 7:3 (τί βλέπεις τὸ Kdpdos;) 8: 26 (τί δειλοί 
éore;) 19:17; 20:6, ete. In Ac. 14:15 τί ταῦτα ποιεῖτε we prob- 
ably have ri=‘why.’ Cf. Mk.11:3. In Mk. 2: 24 τί ποιοῦσιν τοῖς 
σάββασιν ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν; note ‘why,’ though τί is followed by 6. It 


1 As Simcox does, Lang. of the N. T., p. 69 f. 

2 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 241; Moulton, Prol., p. 93. 

8 W.-Sch., p. 241; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 331. 

4 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 175. 5 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 241. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTONTMIAI) 739 


is interesting to note πῶς ἢ ri, Mt. 10:19; Lu. 12:11. In Jo. 
14 : 22 ri γέγονεν ὅτι we see the full form of the common τί ὅτι 
(Lu. 2:49; Ac. 5:4, 9, etc.). Here τί still=‘why.’ But in iva τί 
(1 Cor. 10:29 and Mt. 9:4; 27:46; Lu. 18:7; Ac. 4:25; 7:26) 
τί is really the subject of γένηται (ellipsis). It is not unknown in 
Attic Greek.! W. H. never print ivari (cf. Mt. 9:4; Lu. 13:7). 
It is common in LXX. 

10. With Prepositions. There is very little difference between 
ti=‘why’ and διὰ 7ri=‘because of what’ (Mt. 15:2, 3; 17:19; 
Lu. 24 : 38, ete.). Κατὰ τί (‘according to what’) is practically ‘how.’ 
Cf. Lu. 1:18. For ἐν τίνι see Mt. 5:18. But πρὸς ri (Jo. 13 : 28)= 
‘for what purpose.’ In Jo. 18 : 22 περὶ τίνος Neyer there is no such 
idea. But purpose again is expressed by εἰς τί (Mt. 14: 31; 26: 8; 
Mk. 14:4; Ac. 19:3). 

11. With Particles. Paul in particular is fond of the rhetorical 
use of ri yap (Ro. 3 : 3; 4 : 2, etc.), τί οὖν (3: 1, 9, ete.), τί ἔτι (3:: 7; 
9:19), ἀλλὰ τί (11:4), ἢ τί (11:2). Cf. τίς ἄρα in Lu. 22 : 23 and 
τί ἄρα 1:66; Ac. 12 : 18. 

12. As Exclamation. In Mt. 7:14 W. Ἡ. read ὅτι (causal), not 
τί στενὴ ἡ πύλη. But in Lu. 12 : 49 καὶ τί θέλω εἰ ἤδη ἀνήφθη there is 
no doubt of the text. W.H. punctuate as a question, but Nestle 
as an exclamation. Examples of exclamatory ri= ‘how’ are found 
in 2 Sam. 6: 20; Song of Sol. 7:6 and in the modern Greek, ri 
καλὸς ἄνθρωπος! Cf. Mullach, Vulg., pp. 210, 321; Winer-Moulton, 
p. 562. Blass? compares the Hebrew 772. On the whole it is best 
to take τί in Lu. 12 :49= ‘how.’ 

13. Indirect Questions. It is, of course, the ancient idiom* to 
have ris in an indirect question. But in the N. T. the indirect in- 
terrogative ὅστις has disappeared in this idiom save in Ac. 9:6 
(MSS. divided here). A good example of τίς occurs in Ac. 10: 
29 πυνθάνομαι τίνι λόγῳ μετεπέμψασθέ we. In Luke we meet the 
neuter article rather frequently before the indirect question. So 
τὸ τί ἂν θέλοι (1 : 62), τὸ τίς ἂν εἴη (9:46). Cf. 22:23, 24, ete. 
Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 158) sees no special point in the article 
(cf. English “the which”). Paul sometimes uses it also (Ro. ὃ : 26; 
1 ΤῊ. 4 : 1 τὸ πῶς). The question is brought out rather more sharply 
by the article. The Attic use of τὸ ri, τὸ ποῖον (Thompson, Synt., 
p. 74) in reference to something previously mentioned is like 
our “The what?”’ Cf. Herm., Sim., VIII, i, 4, Clem., Hom., i, 6. 

14. Tis or ris. Sometimes it is difficult to decide whether τίς 


1 W.-Sch., p. 240. 2 Gre ΟΝ Gky pil 77. 
8. Thompson, Synt., p. 74. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 561. 


740 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


or τὶς is right. So 1 Pet. 5:8 W. H. have ζητῶν καταπιεῖν with τινὰ 
in the margin. But Nestle actually prints ζητῶν τίνα καταπιεῖν. 
In Heb. 5:12 W. H. read τινὰ and Nestle τινα (both indefinite). 
In Jas. 5 : 13 the reading is, of course, τις, not τίς. So 1 Cor. 7: 18. 

(b) Τ]οῖος. 

1. Qualitative. It occurs sixteen times in direct questions. It 
is still used in its original qualitative sense. Clearly this is true 
in Jo. 12 : 33, σημαίνων ποίῳ θανάτῳ ἤμελλεν ἀποθνήσκειν (cf. 18 : 32), 
Ro. 3: 27 (διὰ ποίου νόμου; τῶν ἔργων;). The same thing is true 
of 1 Cor. 15 : 35 (ποίῳ σώματι ἔρχονται;), cf. also 1 Pet. 2:20. In 
1 Pet. 1:11 we find both τίνα and ποῖον in apparent contrast. 
Other possible instances are Jo. 10 :32; Ac. 7:49 (LXX); Jas. 4: 
14. The common ἐν ποίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ (Mt. 21 : 23; Mk. 11: 28; Ac. 
4:7, LXX, etc.) seems also to retain the qualitative force. Cf. also 
Lu. 24:19. The qualitative sense is clear in D ποίου πνεὐματός ἐστε 
(Lu. 9 : 55), a spurious passage, however. 

2. Non-qualitative. But some examples clearly have lost the 
qualitative sense. In the modern Greek ποιός is used regularly!= 
τίς, and is the usual interrogative. Note the accent ποιός. Indeed 
examples of this weakened sense of ποῖος Jannaris? finds as early 
as Aischylus and Euripides. See (a), 3. In Mt. 24: 42 οὐκ οἴδατε 
ποίᾳ ἡμέρᾳ ὁ κύριος ὑμῶν ἔρχεται there seems to be merely the force 
of ris, not quality. Cf. also 24:43 ποίᾳ φυλακῇ, Lu. 12:39 ποίᾳ 
ὥρᾳ, Ac. 23:34 ποίας érapxetas, Rev. 3:3 ποίαν ὥραν. This is 
probably true also of Mt. 22 : 36 ποία ἐντολή (Mk. 12: 28). In 
Lu. 5:19 ποίας and 6:32 f. ποία χάρις either point of view will 
answer. 

3. In Indirect Questions. It occurs sixteen times (not counting 
Lu. 9 : 55) in this construction against four for ὁποῖος. Cf. in- 
dicative in Mt. 21 : 24; 24; 42; Jo. 12:33; 21:19, and the sub- 
junctive in Lu. 5:19 μὴ ποίας eloeveyxwow. Ποῖος is found in the 
LXX and in the papyri. 

(c) Πόσος. ἣ | 

1. Less Frequent than ποῖος. It occurs chiefly in the Synoptic 
Gospels (twenty-seven times in W.H. text). 

2. Meaning. It is used in the sense of ‘how much’ (πόσῳ Mt. 
12 : 12), ‘how great’ (πόσον Mt. 6 : 23), and of ‘how many’ (πόσους 
ἄρτους ἔχετε; Mt. 15:34). Eleven examples of πόσῳ occur almost 
like an adverb (Mt. 7:11; 10 : 25, etc.). The use of πόσος χρόνος 
— ws (Mk. 9 : 21) is noteworthy. 


1 Thumb, Handb., p. 94. 
2 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 163. Cf. Dieterich, Unters., p. 202. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTQNTMIAI) | 741 


3. In Indirect Questions. See οὐκ ἀκούεις πόσα σου καταμαρτυροῦσιν; 
ΓΜ ἸΟΙΑ ΟΣ ΩἹ 220. δύο: 

4. The Exclamatory Use. This is found in Lu. 15:17 πόσοι 
μίσθιοι τοῦ πατρός μου, and in 2 Cor. 7:11 πόσην κατειργάσατο ὑμῖν 
σπουδήν. ‘The exclamatory use of πῶς may be mentioned (Mk. 
LUM 25 0 Gf! asein Ro, 101. 15 and.117 33.7 10 .Ψ 
πόσος --- ws in Mk. 9: 21. 

(d) IIndiékos. 

1. Rare. It is found only twice in the N. T. (Gal. 6 : 11; Heb. 
7:4) and W. H. put ἡλίκοις in the margin of Gal. 6:11. It is 
rare also! in the LXX (cf. Zech. 2 : 2), and has disappeared from 
the modern Greek vernacular, 

2. Indirect Questions. Both of the N. T. examples are indirect 
questions. The example in Heb. 7:4 describes greatness of Mel- 
chisedek (how great), the one in Gal. 6:11 presents the size of 
the letters (how large). 

(e) Ποταπός. 

It is the late form for ποδαπός. It no longer in the N. T. means 
‘from what country,’ but merely ‘of what sort’=otos. It is 
found only once in LXX (Susanna Ὁ 54, “‘where it keeps some- 
thing of its original local meaning’’).? It exists in the late Greek 
vernacular.’ It occurs once in a direct question (Mt. 8 : 27) and 
once probably in an exclamation (2 Pet. 3:11). Four times we 
find it in indirect questions (Mk. 18:1; Lu. 1:29; 7:39; 1 Jo. 
3:1). In Lu..7: 89 it is contrasted with τίς. 

(f) ILorepos. 

As a pronoun it has vanished from the LXX (Thackeray, Gr., 
p. 192) and from the papyri (Moulton, Prol., p. 77). The only 
example in the N. T. (ef. LX X, Thackeray, p. 192) is in an alter- 
native indirect question as the conjunction πότερον (Jo. 7:17). 
Cf. Latin utrum—an. Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 176) cites Herm., 
Sim., 1x, 28. 4. 

IX. Indefinite Pronouns (ἀντωνυμίαι ἀόριστοι). 

(a) Tis. 

1. The Accent. Jannaris‘ calls it “irrational” to accent the 
nominative τὶς rather than ris. But then the nominative singular 
never has an accent unless at the beginning of a sentence or in 
philosophical writings (Thompson, Syntax, p. 76) and cannot 
otherwise be distinguished in looks from ris the interrogative. 

2. Relation to ris. The same connection is seen in the Latin 


1 Thackeray, Gr., p. 192. 3 Moulton, Prol., p. 95. 
2 Tb; 4) Histe Gk. Gr.; p2163. 


442 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


quis, ali-quis and quis-quts (cf. τίστις in Argive dialect)... Brug- 
mann2 considers --κι-- in ov-xi, πολλάκι-ς- the same word as τὶ and 
cites xis in the Thessalian dialect. Just as in modern Greek τίς 
disappears before ποιός, so tis vanishes before κανείς (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 95). But in the N. T. τις is still very common, espe-~ 
cially in Luke and Acts. In general the usage is in harmony with 
that of ancient Greek. We do not have ἔνιοι in the N. T. In 
Ac. 25:26 note τι γράψαι and τί γράψω. Cf. Lu. 7:40. See τις 
τί, Ro. 8 : 24, in margin of W. H. 

3. Tis as Substantive. As a substantive tis may be equal to 
‘any one,’ ‘anybody’ or ‘anything,’ as in οὐδὲ τὸν πατέρα τις ἐπι- 
γινώσκει, Mt. 11:27; πῶς δύναταί τις, 12 : 29: εἴ τις θέλει, 16 : 24; 
ἐάν τις ὑμῖν εἴπῃ τι (note both examples like τινός τι Lu. 19 : 8; οἵ. 
Mk. 11:25; Col. 3:13), Mt. 21:3. For several instances of 7 = 
‘anything’ see Ac. 25:5, 8,11. But the substantive use of τις may 
be =‘somebody’ or ‘something,’ as ἔρχεται τις Lu. 8 : 49, δραμὼν 
δέ τις Mk. 18 : 36, ὑπό τινος Heb. 3:4. Cf. Lu. 8:46. Often the 
partitive genitive (or ablative) occurs with τις as substantive. So 
τινὲς τῶν γραμματέων Mt. 12:38, τις τῶν μαθητῶν Lu. 11:1, τις ἐκ 
τοῦ ὄχλου 12:13. The plural is usually = ‘some,’ as Mk.9:1; 1 
Cor. 9:22. In Homer τις was sometimes ‘public opinion, the 
man in the street’? (Gladstone, quoted in Thompson’s Syntaz, p. 
75). This idiom is very nearly represented by εἶπεν δέ τις ἐκ τοῦ 
ὄχλου, Lu. 12:18 (cf. 11:1; 7: 36). In Heb. 2:6, διεμαρτύρατο 
mov τις, the τις is really quite definite in the writer’s mind, though 
he writes thus. 

4. With Numerals = ‘About.’ With numerals zis sometimes 
in classical Greek gives an approximate idea rather than exact 
reckoning, like our “about.” No certain instances of this idiom 
appear in the N. T. Certainly not Ac. 19 : 14, where τινος, not 
τινες, 18 the correct text. In Lu. 7:19, προσκαλεσάμενος δύο τινὰς 
τῶν μαθητῶν, the meaning may be ‘about two,’ but it could mean 
‘certain two’ just as well. The same thing is true of Ac. 23 : 23, 
προσκαλεσάμενός τινας δύο, where it is even less likely that the idea 
is ‘about two.’ Classical also is εἷς τις (Lu. 22:50; Jo. 11:49, 
and probably Mk. 14:47). The adjectival uses of τις are quite 
varied. 

5. With Substantives. Here τις may=‘a kind of,’ as ἀπαρχήν 
τινα, Jas. 1:18. Cf. Ac. 17:20, though this is not true of Col. 


1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 244. 
2 Ib. Interrogative and indefinite is at bottom the same word. Cf. Har- 
tung, Uber die Casus in der griech. und lat. Sprache, p. 279. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTONYMIAI) 743 


2:23 because of the negative. But the commonest use of τις 
with substantives is=‘certain’ (really rather uncertain!). Thus 
ἱερεύς τις, Lu. 1:5; ἄνθρωπός τις, Lu. 14:2, 16; 15:11, ete. Cf. τι 
ὕδωρ, Ac. 8:36. Sometimes it is difficult to give more force to 
τις than the English indefinite article. Cf. νομικός τις, Lu. 10 : 25; 
κριτής τις ἦν ἔν τινι πόλει, Lu. 18:2. Indeed it is nearly always 
true that our “certain” is too emphatic. 

6. With Adjectives. The effect is rhetorical.2 There is ‘a 
double adjectival sense.”? Thus Ac. 8:9, τινα péyav,=‘a very 
great man’ (‘some great man’), in his own estimation. Blass? 
needlessly considers this passage an interpolation. Cf. also Heb. 
10 : 27, φοβερά τις ἐκδοχή, where τις rather intensifies φοβερά. The 
tone may tend to soften the matter as in Heb. 2:7, 9, βραχὺ τι. 
But in Lu. 24:41 τι βρώσιμον, Jo. 1:46 τι ἀγαθόν, Ac. 25: 26 
ἀσφαλές τι, Ro. 14 : 14 τι κοινόν, 2 Cor. 11 : 16 μικρόν τι, we have 
rather the substantive use οὗ τι. But in τυφλός τις, Lu. 18 : 35, 
both are adjectives. Cf. ἄλλος τις (Lu. 22 : 59) and ἕτερός τις 
(Ac. 27:1). 

7. As Predicate. Here τις may be emphatic = ‘somebody in 
particular,’ as Ac. 5 : 36, λέγων εἶναί τινα ἑαυτόν (οἷ. ὃ : 9). See also 
Gal. 2 : 6, ἀπὸ τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι, Where note difference between 
τι and τινες. In Gal. 6:3 note in εἰ δοκεῖ τις εἶναί τι μηδὲν ὧν both 
senses of τις. But the predicate may have the other meaning of 
7 (‘anyone,’ ‘anything’). So 1Cor.3:7; 10:19; Gal.6:15. In 
Gal. 2 : Θ compare τι and ὁποῖοι. 

8. The Position of τις. It is not material. It naturally follows 
the substantive or adjective as in εἰς κώμην τινά, Lu. 10:38, but 
we often have the other order as in τινα χήραν, Lu. 21:2. Τινές 
may indeed begin a sentence (Ph. 1:15; 1 Cor. 8:7). 

9. As Antecedent. In Mt. 16:28 τινες is the antecedent of 
οἵτινες, but here οἵτινες is more definite than of would have been. 
Cf. Lu. 9:27. In 2 Cor. 10:2 note rias τοὺς Δ. 

10. Alternative. It is used to express alternative ideas, as τινὲς 
μέν --- τινὲς δὲ in Ph. 1:15. Cf. ὑπό τινων --- ὑπό τινων — ἄλλων δέ 
in Lu. 9 : 7 f. and τις --- ἕτερος in 1 Cor. 8 : 4. 

11. The Negative Forms οὔ τις, μή τις. These are not printed 
as single words by W. H., except μήτι as an interrogative particle 
expecting the answer No, as in Mt. 26 : 22, μήτι ἔγὠ εἰμι, κύριε; cf. 
Jo. 4:33. It is all a matter with the editor whether in ἵνα μή τις 

1 W.-Sch., p. 242. 


2 W.-M., p. 212 f.; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 178. 
8. Moulton in W.-M., p. 213. ἀπ SOE a Las Caikrs Dada ce 


744 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


εἴπῃ, 1 Cor. 1:15 (cf. Eph. 2:9), we may not really have μήτις. 
The separation in Heb. 3 : 13;4 : 11 is against it. Cf., for instance, 
μή τινα (2 Cor. 12:17) and μήτι in the next verse. The anacolu- 
thon with τινὰ here is noticeable. 

12. Indeclinable τι. The use of τις with σπλάγχνα καὶ οἰκτιρμοί 
(Ph. 2:1) may be compared with indeclinable τι. Indeclinable 
τι itself survives in modern Greek κἄτι (Moulton, Prol., ἡ. 244). 

(Ὁ) Eis=Tus. 

This is merely one usage of εἷς, the cardinal numeral. The 
idiom is common after Plutarch, but traces of it occur earlier.} 
Moulton? sees no difference between eis and τις in Aristophanes, 
Av., 1292. The papyri furnish similar examples. “The fact that 
eis progressively ousted τις in popular speech, and that even in 
classical Greek there was a use which only. needed a little diluting 
to make it essentially the same, is surely enough to prove that the 
development lay entirely within the Greek language, and only by 
accident agrees with Semitic.’”’* This use of εἷς alone, with geni- 
tives, with substantives, was treated at the close of the chapter on 
Adjectives. For εἷς τις see τις. For eis — εἷς as alternative pro- 
noun see later, and for ets — οὐ and οὐδείς (μηδείς) see Negative 
Pronouns under ΧΙ. 

(c) Πᾶς =‘any one’ no matter who, ‘anything’ no matter what. 
Cf. quidvis.4. We see this construction in Ac. 2:21 (LXX), πᾶς ὃς 
ἐὰν ἐπικαλέσηται. So Gal. 3:10 (LXX); Lu. 14: 33. Πᾶς with 
a participle may have the same force, like παντὸς ἀκούοντος τὸν 
λόγον, Mt. 18 : 19 (cf. Lu. 11:4), and πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόμενος, Mt. δ᾽: 22, 
etc. For πᾶς--οὐ = ‘no one’ see negative pronouns. For the 
adjectival uses of πᾶς, see chapter on Adjectives and chapter on 
Article. 

(d) Ὃ Activa. This rare pronoun was current chiefly in colloquial 
speech (Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 166). It survives in the modern 
Greek (Thumb, p. 98). It means “Mr. So-and-So.” It occurs 
only once in the N. T., πρὸς τὸν δεῖνα, Mt. 26 : 18. 

X. Alternative or Distributive Pronouns (ἀντωνυμίαι δατη- 
plat). | : 

I apply a term from A‘schylus in lieu of a better one. The re- 
ciprocal pronoun ἀλλήλων has been already treated. 

(a) ᾿Αμφότεροι. "Audw has vanished® from the κοινή. ᾿Αμφότεροι 
has taken its place. It continues in the later Greek,® but Thumb 

1 Hatz., Einl., Ὁ. 207; W.-Sch., p. 248. 4 Thompson, Synt., p. 77. 


ΦΌΡΟΙ pac. 5 Moulton, Prol., p. 57. 
8 Tb. 6 Jann., Hist. Gk:-Gr., p. 320. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTQNYMIAI) 745 


does not give it for modern Greek. It is frequent in the LX X,! 
but is found only fourteen times in the N. T. It occurs without 
the article in all but five instances. So Mt. 9:17. Once the 
article is used with the substantive, ἀμφότερα τὰ πλοῖα, Lu. 5: 7. 
The other four examples have the article before the pronoun, 
like of ἀμφότεροι, Eph. 2:18. It is possible, even probable, that 
in two instances duality has disappeared from the word. It seems 
certain that three items are referred to in Ac. 23 : 8 and in Ac. 19: 
16 the seven sons of Sceva are alluded to. A corruption of the text 
is possible (cf. the Bezan text for 19 : 16), but it is hardly neces- 
sary to postulate that in view of ‘the undeniable Byzantine use’’? 
of ἀμφότεροι for more than two (cf. “both” in old English). The 
papyri show undoubted examples also and “the Sahidic and some 
later versions took ἀμφοτέρων as ‘all.’”?? But Moulton?‘ hesitates 
to admit in Luke ‘‘a colloquialism of which early examples are so 
rare,’ a rather surprising objection from Dr. Moulton. On the 
whole one is safe in the two passages in Acts here quoted to admit 
the free use of auddrepoxrx. The papyri examples bearing on this 
usage include N.P. 67, 69 (iv/a.p.) ‘where it is used of four men”’ 
(Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 154), probably also B.M. 336 (ii/a.p.). 
See Bury, Cl. Rev., XI, p. 393, for the opposite view. Nestle (Berl. 
Phil. Woch., 1900, N. 47) shows that German also uses “‘beide”’ 
for three and more persons. 

(0) Ἕκαστος. In the LXX ἑκάτερος is still used to a limited ex- 
tent (Gen. 40:5) and occasionally = ἕκαστος, without dual idea (cf. 
ἀμφότεροι), as often in the papyri.® In O.P. 256 (i/A.p.) and B.M. 
333 (ii/A.D.) ἑκάτερος is used of three and of four in G.H. 285 
(ii/B.c.). See Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 440, and proper use of 
ἑκάτερος in P.Oxy. 905 (A.p. 170), πρὸς τὸ ἑκάτερον μέρος. But in the 
N. T. ἑκάτερος does not appear. Ἕκαστος is common in the N. T., 
but comes to be replaced in modern Greek by κάθε, καθείς and 
καθένας (cf. καθ᾽ εἷς in the N. T.).® 

1. Without Substantive. This is indeed the usual idiom, as in 
Nie G 227,08 GRY: 

2. With Substantive. Never with the article. So Eph. 4:16; 
Heb. 3:18; Rev. 22:2. Thus very rare. 


1 Thack., Gr., p. 192. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 80. 3. ΤΌ. 56 100: 

ὉΠ peso. Cl ehack., Gr., p: 192. 

6 Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 96; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 178. On the whole 
subject of distrib. pron. see Brug., Die distrib. und die kollekt. Num. der 
indoger. Spr., 1907. 


746 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


3. With eis. This is very frequent. So eis ἕκαστος Mt. 26 : 22, 
etc. Weeven have ἀνὰ εἷς ἕκαστος, Rev. 21:21. But in Ac. 21:19, 
ἐξηγεῖτο καθ᾽ ἕν ἕκαστον ὧν ἐποίησεν, We must not! connect ἕκαστον 
with ἕν. 

4. With Genitive. It is common also with the genitive, as in 
ΤΡ ΘΠ ΡΠ i 

5. Partitive Apposition. This is frequent also. Thus ἀφῆτε 
ἕκαστος Mt. 18 : 35, ἐπορεύοντο πάντες --- ἕκαστος Lu. 2:3, etc. The 
same thing is true in Eph. 5 : 33 ὑμεῖς καθ᾽ ἕνα ἕκαστος. ‘This is a 
classical construction.” 

6. Rare in Plural. So ἕκαστοι Ph. 2:4, but even here W. H. 
have ἕκαστος in the margin. 

7. Repetition. Note the repetition of ἕκαστος in Heb. 8:11 
(from Jer. 31:34). This translation of πὰ by ἕκαστος rather than 
ἀνήρ is an instance of independence of Hebrew literalism. Cf. 
Mt. 18 : 35 with Gen. 13:11; Ro. 15:2 and Eph. 4:25 with Is. 
3:5 (Winer-Schmiedel, p. 246). For ἀνήρ = ἕκαστος in the LXX 
(literal books) see Thackeray, Gr., p. 192. 

(c) ΓΛλλος. Cf. Latin alius, English else. 

1. Used absolutely =‘ An-other,’ ‘One Other.’ This is the com- 
monest use of the pronoun. Cf. 1 Cor. 12: 8-10 where ἄλλῳ 
occurs six times. So Mt. 13: 5-8 where ἄλλα appears three times. 
But it is found alone also, as ἄλλους, Mt. 27: 42. For ἄλλος τις 
see Lu. 22: 59. Cf. οὐδὲν ἄλλο (Gal. 5: 10)=‘nothing else.’ It 
occurs in modern Greek vernacular. 

2. For Two. But ἄλλος occurs where the idea of two is present 
(pair). Here ἕτερος might have been used, but even in Euripides, 
I. T. 962 f., Blass® finds θάτερον --- τὸ δ᾽ ἄλλο, though he considers it 
a ‘most striking encroachment” for ἄλλος to supplant ἕτερος in this 
fashion. Moulton (Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 440) tites τῆς μὲν μιᾶς --- τῆς 

᾿ ἄλλης ἃ. H. 23° (11/B.c.); δύο, τὸν μὲν ἕνα — καὶ τὸν ἄλλον B.U. 456 
(iv/A.D.). Moulton‘ explains the existence of καὶ τὴν ἄλλην (σιαγόνα) 
in Lu. 6:29 as a failure on Luke’s part to correct his source, a 
like failure appearing in Mt. 5:39, unless that was his source. 
But the matter goes much further than that. In Mt. 12:13 
ἡ ἄλλη refers to the other hand (χείρ). In Jo. 19:32 note rod 
πρώτου --- καὶ τοῦ ἄλλου.“ Cf. also Jo. 18: 16; 20:3 f. In Jo. 5:32 
éyw and ἄλλος are contrasted. So Mt. 25:16, τὰ πέντε τάλαντα --- 
ἄλλα πέντε, for which Blass® finds ‘complete illustration in classi- 

1 W.-Sch., p. 246 f. 4 Prol., p. 79. 


2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 179. 5 W.-Sch., p. 245. 
8 Ib., p. 180. 6 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 180. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTONTMIAI) 747 


cal δυύμοιβ."" There are other N. T. examples such as ἄλλην in 
Mt. 19:9, τὰ δύο --- ἄλλα δύο Mt. 25 : 17, ἄλλην Mk. 10 : 11, ἄλλον 
10 : 12, ἄλλον παράκλητον Jo. 14:10. 

3. As Adjective. Common. Cf. Mt. 2:12; 4:21; and in 
particular Rev. 14:6, 8, 15, 17, 18 and 1 Cor. 15:39, 41. 

4. With the Article. It is not frequent. The article sharply 
refers to a preceding example. Cf. Mt. 5:39; Mt. 27:61. John 
alludes to himself in his Gospel as ὁ ἄλλος μαθητής (18 : 16; 20 : 2, 
3, 4). The article may be repeated, as in Jo. 18 : 16; 19 : 32. 

5. The Use of ἄλλος ἄλλο =‘ One One Thing, One Another.’ This 
is classical and is illustrated in Ac. 19 : 32; 21:34. In Ac. 2:12, 
ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον, the idiom is almost reciprocal like ἀλλήλων. 

6. In Contrast for ‘Some — Others.’ We have ἄλλη μέν --- ἄλλη 
de, 1 Cor. 15:39 and 41; ἃ μέν --- ἄλλα δέ, Mt. 13:4 f. (ef. καὶ 
ἄλλο, Mk. 4:5); of μέν --- ἄλλοι δέ --- ἕτεροι δέ, Mt. 16:14; καὶ 
ἄλλοι --- ἄλλοι δέ, Mk. 8 : 28; ὑπὸ τινῶν --- ἄλλων, Lu. 9:8; ὁ εἷς -- 
ὁ ἄλλος, Rev. 17: 10. 

7. Ellipsis of ἄλλος is possible in Ac. 5:29, Πέτρος καὶ οἱ (se. 
ἄλλοι) ἀπόστολοι. Blass! cites also Ac. 2:14, Πέτρος σὺν τοῖς (se. 
λοιποῖς) ἕνδεκα. But psychologically this explanation is open to 
doubt. 

8. The Use of ἄλλος and ἕτερος Together. Blass? finds this 
“probably only for the sake of variety.’’ Certainly in 1 Cor. 
12 :9f. no real distinction can be found between ἄλλος and ἕτερος, 
which are here freely intermingled. But I am bound to insist on 
a real difference in Gal. 1:6f. The change is made from ἕτερον 
to ἄλλο for the very reason that Paul is not willing to admit that 
it is a gospel on the same plane (ἄλλο) as that preached by him. 
He admits ἕτερον, but refuses ἄλλο. The use of εἰ μή by Paul does 
not disturb this interpretation. The same thing would seem to 
be true of 2 Cor. 11 : 4, ἄλλον ᾿ΙΪησοῦν --- πνεῦμα ἕτερον --- εὐαγγέλιον 
ἕτερον. It may be that variety (as in 1 Cor. 12:9f.) is all that 
induces the change here. But it is also possible that Paul stig- 
matizes the gospel of the Judaizers as ἕτερον (cf. Gal. 1 : 0) and 
the Spirit preached by them, while he is unwilling to admit an- 
other (ἄλλον) Jesus even of the same type as the one preached 
by him. 

9. =‘ Different.’ Besides, it is not to be forgotten that in 
ancient Greek ἄλλος itself was used for ‘different kind.’ Thomp- 
son (Syntax, p.76) cites ἄλλα τῶν δικαίων from Xen., Mem., IV, 4. 25. 
Cf. also ἀλλά in the sense of ‘but.’ Cf. ἀλλὰ ἄλλη in 1 Cor. 15: 39. 

1 Tb. 2 Ib., p. 318. 


748 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Indeed in 1 Cor. 15:39, 41, ἄλλη μέν --- ἄλλη δέ, it is expressly 
stated that the glory is not ἡ αὐτή. In verse 40 ἑτέρα occurs. 
Here ἄλλος seems to be used in the sense of ‘different,’ like 
ἕτερος. In Latin aliws was often used where earlier Latin would 
have used alter. Cf. Draeger, Hist. Synt., p. 105. 

10. ᾿Αλλότριος. This variation of ἄλλος has the same relation to 
it that alienus has to alius. It means ‘belonging to another,’ 
and occurs fourteen times in the N. T. Cf. Ro. 15:20. The con- 
trast with αὐτῶν is seen in Mt. 17:25. In Heb. 11:34 it has the 
notion of alienus. 

(ὦ “Ertepos. 

1. Absolutely. So often as in Lu. 14:19 f., but it is also used 
more frequently with substantives than is ἄλλος. Cf. Lu. 4: 48; 
Ac. 7:18 (LXX), etc. For ἕτερός τις see Ac. 8: 84; Ro. 13:9. 
For the genitive with ἕτερος cf. Mt. ὃ : 21. 

2. With Article. The article is also more common with ἕτερος 
than with ἄλλος. Cf. Mt. 10 : 23; 11:16, etc. 

3. Second of Pair. A common, probably the original, use of 
ἕτερος is for the second of a pair. Cf. Latin alter. It is the only 
surviving dual pronominal word in the N. T. (except ἀμφό- 
tepot), and is common in the LX X! and the papyri.2 For σὺν 
ἑτέρᾳ μιᾷ see P.Tb. 421 (iii/a.p.). The examples are rather abun- 
dant in the N. T. of this dual (comparative) sense (é7epos). So 
τὸν ἕνα — τὸν ἕτερον, Mt. 6:24; ot — ἢ ἕτερον, 11:3; ἐν τῷ ἑτέρῳ 
πλοίῳ; ΠΟ Δ ΙΒο Τὰ. ef ab ieee 10 oe ease 
18:10: 20:11.3 Not radically different from this conception is 
the use of it for ‘next,’ as in Lu. 6: 6, ἐν ἑτέρῳ σαββάτῳ, 9: 56 εἰς 
ἑτέραν kwunv, Ac. 20:15 τῇ ἑτέρᾳ. Cf. also Mt. 10:23. See also, 
τὸν ἕτερον In Ro. 2:1; 13 : 8=‘neighbour.’ 

4, =‘Different.’ The sense of ‘different’ grows naturally out 
of the notion of duality. The two things happen just to be dif- 
ferent. Cf. Latin alius and alienus. The word itself does not 
mean ‘different,’ but merely ‘one other,’ a second of two. It does 
not necessarily involve “the secondary idea of difference of kind” 
(Thayer). That is only true where the context demands it. But 
note how Latin alter lends itself to the notion of change. Thomp- 
son‘ suggests that this sense may be ‘‘an euphemism for κακός. 
The N. 'T. examples are rather numerous. So ἐγένετο --- τὸ εἶδος 
τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ ἕτερον, Lu. 9:29. Cf. also Ac. 2:4; Ro. 7: 23; 
1 Cor. 143.215 2 Gort 1.443 GalaleiGs Hebei ΠΟ 


1 Thack., Gr., p. 192. 3 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 244. 
2 Mayser, Gr., p. 312. A Sunt. 0. 4s 


PRONOUNS (’ANTONYMIAI) 749 


Cf. also ἑτέρως in Ph. 3:15 and ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ Mk. 16: 12 (dis- 
puted part of Mark.)! Cf. Ac. 17:21. We have already seen 
that ἄλλος may be equal to ‘different’ (1 Cor. 15: 39). “Ἕτερος 
occurs in verse 40 in the sense of ‘different.’ Ramsay (on Gal. 
1:6) argues that, when ἕτερος occurs in contrast with ἄλλος, it 
means not ‘different’ (as Lightfoot ἐπ, loco), but ‘another of the 
same kind.’ Moulton (Prol., p. 246) stands by Lightfoot in spite 
of Ramsay’s examples. 

δ. =‘ Another’ of Three or More. But ἕτερος comes also to be 
employed merely for ‘another’ with more than two and with no 
idea of difference. This usage probably grew out of the use with 
two groups. So Lu. 10:1, ἀνέδειξεν ἑτέρους ἑβδομήκοντα δύο. In 
Mt. 12: 45, ἑπτὰ ἕτερα πνεύματα πονηρότερα ἑαυτοῦ, the notion of 
difference is present. This difference may also be implied by 
Luke in 23 : 32, καὶ ἕτεροι κακοῦργοι δύο. Cf. Lu. 8:3. But this is 
hardly true of Ac. 2:18. In Ac. 4: 12 the point of ἕτερον is rather 
that no other name at all than that of Jesus, not that of difference 
in kind. In Lu. 19 : 16-20 we have this order, 6 πρῶτος, ὁ δεύτε- 
pos, ὁ ἕτερος. So in 1 Cor. 4:6, εἷς ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἑνὸς φυσιοῦσθε κατὰ τοῦ 
ἑτέρου, the third is again presented by ἕτερος. Then, again, ἕτεροι 
occupies third place in Mt. 16:14 and Heb. 11:36. In Mt. 15: 
30 it comes in the fifth place. Blass? admits that this use of 
ἕτερος “at the close of enumerations may be paralleled from Attic 
writers.” See further Lu. 3:18; Ro. 8:39; I-Tim. 1:10.° But 
in 1 Cor. 12 : 8-10 ἑτέρῳ occurs in the third and the eighth places. 
We are not surprised then to learn that the papyri furnish plenty 
of examples where ἕτερος refers to more than two.’ Blass indeed 
considers this extension not correct, and Moulton seems surprised 
that Luke should change the correct ἄλλος (Mk. 4: 5-8; Mt. 
13 : 5-8) to ἕτερον in Lu. 8: 6-8. But Luke is reinforced by Paul 
in this laxity as to ἕτερος. Cf. πολλὰ καὶ ἕτερα in Lu. 3:18. Moul- 
ton (Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 154) calls this ‘incorrect érepos’”’ and finds 
it in the papyri, as in O.P. 494 (11/A.p.). But we do not need to 
hold ἕτερος in leading strings. The ‘‘subtlety’’ (Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 
440) is only called for in that case. 

6. In Contrast. “Ἕτερος may also be used in contrast for ‘the 
one,’ ‘the other.’ So 1 Cor. 15:40, ἑτέρα μέν --- τέρα δέ. It is 
common in contrasts with other pronouns. Thus with eis in 
Mt. 6: 24; 6 εἰς in Lu. 7:41; Lu. 17: 34 ff.; with 7s, Lu. 11:15 f.; 
with ὃ μέν, Lu. 8: 5f.; with of μέν and ἄλλοι, Mt. 16:14. But 


1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 245. 8 Moulton, Prol., p. 79. 
4 Gr, of Ne Gk, p.179. 


750 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


neither οὐδέτερος (μηδ--) nor οὐθέτερος (μηθ--) occurs in the N. T., 
though μηθέτερος is read in Prov. 24:21. In Clem. Hom. XIX, 12 
we have οὐθέτερος. 

(6) OTHER ANTITHETIC Pronouns. For eis — εἷς (Mk. 10 : 37), 
εἷς — ὁ δὲ (Gal. 4: 24 f.), 6 εἷς --- ὁ ἄλλος (Rev. 17: 10) see εἷς under 
Numeral Adjectives. So likewise τὶς may be contrasted with 
τις (Ph. 1:15), with ἄλλος (Lu. 9:7 f.), with ἕτερος (1 Cor. 3 : 4). 
For the very common ὁ μέν --- ὁ δέ, ὃς μέν --- ὃς δὲ See Demonstrative 
Pronouns. The repetition of the substantive is to be noted also. 
So οἶκος ἐπὶ οἶκον πίπτει, Lu. 11:17; ὁ σατανᾶς τὸν σατανᾶν ἐκβάλλει, 
Mt. 12 : 26 (cf. Lu. 11:18). This notion of repetition is seen in 
ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἡμέρᾳ (2 Cor. 4:16; cf. Heb. 2197 275). Cf. also εἷς καὶ 
eis (Mt. 20:21; 24: 40f.; 27: 38, etc.); ὁ eis — ὁ ἕτερος, Lu. 7:41. 
For eis — καὶ eis — καὶ ets see Mk. 9:5= Mt. 17:4=Lu. 9:38. 
This threefold repetition of εἷς is rhetorical.! The distributive 
use of εἷς with κατά and ἀνά (ἕν καθ᾽ ἕν, εἷς καθ᾽ εἷς, ἀνὰ eis) was 
treated under Numeral Adjectives. 

XI. Negative Pronouns (ἀντωνυμίαι ἀρνητικαί). 

(a) Ovdets. 

1. History. Note this accent rather than οὐδεῖς. Οὐδείς is sup- 
planted in modern Greek vernacular by κανείς, but οὐδέν survives 
as negative particle in form δέν. Cf. Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., 
Dalal 

2. Oideis. This is made from οὔτε εἷς (Sometimes also from 
οὐδὲ eis, ‘not even,’ Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 146) and occurs 
sometimes in the best N.T. MSS. Cf. W. H.’s text for Lu. 22: 
35; 23: 14; "Acs 152937195 273-262 263) 1 Cor. 1 Coralie 
Jannaris? finds it a peculiarity of the Alexandrian school. Meister- 
hans*® has shown from the inscriptions how οὐθείς and μηθείς came to 
be practically universal during the third century and the first half 
of the second century B.c. Thackeray? has reinforced this position 
from the uncials for the LXX. The papyri are in full accord. In 
the fourth and fifth centuries A.p., the date of the great uncials, 
οὐθείς and μηθείς had disappeared from current speech, and yet a 
number of instances survive in the MSS. of the O. T. and the N. T., 
though others were probably replaced by οὐδείς and μηδείς. In- 


1 W.-Sch., p. 246. 

2 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 170. But see Schwyzer, Perg. Inschr., p. 114, for idea 
that the change is due to 7 and 6 being pronounced alike. 

8. Att. Inschr., p. 259. 

4 Gr., pp. 58 ff. 

δ Thumb, Hellen., p. 14; Mayser, Gr., p. 180 f. 6 Thack., Gr., p. 60. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTQNTMIAI) © 751 


deed οὐθείς was a sort of fashion (Moulton, Cl. Rev., Mar., 1910, 
p. 53) that came in iv/B.c. and vanished ii/a.p. It was nearly 
extinct in N. T. times. See further chapters VI, 1, (g), and 
ΠΟΎΣ; 

3. Gender. The feminine form is less frequent in the N. T. than 
the masculine and neuter. The word occurs with substantives 
(Mk. 6:5), with other pronouns (ἄλλος, Ac. 4 : 12; ἕτερος, 17: 21), 
but usually alone, as in Mt. 5:18; 6:24. It is common with the 
genitive (Lu. 18:34). The adverbial use of οὐδέν is seen in Gal. 
4:1 οὐδὲν διαφέρει δούλου, but the cognate accusative is a possible 
_ explanation (Gal. 2:6). Cf. οὐδὲν in 1 Cor. 7:19. In Rev. 3: 
17, οὐδὲν χρείαν ἔχω, the neuter is not to be construed with χρείαν. 

4. Οὐδὲ eis. This is, of course, more emphatic than οὐδείς. The 
usage appears often in Xenophon, Demosthenes and other clas- 
sic writers, the LXX and the Atticists.| For examples in the 
N. T. see Mt. 27: 14; Jo. 1:3; Ac. 4:32; Ro. 3:10. The same 
principle appears in οὐκ ἔστιν ἕως ἑνός, Ro. ὃ : 12 (Ps. 14:1, 3). Cf. 
also the separation of οὔ ποτε in 2 Pet. 1: 21.? 

5. Eis—ov. It is after the analogy of πᾶς --- οὐ and distinctly 
emphatic, and is found in Demosthenes.’ Cf. Lu. 12:6, ἕν ἐξ 
αὐτῶν οὐκ ἔστιν. So also 11:46; Mt. 10 : 29, ἕν ἐξ αὐτῶν οὐ πεσεῖται. 
In Mt. 5:18 we have ἕν --- οὐ μή. For οὐδεὶς ὅστις see ὅστις. 

(0) Μηδείς, In general the history of μηδείς is parallel to that 
of οὐδείς. It is naturally much less frequent and its use instead of 
οὐδείς belongs to the discussion of Modes and Negative Particles. 
It follows in that matter the fate of μή. Μηθείς appears only once 
in the text of the N. T., Ac. 27: 33. The use of μηδὲν dv, Gal. 6: 3, 
may be compared with οὐθέν εἰμι, 1 Cor. 18:2. In 1 Th. 4:12 
note μηδενὸς χρείαν ἔχητε. 

(c) Οὔτις AND Μήτις. These were treated under τις. Following 
the editors in the separation of these forms, it is to be observed 
that μήτι as mere particle occurs not merely in questions like μήτι 
οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός; Jo. 4 : 29, but also with εἰ. So εἰ μήτι in 1 
Cor. 7:5; 2 Cor. 13:5. But in Lu. 9:18, εἰ μήτι πορευθέντες ἡμεῖς 
ἀγοράσωμεν, it is possible to take μήτι as the object of ἀγοράσωμεν. 
Cf. Jo. 6:12, ἵνα μή τι ἀπόληται. But note μήτιγε, 1 Cor. 6:3. 
The use of τις with the conjunction μή is not infrequent (Mk. 13 : 5) 
and with the negative adverb μή also (Jo. 3:3, 5, ete.). So we 
have, contrary to the usual classic idiom, οὐ — τις, μή — τις. The 

1 W.-Sch., p. 248; Schmid, Atticismus, IT, p. 137 f. 


2 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 249. 8. ΤΌΣ 1178: 
4 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 256. 


PAG A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


undoubted separation of οὐ and μή from τις in such examples as 
Mt. 11:27; 12: 19; Lut83 51312 4; Jon 7 ¢4 10028" New 2s ΤΠ 
1 Cor. 4:5; 6:12 argues for the same thing where μή τις and 
μή τι happen to come together. The κοινή (Moulton, Prol., Ὁ. 
246) supports the use of τις with the negative: Tb.P. 1 (ii/B.c.) 
μηδεμιᾶς KpaTnoews μηδὲ κυριείας τινὸς ἔγγαίου περιγινομένης. 

(d) WirH Πᾶς. 

1. Ov πᾶς. Used together the words call for little in the way of 
explanation. Οὐ merely negatives πᾶς as in classic Greek and= 
‘not every one.’ Thus in Mt. 7:21, οὐ πᾶς ὁ λέγων --- εἰσελεύσεται, 
Jesus did not mean to say that ‘no one’ who thus addressed him 
could enter the kingdom of heaven. He merely said that ‘not 
every one’ would. Cf. also οὐ πᾶσα capé, 1 Cor. 15:39. The same 
principle applies to the plural οὐ πάντες χωροῦσι τὸν λόγον, Mt. 19: 
11. Cf. Ac. 10:41; Ro. 9:6; 10:16. But my friend, Mr. H. 
Scott, notes that in Ro. 10:16 and 1 Cor. 15:39 οὐ πᾶς can 
well mean ‘no, and that in Mt. 7: 21 and the other clauses 
where ἀλλά occurs the ἀλλά negatives the whole of the preceding 
clause. This is certainly worth considering. Cf. Mt. 7:21 οὐ πᾶς 
ὁ λέγων With πᾶς ὁ ἀκούων in 7: 26. 

2. Οὐ---πᾶς. Here we have a different situation. The nega- 
tive goes with the verb. A negative statement is made as to 
mas. ‘The result is the same as if οὐδείς had been used with an 
affirmative verb. So Mt. 24:22 (Mk. 13 : 20) otk ἂν ἐσώθη πᾶσα 
capt, the idea is ‘no flesh,’ not ‘not all flesh,’ 1.6. ‘some flesh,’ 
would have been lost. Cf. Lu. 1: 37 οὐκ ἀδυνατήσει — πᾶν ῥῆμα, Ro. 
3:20 (Gal. 2 : 16) οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ. See also Ac. 10: 14 
οὐδέποτε — πᾶν. Cf. οὐδὲ πᾶν Rev. 7:16;9:4. It is true that this 
idiom is very common in the LXX! as a translation of 55 — x». 
Cf. Ex. 12:16, 48; 20:10, etc. But it is not without analogy 
also in the papyri use of πᾶς “ 
negative meaning. Thus ἄνευ or χωρὶς πάσης ὑπερθέσεως, a recurrent 
formula, ἀνυπεύθενοι παντὸς ἐπίμου, Tb.P. 105 (1i/B.c.); δίχα πάσης 
ἐξουσίας, Plutarch, Cons. ad Uzxor., 1 (cf. Heb. 7:7).”? Clearly the 
construction was in harmony with the κοινή. 

3. Μή ---πᾶς. The same principle applies. Cf. 1 Cor. 1:29, 
ὅπως μὴ καυχήσηται πᾶσα σάρξ. Here it is ‘no flesh’ as above with 
οὐ — mas. See also Rev. 7:1. On the other hand μὴ πᾶς (1 Jo. 
4 :1)=‘not every’ like οὐ πᾶς. 

1 W.-M., p. 215. 


2 Moulton, Prol., p. 246. Cf. Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901, p. 442; Apr., 1904, 
p. 155. 


with prepositions and adjectives of - 


ae a 


PRONOUNS (’ANTQNYMIAI) 759 


4. Οὐ μή --- πᾶν in Rev. 21:27 does not differ at all from the 
οὐ — πᾶς and μή — πᾶς in construction. 

5. Πᾶς --- ov. Here the ancient Greek idiom to a certain extent 
comes to one’s relief.1. But the x} —55 lies behind the LXX 
translation. It is less harsh than οὐ — πᾶς. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. 
Gk., p. 178. The denial about πᾶς is complete as with οὐ — πᾶς. 
See 1 Jo. 2 : 21, πᾶν ψεῦδος ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας οὐκ ἔστιν. Cf. 1 Jo. 3:15; 
Eph. 5 : 5; Rev. 22:3. 

6. Πᾶς — μή falls into the same category. Cf. Jo. 3:16; 6:39; 
12 :46; Eph. 4:29; 5:3. Here also the denial is universal. But 
most probably μηδείς would have pleased an older Greek more. 

7. Πᾶς --- οὐ μή. In Rev. 18 : 22 the same explanation holds. 

8. Οὐ --- πάντες. With the plural οὐκ εἰσὶν πάντες ἐξ ἡμῶν, 1 Jo. 
2:19, the matter is not so clear. Two translations are possible, 
as is seen in the American Revision. The text there is: “‘they all are 
not of υ5. The margin has: ‘not all are of us.’”?’ The analogy of 
ov — πᾶς in the singular favours the first. 

9. Πάντες od}. With πάντες οὐ κοιμηθησόμεθα, 1 Cor. 15:51, the 
ov goes with the verb. The effect is the same as πᾶς — οὐ above. 
‘We all shall not sleep’ means that ‘none’ of us shall sleep. 
‘We shall all be changed.’ Per contra, see οὐ πάντες, Ro. 10: 16= 
‘not all.’ 

1 W.-M., p. 215. 


CHAPTER XVI 
THE ARTICLE (TO "APOPON) 


I. Other Uses of ὁ, ἡ, T6. For the demonstrative ὁ and the 
relative 6 see chapter on Syntax of Pronouns. It is confusing to 
say with Seyffart!: ‘Der Artikel hat die urspriingliche demon- 
strative Bedeutung.” It is then just the demonstrative, not the 
article at all. Why call the demonstrative the article? Great con- 
fusion of idea has resulted from this terminology. It is important 
to keep distinct the demonstrative, the article and the relative. Ὁ 

II. Origin and Development of the Article. 

(a) A GREEK CONTRIBUTION. The development of the Greek 
article is one of the most interesting things in human speech.? 
Among the Indo-Germanic languages it is “‘a new Greek depar- 
ture.”’> It is not found in Sanskrit nor in Latin. It does not ap- 
pear to be pro-ethnic‘ and first shows itself in Homer. Indeed, 
the existence of the genuine article in Homer is denied by some.° 
But it seems an overrefinement to refuse to see the article in such 
Homeric phrases as of πλέονες, of ἄριστοι, etc.6 And it is beyond 
dispute that it is in the Attic prose, particularly in Plato, that the 
Greek article reaches its perfection.’ The article has shown re- 
markable persistency and survives with very little modification in 
modern Greek.* In the N. T. the usage is in all essentials in har- 
mony with Attic, more so than is true of the papyri.®? But Volker” 
finds the papyri in practical accord at most points with Attic. 
Simcox!! points out that even the Hebrew article does not differ 
radically in use from the Greek article. 


1 Hauptr. der griech. Synt., p. 1. 

2 Cf. Schneider, Vorles. iiber griech. Gr. 

3. Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 41. 

4 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, pp. 507 ff. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 424. 

5 Delbriick, op. cit. Cf. also Thompson, Synt., p. 41 f. 

6 Monro, Hom. Gr., pp. 178 ff. 7 Thompson, Synt., p. 41 f. 

8 Cf. Thumb, Handb., pp. 40 ff.; Jebb. in V. and D.’s Handb., p. 193 f. 

9. Moulton, Prol., p. 80 f. 

10 Synt. d. griech. Pap., pp. 5 ff. 1 Lang. of the N. T., p. 45. 
754 


THE ARTICLE (TO "APOPON) 755 


(b) DERIVED FROM THE DEMONSTRATIVE. The Greek article 
is the same form as the demonstrative ὁ, ἡ, 76. Indeed the Ger- 
man der is used as demonstrative, article, relative. So English 
the is related to the demonstrative that (also relative). Clyde 
(Greek Syntax, p. 6) calls the article a “mere enfeeblement”’ 
of the demonstrative. So the French le, the Italian al, the 
Spanish οἷ, all come from the Latin demonstrative ille. But 
while this is true, the demonstrative, relative and article should 
not be confused in idea. The Greek grammarians applied ἄρθρον 
to all three in truth, but distinguished them as ἄρθρον προτακτικόν 
(dem.), ἄρθρον ὑποτακτικόν (rel.), ἄρθρον ὁριστικόν (art.). Some, how- 
ever, did not distinguish sharply between the demonstrative and 
the article. The article always retained something of the demon- 
strative force (Gildersleeve, Syntav, Part II, p. 215). It is an 
utter reversal of the facts to speak of the demonstrative use of 
the article. It is only of recent years that a really scientific study 
of the article has been made.! Even Brugmann? gives no sep- 
arate treatment for the article. But Part II of Gildersleeve’s 
Syntax (1911, pp. 215-832) has a really scientific treatment of 
the article. Professor Miller collected material for it. But even 
here I must demur against “the substantive use of the article”’ 
(p. 216) instead of plain substantival demonstrative. Gildersleeve 
uses ‘‘article’’ in two senses (form and idea). The Latin word 
articulus has the same root as the Greek ἄρθρον (ap— as seen in 
ap-ap-icxw, ‘to fit,’ ‘join’). The origin of the article from the de- 
monstrative can probably be seen in Homer. Monro? thinks it 
due to apposition of a substantive with the demonstrative 6. So 
Iliad, 4. 501, ἡ δ᾽ ἑτέροιο διὰ κροτάφοιο πέρησεν αἰχμὴ χαλκείη. Here 
aixun explains ἡ and ἡ wavers between demonstrative and ar- 
ticle and illustrates the transition. So with new proper names 6 
anticipates the name which is loosely added later. ‘In Attic the 
article shows that a particular known person is spoken of; in 
Homer it marks the turning of attention to a person.” In Homer 
the article usually marks contrast and not mere definiteness. 
But this contrast or singling out of the special object is in essence 
the real article which is thus attributive. 

III. Significance of the Article. The article, unlike the demon- 
strative, does not point out the object as far or near. It is not 
deictic. There is either contrast in the distinction drawn or allu- 
sion (anaphoric) to what is already mentioned or assumed as well 


1 Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 794. 8. Hom. Gr., p. 178. 
2 Griech. Gr. “51D: 


756 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


known. The article is therefore τὸ ὁριστικὸν ἄρθρον, the definite 
article. The article is associated with gesture and aids in pointing 
out like an index finger. It is a pointer. It is not essential to 
language, but certainly very convenient and useful and not “ otzo- 
sum loquacissimae gentis instrumentum,” as Sealiger! called it. 
The Greek article is not the only means of making words definite. 
Many words are definite from the nature of the case.2,. The word 
itself may be definite, like γῆ, οὐρανός, ’Incods. The use of a prepo- 
sition with definite anarthrous nouns is old, as ἐν οἴκῳ. Possessive 
pronouns also make definite, as do genitives. The context itself 
often is clear enough. The demonstrative may be used besides 
the article. Whenever the Greek article occurs, the object is cer- 
tainly definite. When it is not used, the object may or may not 
be. The article is never meaningless in Greek, though it often 
fails to correspond with the English idiom, as in ἡ σοφία, ὁ Παῦλος. 
It is not a matter of translation. The older language and higher 
poetry are more anarthrous than Attic prose. Dialects vary in 
the use of the article, as do authors. Plato is richer in the article 
than any one. Its free use leads to exactness and finesse (Gilder- 
sleeve, Syntax, Part II, p. 215f.). 

IV. The Method Employed by the Article. The Greek article 
points out in one of three ways.* It distinguishes: 

(a) INDIVIDUALS FROM INDIvipUALS. The article does not 
give the reason for the distinction drawn between individuals. 
That is usually apparent in the context. The translators of the 
King James Version, under the influence of the Vulgate, handle 
the Greek article loosely and inaccurately.4 A goodly list of 
such sins is given in “The Revision of the New Testament,’’> such 
as ‘a pinnacle’ for τὸ πτερύγιον (Mt. 4:5). Here the whole point 
lies in the article, the wing of the Temple overlooking the abyss. 
So in Mt. 5:1 τὸ ὄρος was the mountain right at hand, not ‘a 
mountain.’ On the other hand, the King James translators missed 
the point of wera γυναικός (Jo. 4:27) when they said ‘the woman.’ 
It was ‘a woman,’ any woman, not the particular woman in ques- 
tion. But the Canterbury Revisers cannot be absolved from all 
blame, for they ignore the article in Lu. 18 : 13, τῷ ἁμαρτωλῷ. The 
vital thing is to see the matter from the Greek point of view and 


1 Quoted by Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 57. 

2 The old idea that the article was necessary to make a word definite is 
seen in Madvig, Synt. of the Gk. Lang., p. 8. 

ὃ Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 70. 

4 Ib. 6 Lightfoot, Trench, Ellicott, p. xxx f. 


THE ARTICLE (TO “APOPON) 757 


find the reason for the use of the article. In Mt. 13 : 55, ὁ τοῦ 
τέκτονος vids, it is the son of the (well known to us) carpenter. In 
1 Cor. 4:5 ὁ ἔπαινος means the praise due to each one. Cf. ὁ 
μισθός in Ro. 4:4. In 1 Cor. 5:9, ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ, Paul refers to a 
previous letter which the Corinthians had received. In 15:8, τῷ 
ἐκτρώματι, Paul speaks thus of himself because he alone of the 
Apostles saw Jesus after His Ascension. The examples of this 
use are very numerous in the N. T. Thus in Mt. 5:15, τὸν 
μόδιον, τὴν λυχνίαν, the article singles out the bushel, the lamp- 
stand present in the room. In 15: 26, rots κυναρίοις, Jesus points 
to the little dogs by the table. In Lu. 4 : 20, τὸ βιβλίον ἀποδοὺς τῷ 
ὑπηρέτῃ, the roll was the usual one and the attendant was there at 
his place. So in Jo. 13 : 5, βάλλει ὕδωρ εἰς τὸν νιπτῆρα, the basin was 
there in the room. The article in Jo. 7:17, γνώσεται περὶ τῆς 
διδαχῆς, Means the teaching concerning which they were puzzled. 
(b) CLASSES FROM OTHER CLAssES. The (generic) article is 
not always necessary here any more than under (a). See πονηροὺς 
καὶ ἀγαθούς (Mt. 5:45); δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων (1 Pet. 3:18). Cf. in 
particular 1 Cor. 12 : 18 εἴτε ᾿Ιουδαῖοι εἴτε “Ἕλληνες, 12:29. So also 
ποῦ σοφός; ποῦ γραμματεύς; (1 Cor. 1 : 20). But it is quite common 
to use the article with different classes. So in Mt. ὃ : 20 note ai 
ἀλώπεκες, τὰ πετεινά. SO αἱ γυναῖκες (Eph. 5 : 22), of ἄνδρες (5 : 25), 
τὰ τέκνα (6:1), of πατέρες (6:4), of δοῦλοι (6:5). In these ex- 
amples the vocative often has the article. Cf. Col. 3:18ff. A 
good example of the use with classes is found in Mt. 5 : 3-10 
(the Beatitudes), οὗ πτωχοί, etc. Cf. τοὺς σοφοὺς, τὰ ἀσθενῆ, etc., 
in 1 Cor. 1:27. So οἱ ἀκροαταί and of ποιηταί in Ro. 2:18. Cf. 
Rev. 11:18; 22:14. It is very common to find the singular used 
with the article in a representative sense for the whole class. 
So in ὁ vids τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (Mt. ὃ : 20, and often) Jesus calls himself 
the Son of Mankind. Cf. Lu. 10 : 7, ὁ ἐργάτης, where the labourer 
represents all labourers. In Mt. 18 : 17 note ὁ ἐθνικὸς καὶ ὁ τελώνης. 
The Gospel of John is especially rich in examples of this kind 
(both ideals and types).1 Other examples are Mt. 12:35 ὁ ἀγαθὸς 
ἄνθρωπος, 12 : 29 τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ, Jas. 5:6 τὸν δίκαιον, 2 Cor. 12:12 
τοῦ ἀποστόλου, Gal. 4:1 ὁ κληρονόμος, Mt. 13: 3 ὁ σπείρων. But 
even here the article is not always needed. So ’Iovéaiou re πρῶτον 
καὶ “EXAnvos (Ro. 2:9). Cf. καλοῦ τε καὶ κακοῦ, Heb. 5:14. In 
examples like ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ (Mt. 24:35), where there is only 
one of the kind, the explanation is not far from the class from class 


1 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 47. On literature upon the article see E. Schwartz 
in the Index to Eusebius, p. 209. 


758 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


idea. So θεός, like proper names, may use the article where we do 
not need it in English (Jo. 3:16). Vélker (Syntax, p. 19) notes in 
the papyri examples like γυνὴ καὶ viol, ἡ γυνὴ καὶ οἱ viol, “γυνὴ καὶ ot 
viol, ὁ ἀνὴρ καὶ τέκνα. For the generic article see further Gilder- 
sleeve, Syntax, pp. 258 ff. 

(c) QUALITIES FROM OTHER QUALITIES. The English does not 
use the article with abstract qualities unless they have been pre- 
viously mentioned. But French and German are like the Greek 
in the use of the article here. It is not necessary to have the ar- 
ticle with qualities. So in 1 Cor. 12:9-11 the gifts mentioned 
have no article. So in chapter 18, ἀγάπην in verses 1-3, but 
ἡ ἀγάπη in 4, 8; but πίστις, ἐλπίς, ἀγάπη (verse 13). In 1 Jo. 4:18 
φόβος is first without the article, then is repeated with the article, 
while ἡ ἀγάπη each time. There is much of the same freedom as 
to the use or non-use of the article here as elsewhere. Cf. Ro. 
12.:7,.9: 185. 9.f.:'Cole 3 75a) Blass. (ΟΝ el Ghee) 
from the standpoint of the German sees more difficulty in the 
absence than in the presence of such articles. But he is correct 


in saying that the relative in Col. 3 : 5 explains the use of the ar- ᾿ 


ticle. It is interesting to observe that in the list of attributes of 
God in the songs in Rev. 4:11; 5:13; 7:11, the article is ex- 
pressed with each quality, while in 5 : 12 one article (τήν) is used 
with the whole list. In Ro. 13:7 the article is used with each 
thing and quality. It is possible that τῷ here is the article also 
for which the participle has to be supplied. But for the absence 
of μέν and δὲ one might suspect τῷ to be the demonstrative. In 
Ro. 16:17, σκοπεῖν τοὺς τὰς διχοστασίας Kal τὰ σκάνδαλα παρὰ τὴν 
διδαχὴν ἣν ὑμεῖς ἐμάθετε ποιοῦντας, note how neatly τούς, τάς, τά, τὴν 
come in and illustrate the three uses of the article. Note also the 
neat classic idiom τοὺς --- ποιοῦντας. For the article with abstract 
nouns see further Gildersleeve, Syntax, pp. 257 ff. 

V. Varied Usages of the Article. 

(a) WitH SUBSTANTIVES. 

1. Context. Whether the substantive is pointed out as an in- 
dividual, class or quality, the context makes clear. The English 
may or may not have need of the article in translation. But 
that point cuts no figure in the Greek idiom. Thus in Ac. 27: 23, 
τοῦ θεοῦ οὗ εἰμί, the article points out the special God whose Paul 
is and is to be preserved in English. In the very next verse, ὁ θεός, 
we in English do not need the article, even if, as is unlikely, the 
angel has the notion of ‘‘the special God.” Cf. also Jo. 1:1. 
In Mt. 28 : 2, of γραμματεῖς καὶ of Φαρισαῖοι, the two classes are 


THE ARTICLE (TO “APOPON) 759 


distinguished as in English. In Ro. 11 : 36, ἡ δόξα, it is the glory 
due to God. See ὁ μισθός, 1 Cor. 9: 18 (ef. Ro. 4 : 4). 

2. Gender of the Article. It will, of course, be that of the sub- 
stantive. Cf. τήν --- τόν --- τό in Lu. 2:16. But sometimes the 
construction is according to the sense. So in Mt. 4:13, τὴν Ναζαρά, 
because of the implied πόλιν. Cf. also Καφαρναοὺμ τήν. But in 
Gal. 4: 25, τὸ δὲ “Αγαρ, Paul purposely uses the grammatical gen- 
der of the word rather than the natural feminine. Cf. also ὁ ἀμήν 
(Rev. 3:14), where Jesus is meant. But note the usual τὸ ἀμήν 
in 1 Cor. 14:16. The N. T. does not have the neuter article 
with the plural of a Hebrew word, as we occasionally see in the 
LXX (Thackeray, p. 34). Cf. τῷ βεελείμ (Ezek. 27: 4). 

3. With Proper Names. This seems rather odd to us in English, 
since the proper name itself is supposed to be definite enough. 
But at bottom the idiom is the same as with other substantives. 
We do not use the article with home, husband, wife, church, 
unless there is special reason to do so. The word itself is usually 
sufficient. We must rid ourselves of the notion that any substan- 
tive requires the article. But, Just because proper names are so 
obviously definite, the article was frequently used where we in 
English cannot handle it. But this is very far from saying that 
the article meant nothing to the Greek. It meant definiteness to 
him. We often have the same difficulty with the article with 
classes and qualities. Sometimes we can see the reason for the 
use of the article with proper names. So τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν ὃν Παῦλος 
κηρύσσει, Ac. 19:18. But in most instances the matter seems 
quite capricious to us. The writer may have in mind a previous 
mention of the name or the fact of the person being well known. 
In 2 Tim. 4 : 9-21 the proper names are all anarthrous. The same 
thing is true of Ro. 16, even when the adjective is not anar- 
throus, as in ᾿Απελλῆν τὸν δόκιμον ἐν Χριστῷ (verse 10). So in the 
ancient Greek for the most part the article was not used with 
proper names (Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 229). Its use with per- 
sons is a mark of familiar style, but Plato uses it for anaphora 
or for contrast. In some sections it is common to use the 
article with titles, as The Reverend Doctor So-and-So. In South 
Germany der is used with the name alone.! 

It seems needless to make extended observations about the 
presence or absence of the Greek article with names of countries, 
cities, rivers, persons. The usage among Greek writers greatly 
varies about rivers, mountains, etc. Cf. Kallenberg, Stu. tiber den 

PAP ties 118. 


760 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


griech. Art., 1891). See exhaustive treatment by Gildersleeve 
(Syntax, pp. 236—253).and his paper in American Journal of Philol., 
XI, pp. 4838-487. Different words vary. ‘‘ Names of cities most 
rarely have the article when connected with prepositions,”! but 
that is true of other words also. Ἱερουσαλήμ does not have the 
article save when an adjective is used (so Gal. 4:25 f.; Rev. 3: 
12) except in one instance (Ac. 5: 28). Curiously ᾿Ιεροσόλυμα has 
the article (in the oblique cases) only? in Jo. 2:23; 5:2; 10 : 22; 
11:18. As instances of the article used with a city mentioned 
the second time (anaphoric) see Ac. 17:10, εἰς Βέροιαν, and 17: 
13, ἐν τῇ Bepoia; 17:15, ἕως ᾿Αθηνῶν; and 17:16, ἐν ταῖς ᾿Αθήναις. 
For further details see Winer-Schmiedel, p. 152 f. 

Substantives in apposition with proper names may have the 
article, as in Ἡρῴδης ὁ βασιλεύς, Mt. 2:1; and ὁ βασιλεὺς ‘Hpwédns, 
Mt. 2:3; or not, as Ἡρῴδου» βασιλέως Lu. 1:5. In Baorded 
᾿Αγρίππα, Ac. 25: 26, it is like our ‘King George.’ So in Xeno- 
phon, when the King of Persia is meant we find βασιλεύς. In 
Mt. 3:6, 6 ᾿Ιορδάνης ποταμός, we have the usual order, but see 
the order reversed and the article repeated in Rev. 9: 14; 16: 12. 
Cf. τοῦ ὄρους Σινά (Ac. 7:30) and ὄρους Σινά (Gal. 4:24), τὸ ὄρος 
Σιών (Rev. 14:1) and Σιὼν ὄρει (Heb. 12:22). For the article 
with appositive proper names see Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 231. 
Cf. ᾿Ιούδας ὁ ᾿Ισκαριώτης, Mt. 10:4; Ἡρῴδης ὁ τετραάρχης and 
ἸἸωάνης ὁ βαπτιστής, 14 : 1 ἴ.; ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ Ναζαρηνός, Mk. 10 : 47; Ac. 
1:13, Σίμων ὁ ζηλωτής, etc. Here the word in apposition has 
the article, but not the proper name.? Cf. 1 Cor. 1:1. 

In the Gospels as a rule ’Incods has the article. Χριστός in the 
Gospels usually has the article=the Anointed One, the Messiah. 
In the Epistles it usually is ike a proper name and commonly 
without the article,‘ illustrating the development of Christology 
in the N. T. Indeclinable proper names usually have the article 
if the case would not otherwise be clear. Cf. the list in Mt. 1: 
2-16, where the nominative has’ no article, but the accusative 
does have it. So ᾿Ισραήλ in Ro. 10:19, but τὸν ’Icpand in 1 Cor. 
10:18. See also Mt. 22:42; Mk. 15:45; Lu. 2:16; Ac. 7:8; 
15:1f.; Ro. 9:18; Heb. 11:17. The use of τὸν BapaBSBay in Lu. 
23:18 is not abrupt. In Xenophon’s Anabasis the article is not 
often used with proper names unless the person is previously 


1 W.-Th., p. 112. 

2 0. Cf. Blass, Gro of Ν: ΟΡ 105: 
3 See further W.-Sch., p. 153. 

4 Blass, Gr. of Nal, Ghose BZ, 


THE ARTICLE (TO "APOPON) eer On: 


mentioned.! In Homer the article appears only occasionally with 
a proper name when a new person is introduced, and “marks 
the turning of attention to a person,”’? rather than pointing to a 
particular person as in Attic. ‘In short the Homeric article 
contrasts, the Attic article defines.”” But, as a matter of fact, no 
satisfactory principle can be laid down for the use or non-use of 
the article with proper names.* For good discussion of the matter 
see Gildersleeve, Am. Jour. of Philol., XI, pp. 483 ff. In modern 
Greek the article occurs with all kinds of proper names (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 41). Moulton (Prol., p. 83) admits the inability of 
scholars to solve “‘completely the problem of the article with 
proper names.”’ Abbott (Joh. Gr., p. 57 f.) notes that John gen- 
erally introduces a proper name without the article and then 
uses it. The papyri also follow this classical idiom of using the 
article with proper names when mentioned a second time. So when 
a man’s father or mother is given in the genitive, we usually have 
the article. Cf. Deissmann, Phil. Wochenschrift, 1902, p. 1467; 
Moulton, Prol., p. 83. The papyri throw no great light on the 
subject. Radermacher (N. 7. Gr., p. 95), claims that the papyri 
confirm the N. T. usage. In the papyri slaves regularly have the 
article, even when the master does not (Vélker, Syntax, p. 9). 
For Σαῦλος ὁ καὶ Παῦλος (Ac. 18:9) the papyri show numerous 
parallels. Cf. Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 313 ff. Mayser (Gr. 
d. griech. Pap., p. 310 f.), as already shown, takes ὁ here as rela- 
tive. See also Hatch, Journal of Bibl. Int., Part 11, 1908, p. 141 f. 
In Luke’s list (Lu. 3 : 23-388) ᾿Ιωσήφ has no article, while all the 
long line of genitives have τοῦ including τοῦ θεοῦ. Among the 
ancient writers ὁ θεός was used of the god of absolute religion in 
distinction from the mythological gods.* Gildersleeve (Syntax, 
pp. 232-236) gives a full discussion of the subject. In the N. T., 
however, while we have πρὸς τὸν θεόν (Jo. 1:1, 2), it is far more 
common to find simply θεός, especially in the Epistles. But the 
word is treated like a proper name and may have it (Ro. 3 : 5) 
or not have it (8:9). The same thing holds true about πνεῦμα 
and πνεῦμα ἅγιον, κύριος, Χριστός. These words will come up for 
further discussion later. 


1 Zucker, Beobachtungen tiber den Gebr. des Artik. bei Personenn. in Xen. 
Anabasis, p. 6. 2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 179. 

3 Cf.Schmidt, De Articulo in nominibus propriis apud Att. scriptores (1890) ; 
K.-G., I, pp. 602 ff.; Kallenberg, Stu. tiber den griech. Artikel (1891). 

4 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 48. Cf. also B. Weiss, Der Gebr. des 
Artikels bei den Gottesnamen, Th. Stu. Krit., 1911, pp. 319-392. 


762 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


4. Second Mention (Anaphoric). The use of the article with 
the second mention of a word is very frequent. Thus in Jo. 6:9, 
ἄρτους καὶ ὀψάρια, but in verse 11 τοὺς ἄρτους --- καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀψαρίων. 
See Lu. 9:13. Cf. also ὕδωρ in 4: 10 and τὸ ὕδωρ in verse 11. So 
μάγοι in Mt. 2:1, but τοὺς μάγους in verse 7; ζιζάνια in 13 : 25, but 
χὰ Ciena in verse: 26. Cl Aci9eAie7 i Oi 1} 7 ase Ὁ, 
Rev. 15:1, 6. In Jo. 4: 48, ras δύο ἡμέρας, the article refers to 
verse 40. Cf. Jo. 20:1 with 19:41; 12:12 with 12:1; Heb. 
5:4 with 5:1; 2 Cor. 5:4 with 5:1. In Ac. 19:13 we have 
Παῦλος, but ὁ Παῦλος in 19:15. Volker (Syntax, p. 21 f.) finds 
the anaphoric use of the article common enough in the papyri. 

(0) τη Apsectives. The discussion of the adjective as at- 
tributive or predicate comes up later. Thus καλὸς ὁ νόμος (1 Tim. 
1:8) is a different construction from ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός (Jo. 10 : 11). 

1. The Resumptive Article. The use of the article and the 
adjective is perfectly normal in τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν (2 Pet. 3 : 2). 
Cf. τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ (Jo. 6:40). See also Lu. 1:70; Jas. 2:7. 
This repetition of the article with the adjective as in 6 ποιμὴν 6 
καλός above is quite common also. Abbott! thinks that this re- 
duplication of the article ““adds weight and emphasis to the ar- 
ticle.” Cf. τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ (Lu. 9 : 22) with τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ (18 : 88). 
Abbott? considers that as a rule John reduplicates the article with 
the adjective only in utterances of the Lord or in weighty sayings 
about him, * Cf. Jo. 1: 9,:413' 221: 3: 16;548s 7218 ΠΝ 
14. But this is hardly true of Jo. 6:13; 18:10. He notes also 
that in John the possessive adjective, when articular, nearly always 
has the reduplicated article. Cf. τὰ πρόβατα τὰ ἐμά (10:27). So 
τὸν ἀδελφὸν τὸν ἴδιον in Jo. 1:41. In Homer the substantive usu- 
ally comes before the article and the adjective. The resumptive 
article ‘repeats the noun in order to add the qualifying word.’’ 
Cf. Rev. 1:17; 3:7; 22:16, where the article is repeated, twice. 
Cf. also Ac. 12:10. So τῶν δύο τῶν ἀκουσάντων (Jo. 1:40). In 
Lu. 6:45 both the article and adjective are repeated -after the 
form of the first part of the sentence, ὁ πονηρὸς ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ 
προφέρει τὸ πονηρόν. See in the papyri τὸ κιτώνιον αὐτῆς τὸ λευκὸν 
τὸ παρὰ σοί, Ῥ.- ΤΌ. 421 (11,,(Α.}.). 

2. With the Adjective Alone. It appears so with all genders δηα 
both numbers. Cf. ὁ ἅγιος (Mk. 1:24), τῇ ἐρήμῳ (Mt. 3:2), τὸ 
ἀγαθόν (Gal. 6:10), of πτωχοί (Mt. 5:3), τὰς νέας (Tit. 2:4), τὰ 
ὁρατά (Col. 1:16), τὰ πολλά in Ro. 15 : 22, of σοφοί in 1 Cor. 1: 


1 Joh. Gr., p. 63. 3 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 181. 
2 Ib., p. 64. 


THE ARTICLE (TO “APOPON) 763 


27, ai ἕτοιμοι in Mt. 25:10, etc. All these examples are obvious 
enough. The ellipsis is simple and usually supplied from the con- 
text. The three uses of the article occur with the adjective alone. 
The individual use appears in such examples as ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ 
(Jo. 6 : 69), ὁ δίκαιος (Ac. 22 : 14), ὁ ἀληθινός (1 Jo. 5 : 20), ὁ πονηρός 
(1 Jo. 5:18), τὸ πολύ and τὸ ὀλίγον (2 Cor. 8:15), τὸ ἀγαθόν 
σου (Phil. 14), τὸ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου (Ro. 8:3), τὴν ξηράν (Mt. 
28 : 15), τοῖς ἁγίοις (Ph. 1: 1), ἐν rots ἐπουρανίοις (Eph. 1:3). The 
generic or representative (class from class) is very common also, 
more frequent indeed. So ὁ δίκαιος (1 Pet. 4 : 18), τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ (Ro. 
5:7), τὸν πτωχόν (Jas. 2 : 6), τοὺς πτωχούς (2 : 5), of πλούσιοι (5 : 1). 
So τὰ κακά and τὰ ἀγαθά (Ro. 3:8), τὸ ἀγαθόν (Lu. 6:45). Cf. in 
particular Ro. 12 : 21 ὑπὸ τοῦ κακοῦ, ἐν τῷ ἀγαθῷ τὸ κακόν. Cf. also 
Ro. 18: ὃ f., τὸ ἀγαθόν (Gal. 6 : 10), τὸ ἱκανόν (Ac. 17: 9), τὸ καλόν 
(2 Cor. 18:7), τὸ a&ywov (Mt. 7:6), τὰ ὅρια (Mt. 19:1), τῶν 
σπορίμων (Mk. 2:23). The use of the neuter singular with the 
article as the equivalent of an abstract substantive Blass! notes 
as “a peculiar usage of Paul (and Hebrews)”’ and considers that 
“this is the most classical idiom in the language of the N. T., 
and may be paralleled from the old heathen literature, from Thu- 
cydides in particular.’’? But he cautions us against thinking that 
Paul imitated Thucydides, since Strabo? and all other writers of 
the κοινή, not to mention the papyri,’ show the same construction. 
Deissmann has made it plain from the papyri that τὸ δοκίμιον 
ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως in Jas. 1:3 (cf. 1 Pet. 1:7) belongs here. See 
also τὸ μωρὸν τοῦ θεοῦ (1 Cor. 1: 25), τὸ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν σύμφορον (7: 35), 
τὸ ἐλαφρὸν τῆς θλίψεως (2 Cor. 4 : 17), τὸ τῆς ὑμετέρας ἀγάπης γνήσιον 
(8 : 8), τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ (Ro. 1:19), τὸ χρηστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ (2 : 4), 
τὸ περισσόν (8 : 1), τὸ δυνατὸν αὐτοῦ (9 : 22), τὸ ἐπιεικὲς ὑμῶν (Ph. 4 : 5), 
τὸ ἀμετάθετον τῆς βουλῆς (Heb. 6 : 17), τὸ αὐτῆς ἀσθενές (7: 18). Ex- 
amples of the plural in this abstract sense occur in τὰ καλά --- τὰ 
σαπρά (Mt. 13 : 48), τὰ ἀόρατα (Ro. 1:20), τὰ κρυπτὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων 
(2:16), τὰ κρυπτὰ τοῦ σκότους (1 Cor. 4:5), τὰ πάντα (Col. 1 : 16), 
τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα (10.).. The neuter adjective with the ar- 
ticle sometimes appears in the collective sense for persons. So 
τὸ ἔλαττον (Heb. 7:7), τὸ δωδεκάφυλον ἡμῶν (Ac. 26:7), τὰ μωρὰ 
τοῦ κόσμου --- τὰ ἀσθενῆ τοῦ κόσμου (1 Cor. Ἵ : 27 ἴ.). See further 
Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 262. 

3. The Article not Necessary with the Adjective. Blass,4 who 


ΤΟΝ 2. Gk, p. 155. 
2 Cf. Schmid, Atticismus, IV, p. 608. 
3 Deiss., B. S., p. 259. 4 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 156. 


764 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


has the best discussion of the use of the article with adjectives, 
notes that it is not accidental that, while we have ἐν τῷ φανερῷ 
(Text. Rec., Mt. 6:4), yet εἰς φανερὸν ἐλθεῖν prevails (Mk. 4 : 22; 
Lu. 8: 17), since the thing is not yet in existence. But it is a 
rather fine point, since both ἐν κρυπτῷ (Jo. 7:4, 10) and εἰς κρύπτην 
(a subst. Lu. 11: 33) occur as well as ἐν τῷ φανερῷ (Mt. 6:4, 
Text. Rec.). In Ro. 2: 28 ἐν τῷ φανερῷ is genuine. In Jas. 4: 
17 note καλὸν ποιεῖν. The adjective alone may express class as in 
Mt. 5245s. Lu10 22) ἜΘΟΥ bit ie Gorenl= 20; 

4. With Numerals. The article with numbers is more common 
in Greek than in English and is a classic idiom (Gildersleeve, 
Syntax, p. 228). Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 315) notes that with 
numerals the article points out a certain number now brought 
forward. So ἑπτὰ — οἱ πέντε --- ὁ εἷς — ὁ ἄλλος (Rev. 17: 10). 

(c) WirH ParticreLes. In all essential respects the article is 
used with the participle exactly as with the adjective. The article 
is not necessary to the participle when used as an attribute (Jas. 
4:17), though it is most commonly found (Heb. 12:1, 2). For 
the predicate use see Jo. 10:12. The participle with the article 
is common without the substantive, as of πενθοῦντες (Mt. 5:4). 
The neuter for a person appears in τὸ γεννώμενον (Lu. 1:35). In 
τὸ ἀπολωλός (Lu. 19:10) we have the collective neuter singular. 
The abstract singular is seen in τὸ ὑπερέχον τῆς γνώσεως (Ph. 3 : 8) 
and the abstract plural in τὰ διαφέροντα (Ro. 2:18). Cf. τὰ 
ὑπάρχοντά μου (‘my belongings’) in 1 Cor. 13:3, for the more in- 
dividual use. The representative or generic sense is found in 6 
σπείρων (Mt. 13:3). The article with the participle is very com- 
mon as the equivalent of a relative clause. In Mt. 5:32 πᾶς ὁ 
ἀπολύων and ὃς ἐάν --- yaunon are parallel. See also Col. 1:8. So 
of πεπιστευκότες (Tit. 3:8), 6 εἰπών (2 Cor. 4:6). Cf. Mt. 5:32. 
The article is repeated with participles if they refer to different 
persons (Rev. 1:3) or even if the same person is meant where 
different aspects are presented (Rev. 1:4, where ὁ ἦν comes in 
between). But note τῷ ἀγαπῶντι ἡμᾶς καὶ λύσαντι ἡμᾶς (1: δ). 

Winer? makes a special point of the use of a definite participle 
with an indefinite pronoun like τινές εἰσιν of ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς (Gal. 
1:7), μή τις ὑμᾶς ἔσται ὁ συλαγωγῶν (Col. 2 : 8), ἄλλος ἐστὶν ὁ μαρτυρῶν 
(Jo. ὅ : 32).3 He also notes the definite subject where the German 
would have an indefinite one as in οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ συνίων (Ro. 3:11). 
Cf. also the article and the future participle in ὁ κατακρινῶν (Ro. 


1 Cf. K.-G., I, p. 594. 2 W.-M., p. 136. 
3 More frequent in John than in the Synoptists. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 59 f. 


THE ARTICLE (TO ”APOPON) 765 


8 : 33), Ac. 20 : 22 τὰ συναντήσοντα. Cf. Is. 1:31, οὐκ ἔσται ὁ σβέσων. 
More of this when the Participle is reached (ch. XX). For the 
repeated article see τῇ χάριτι τῇ δοθείσῃ (1 Cor. 1:4). See further 
vi, Position with Attributives. 

(d) WiTH THE INFINITIVE. This idiom is so common that it 
must be merely touched upon here and the discussion of it re- 
served for the Articular Infinitive. In general it may be said that 
in the Attic and the κοινή the article is used with the infinitive 
in any case (save vocative) and very much as with any abstract 
substantive. The Iliad does not have the article and the infinitive, 
but it occurs once in the Odyssey! and is in Pindar. Examples 
of the articular infinitive may be seen in the nominative τὸ καθίσαι 
(Mt. 20 : 23), the accusative τὸ λαλεῖν (1 Cor. 14 : 39; ef. Ac. 25 : 11), 
the genitive ἐλπὶς πᾶσα τοῦ σώζεσθαι (Ac. 27: 20; οἵ. Lu. 24 : 29), 
the ablative ἐκρατοῦντο τοῦ μὴ ἐπιγνῶναι (Lu. 24:16; οἵ. 2 Cor. 1: 
8), the locative ἐν τῷ σπείρειν (Mt. 13: 4), the instrumental τῷ μὴ 
εὑρεῖν (2 Cor. 2:13). The dative does not occur in the N. T. with 
the article, but see θεάσασθαι (Mt. 11:7). For the articular infin- 
itive with prepositions see Mk. 5:4; 14:28, ete. The article is 
frequently missing with εἰς πεῖν in the vernacular κοινή (papyri), as 
Herodotus three times has ἀντὶ efvar.2 Cf. Clyde, Greek Syntaz, 
p. 131. But enough for the present. The articular infinitive is 
curiously rare in the Gospel of John, ‘‘almost non-existent.’’* It 
occurs only four times and only with prepositions (Jo. 1:48; 2: 
Ba MISES 172 5). 

(ὁ. With ApvErRBs. This is no peculiarity of the κοινή, not to 
say of the N. T. It is common in the older Greek with adverbs 
of place, time, quality, rank, manner.* It is not necessary to re- 
peat what is said under Cases and Adverbs concerning the ad- 
verbial expressions (really adjectives), like τὸ πρῶτον (Jo. 12 : 16), 
τὸ λοιπόν (Ph. 4:8), τὰ πολλά (Ro. 15: 22). The point to note is 
that the article is used somewhat freely with adverbs as with 
substantives and adjectives. As examples observe τὰ ἄνω and ra 
κάτω (Jo. 8 : 23), ἡ αὔριον (Mt. 6:34, ellipsis of ἡμέρα), ἡ ἐπαύριον 
(27 : 62), ἡ σήμερον (Ac. 20 : 26), ὁ ἀμήν (Rev. 3 : 14), τὸ ἀμήν (1 Cor. 
14 : 16), τὸ νῦν (Lu. 5: 10), τὰ viv (Ac. 4 : 29), ὁ πλησίον (Lu. 10 : 27) 
and note πλησίον alone =‘neighbour’ in Lu. 10:29 and 36, τὸ ναί 
and τὸ ov (2 Cor. 1:17), τὸ ἔξωθεν (Mt. 23 : 25), of ἔξωθεν (1 Tim. 
3:7), of ἔξω (Mk. 4:11, W. H. text), τὸ ἐντός (Mt. 23 : 26), τὰ ἔμπρο- 
σθεν and τὰ ὀπίσω (Ph. 3:13 f.), etc. Note two adverbs in Heb. 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 179. 3 Abbott, Joh. Gr., Ὁ. 69. 
2 Moulton, Prol., pp. 81, 216. 4 K.-G., I, p. 594 f. 


766 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


12 : 27, τὸ Ἔτι ἅπαξ (quotation). In some of these examples there 
is the ellipsis of a word (note different genders), but not always. 
There are besides the adjectival uses of the adverb, like 6 ἔσω ἄν- 
Opwros (Eph. 3:16), ὁ ἔξω ἄνθρωπος (2 Cor. 4 : 16), ὁ νῦν καιρός (Ro. 
3:26). Clyde! compares τὸ νῦν with Scotch “the noo.” 

(f) With PREPOSITIONAL PHRASES? Cf. of ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας 
(Heb. 13: 24), of ἐκ νόμου (Ro. 4:14), of ἐκ περιτομῆς (Ac. 11: 2), of 
καθ᾽ ἕνα (Eph. 5:38), τὸ ἐκ μέρους (1 Cor. 13:10), τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν (Ph. 
1:27), οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ (Lu. 9: 32), τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν (Lu. 11:3), τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμέ 
(Ph. 1:12; οἵ. Ro. 1:15), τὸ κατὰ σάρκα (Ro. 9: 5), τὸ ἐξ ὑμῶν (12: 
18), τὸ ἀνὰ δηνάριον (Mt. 20:10, W. H. text), οἱ περὶ Παῦλον (Ac. 
13:13, classic idiom), οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ (Mk. 1:36), τοῖς ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ 
(Mt. 5:15), τὰ κατὰ τὸν νόμον (Lu. 2 : 39), τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς and 
τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (Eph. 1:10), τὴν εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους (1:15), τὸ 
καθ᾽ eis (Ro. 12:5), ὁ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ (2: 28 f.), etc. In Ac. 18:15 
note νόμου τοῦ καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς, where the article occurs with the preposi- 
tional phrase, but not with the substantive. On of περί ΞΞ a man 
and his followers see Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 264. . 

(g) WitH SINGLE Worps oR WHOLE SENTENCES. Here the 
word is used verbatim, as τὸ éyw (Plato, Crat., 405 d).2 Cf. τὸ "Ere 
ἅπαξ δηλοῖ above (Heb. 12:27) and τὸ “Ayap (the name Hagar, 
Gal. 4:25). So τὸ δὲ ᾿Ανέβη (Eph. 4:9). With sentences the ar- 
ticle sometimes marks the quotation as in τὸ Ei δύνῃ (Mk. 9 : 29), 
τὸ Οὐ φονεύσεις --- ws σεαυτόν (Mt. 19:18 f.), ἐν τῷ *Ayarnoes τὸν 
πλησίον ὡς σεαυτόν (Gal. 5:14), τὸ γὰρ Οὐ μοιχεύσεις and ἐν τῷ 
᾿Αγαπήσεις κτλ. (Ro. 18 : 9), τὸ Καὶ μετὰ ἀνόμων ἐλογίσθη (Lu. 22 : 37). 
In particular the article is fairly common in Luke and occurs a few 
times in Paul with indirect questions. The modern Greek shows 
this essentially classical idiom. Blass remarks that the article 
makes no essential difference to the meaning of the question. It 
does this at least: it makes clearer the substantival idea of the in- 
direct question and its relation to the principal clause. See 1 Th. 
4:1 παρελάβετε παρ᾽ ἡμῶν τὸ πῶς δεῖ ὑμᾶς, Ro. 8:26 τὸ γὰρ τί 
προσευξώμεθα, Lu. 1:62 ἐνένευον τὸ τί ἂν θέλοι καλεῖσθαι, 9 : 46 εἰσῆλ- 
θεν διαλογισμὸς τὸ τίς ἂν εἴη μείζων, 19 : 48 οὐχ ηὕρισκον τὸ τί ποιήσωσιν, 
22:2 ἐζήτουν τὸ πῶς ἀνέλωσιν, 22:4 συνελάλησεν τὸ πῶς παραδῷ, 
22:23 συνζητεῖν τὸ τίς εἴη, 22 : 24 ἔγένετο φιλονεικία τὸ τίς δοκεῖ, 
Ac. 4:21 μηδὲν εὑρίσκοντες τὸ πῶς κολάσωνται, 22 : 80 γνῶναι τὸ τί 
κατηγορεῖται. 

1 Gk. Synt., p. 14. 2 Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 263. 


3 Thompson, p. 45. Cf. Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 265. 
4 Jebb, V. and D.’s Handb., p. 295 f. 5 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 158. 


THE ARTICLE (TO "APOPON) | 767 


(h) Wits GenitivE ALonE. This is also a common idiom in 
the ancient Greek.! The κοινή uses this idiom very often (Rader- 
macher, N. 7’. Gk., p. 94), as seen both in the inscriptions and 
the papyri, The article stands alone, but the ellipsis is usually 
very plain, as is shown by the gender and number as well as the 
context. So ᾿Ιάκωβος ὁ τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου (Mt. 10: 2), where vids is im- 
plied; Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ (Jo. 19: 25), where γυνή is to be supplied; 
Μαρία ἡ ᾿Ιακώβου (Lu. 24:10), where μήτηρ is meant; τὸ τῆς δόξης 
(1 Pet. 4:14), where πνεῦμα is to be understood; οἱ τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου 
(Jo. 21:2), where υἱοί is meant, etc. In 1 Cor. 15:23 μαθηταί is 
probably to be supplied (cf. Gal. 5:24), and ἀδελφός in Lu. 6: 16 
(ef. Ju. 1). The neuter plural is common for the notion of ‘‘affairs”’ 
or “things.” So τὰ ἑαυτῶν and τὰ Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ (Ph. 2: 21), ra 
Καίσαρος and τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ (Lu. 20: 25), τὰ τῆς αὔριον (marg. W. Η., 
Jas. 4:14), τὰ τοῦ κόσμου (1 Cor. 7:33), τὰ τῆς σαρκός and τὰ τοῦ 
πνεύματος (Ro. 8: δ), τὰ τῆς εἰρήνης (14:19), etc. One may note also 
here ἐν rots τοῦ πατρός μου (Lu. 2:49) for ‘house of my Father.’ 
Cf. ἐν rots Κλαυδ(ίου), P.Oxy. 523 (ii/a.p.). See eis τὰ ἴδια and of 
ἴδιοι (Jo. 1:11). The neuter singular has an abstract use like τὸ 
τῆς ἀληθοῦς παροιμίας (2 Pet. 2:22), τὸ τῆς συκῆς (Mt. 21: 21). 

(ἢ NoUNS IN THE PREDICATE. These may have the article 
also. As already explained, the article is not essential to speech. 
It is, however, ‘invaluable as a means of gaining precision, e.g. 
θεὸς ἦν ὁ Noyos.”? As a rule the predicate is without the article, 
even when the subject uses it. Cf. ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι (Lu. 7:8). 
This is in strict accord with the ancient idiom.’ Gildersleeve (Syn- 
tax, p. 324) notes that the predicate is usually something new and 
therefore the article is not much used except in convertible prop- 
ositions. Winer,’ indeed, denies that the subject may be known 
from the predicate by its having the article. But the rule holds 
wherever the subject has the article and the predicate does not. 
The subject is then definite and distributed, the predicate indefi- 
nite and undistributed. The word with the article is then the 
subject, whatever the order may be. So in Jo. 1:1, θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, 
the subject is perfectly clear. Cf. 6 λόγος σὰρξ ἔγένετο (Jo. 1: 14). 
It is true also that ὁ θεὸς ἣν ὁ λόγος (convertible terms) would have 


1 K.-G., I, p. 268 f.; Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 280f. The neuter article with 
the gen. is extremely common in Herod. Cf. Stauraté, Uber den Gebr. d. Gen. 
bei Herod., p. 25. 

2 Milden, The Limitations of the Pred. Position in Gk., p. 9 f. 

8 Cf. Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 46; Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 325. 

4 Winer-Moulton, p. 142. 


768 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


been Sabellianism.! See also ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν (1 Jo. 4:16). “God” 
and “love” are not convertible terms any more than “God” and 
“Logos” or ‘‘ Logos” and ‘‘flesh.”” Cf. also of θερισταὶ ἄγγελοί εἰσιν 
(Mt. 18 : 39), 6 λόγος ὁ σὸς ἀλήθειά ἐστιν (Jo. 17:17), ὁ νόμος ἁμαρτία; 
(Ro. 7:7). The absence of the article here is on purpose and 
essential to the true idea. Cf. also ἀνθρωποκτόνος and ψεύστης (Jo. 8 : 
44). In Eph. 5: 28, ἀνήρ ἐστιν κεφαλή, the context makes it clear 
(W. H. marg. ἀνὴρ κεφαλή ἐστιν) that ἀνήρ is subject even without the 
article. In Jo. 9:34, ἐν ἁμαρτίαις σὺ ἔγεννήθης ὅλος, the article with 
ὅλος is not needed, a neat use of the predicate adjective. But the 
article is quite frequent with the predicate in the N. T. and in 
strict accord with old usage. It is not mere haphazard, however, 
as Winer rather implied. Hence W. F. Moulton,’ in his note to 
Winer, properly corrects this error. He finds that when the article 
is used in the predicate the article is due to a previous mention of 
the noun (as well known or prominent) or to the fact that subject 
and predicate are identical. The words that are identical are 
convertible as in the older idiom.t’ If he had added what is in 
Winer-Schmiedel,® that the article also occurs when it is the only 
one of its kind, he would have said all that is to be said on the 
subject. But even here Moulton’s rule of identity and converti- 
bility apply. The overrefinement of Winer-Schmiedel’s many sub- 
divisions here is hardly commendable. YIn a word, then, when 
the article occurs with subject (or the subject is a personal pro- 
noun or proper name) and predicate, both are definite, treated 
as identical, one and the same, and interchangeable. The usage 
applies to substantives, adjectives and participles indifferently. 
Cf. 6 λύχνος τοῦ σὠματός ἐστιν ὁ ὀφθαλμός (Mt. 6 : 22), ὑμεῖς ἐστὲ τὸ 
ἅλας τῆς γῆς (Mt. 5:13), ὁ δὲ ἀγρός ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος (18 : 88), σὺ εἶ ὁ 
Χριστός (16 : 16), εἷς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός (19:17), τίς ἄρα ἐστὶν ὁ πιστὸς 
δοῦλος (24 : 45), τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου, τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου (26 : 26, 
28), σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεύς (27:11), σὺ εἶ ὁ vids μου (Mk. 1 : 11), οὐχ οὗτός 
ἐστιν ὁ τέκτων (6:3), οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ κληρονόμος (12:7), οὐ γάρ ἐστε 
ὑμεῖς οἱ λαλοῦντες (18 : 11), ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς (Jo. 1:4), ὁ προφήτης. 
εἶ σὺ (1 : 21), σὺ εἶ ὁ διδάσκαλος (3 : 10), οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ προφήτης (6 : 14), 
οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄρτος (6 : 50; οἵ. 51), τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν τὸ ζωοποιοῦν (6 : θ8), 
ἔγώ εἰμι τὸ φῶς (ὃ : 12), οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ καθήμενος (9:8; cf. 190 1), 
ἔγὠ εἰμι ἡ θύρα (10 : 7), ἔγώ εἰμι ὁ ποιμήν (10:11), eyo εἰμι ἡ ἀνάστασις 
καὶ ἡ ζωή (11: 25, note both articles), ἔγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ 
1 See per contra, Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 48. 2 W.-M., p. 142. 


ὃ Cf. Donaldson, New Crat., p. 522; Middleton, Gk. Art., p. 54. 
4 Thompson, Synt., p. 46. σὰ 9100: 


THE ARTICLE (TO “APOPON) 769 


ἡ ζωή (14:6, note three separate articles), ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν ἀγαπῶν 
με (14:21), οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ λίθος (Ac. 4:11), οὗτός ἐστιν ἡ δύναμις 
(8 :10), οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ πορθήσας (9:21), οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος 
(21:28), οὐκ ἄρα σὺ εἶ ὁ Αἰγύπτιος (21:38), ἡ κεφαλὴ ὁ Χριστός 
ἐστιν (1 Cor. 11:38), ὁ δὲ κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν (2 Cor. 8 : 17), αὐτός 
ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν (Ρἢ. 2: 14), θεός ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν (Ph. 2:13), 
ἡμεῖς γάρ ἐσμεν ἡ περιτομή (3:3), ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία (1 Jo. 
5. :4), ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ Λλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ (Rev. 1: 8), ἔγώ εἰμι ὁ πρῶτος καὶ 
ὁ ἔσχατος (1 : 17, note both articles), σὺ εἶ 6 ταλαΐπωρος (ὃ : 17), ete. 
This list is not exhaustive, but it is sufficient to illustrate the points 
involved. Note ὁ βασιλεύς (Mt. 27:11) and βασιλεύς (Jo. 1:49). Even 
the superlative adjective may have the article as in Rev. 1: 17 above. 
But see of ἔσχατοι πρῶτοι καὶ of πρῶτοι ἔσχατοι (Mt. 20 : 16) for the 
usual construction. Cf. ἐσχάτη ὥρα (1 Jo. 2:18). See further ἐν 
ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις, Jas. 5:3; 2 Tim. 3:15 ἐν καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ, 1 Pet. 1:5, 
and τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, Jo. 6:39. For the common predicate accu- 
sative see chapter XI (Cases), vit, (ἡ). In the N. T. most examples 
are anarthrous (Jo. 5:11; 15:15), and note 1 Cor. 4:9 ἡμᾶς τοὺς 
ἀποστόλους ἐσχάτους ἀπέδειξεν. Cf. Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 326. 

(2) DistriputivE. Cf. ἐκ dyvapiov τὴν ἡμέραν (Mt. 20 : 2), ἅπαξ 
τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ (Heb. 9:7), dis τοῦ σαββάτου (Lu. 18:12), ἑπτάκις 
τῆς ἡμέρας (Lu. 17:4). This is, to be sure, an ancient idiom fa- 
miliar also to the English (cf. our “‘by the yard,” “by the pound,” 
ete.). It is found in the papyri.! But ἕκαστος is not used in the 
N. T. with the article. Cf. of καθ᾽ ἕνα ἕκαστος (Eph. 5 : 33). We 
have once ἀμφότερα τὰ πλοῖα (Lu. 5:7), and several times of ἀμφό- 
τεροι (Eph. 2 : 18), τὰ ἀμφότερα (2:14). Cf. τοὺς δύο in Eph. 2 : 15. 
Cf. Thompson, Syntax of Attic Gk., p. 51. 

(k) NOMINATIVE WITH THE ARTICLE=VocATIVE. This matter 
was sufficiently discussed in the chapter on Cases. It is an occa- 
sional Greek idiom repeated in the Hebrew and Aramaic regu- 
larly and frequent in N. T. As examples see vai, ὁ πατήρ (Mt. 
11 : 26), τὸ ἄλαλον καὶ κωφὸν πνεῦμα (Mk. 9 : 25), ἡ παῖς (Lu. 8 : 54), 
ὁ βασιλεύς (Jo. 19 : 8). 

(l) As THE EQUIVALENT OF A POSSESSIVE PRONOUN. The 
article does not indeed mean possession. The nature of the case 
makes it plain that the word in question belongs to the person 
mentioned. The French can say 7᾽ αἱ mal ἃ la téte, ἀλγῶ τὴν 
κεφαλήν. The examples in the N. T. are rather numerous. See, 


1 Vélker, Synt. d. griech. Pap., p. 8. Vélker notes also the presence of 
ἕκαστος or Of ἀνά, κατά, ἐκ, πρός. 


2 Cf. Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 16. See K.-G., I, p. 556. 


770 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


for instance, ἀπενίψατο τὰς χεῖρας (Mt. 27: 24; οἵ. Lu. 13:13). In 
Mt. 4:20 we have τὰ δίκτυα, while in verse 21 we find τὰ δίκτυα 
αὐτῶν. Cf. κατέσεισε τῇ χειρί (Ac. 21:40; cf. Mk. 7: 32), τὸν υἱὸν τὸν 
μονογενῇ (Jo. 3:16), τῷ vot δουλεύω (Ro. 7:25), τοῦ πατρός (1 Cor. 
5:1), Τίτον καὶ rov ᾿ἀδελφόν (2 Cor. 12:18; ef. also 8:18).! Cf. 
Mt. 8:3; Jo.1: 41. 

(m) WiTtH PossEsstvE Pronouns. The article is always used 
in the N. T. with these pronouns unless the pronoun is predicate. 
So ra ἐμὰ πάντα σά ἐστιν καὶ τὰ σὰ ἐμά (JO. 17:10) ἡμέτερος (Ac. 
2:11) and ὑμέτερος (Jo. 7:6; cf. Lu. 6: 20). The article is fre- 
quently repeated as in ὁ, καιρὸς ὁ ἐμός (Jo. 7: 6). It was usual 
with possessives in the ancient Greek.? The Gospel of John shows 
ὁ ἐμός very frequently. Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 65f. With ἴδιος 
the article is customary, as in els τὴν ἰδίαν πόλιν (Mt. 9:1). This 
construction is very common in the N. T. A few times we mect 
ἴδιος Without the article, as in ἰδίοις ὀψωνίοις (1 Cor. 9:7), καιροῖς 
ἰδίοις (1 Tim. 2:6). The anarthrous examples may be only mem- 
bers of a class, not the particular individual in the case. See 
further ch. XV, Pronouns. 

(n) τη Αὐτός. It is only necessary to mention the order 
αὐτὴ ἡ κτίσις (Ro. 8:21), and ἡ αὐτὴ capé (1 Cor. 15 : 39), to set 
forth the distinction in the position of the article with αὐτός. So 
αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα (Ro. 8 : 26), but τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα (1 Cor. 12:8). See 
Pronouns. 

(0) τη DEmMonstTRATIVES. The essential facts have been al- 
ready stated in the chapter on Pronouns. Here a bare summary 
is sufficient. “Ode occurs in the N. T. once with the article, eis τήνδε 
τὴν πόλιν (Jas.4:13). The usual position of the demonstrative 
with the article has already been discussed also. It may be re- 
peated here that we must not confuse this predicate (appositional) 
position of οὗτος, ἐκεῖνος with the ordinary predicate position of 
adjectives. The construction may be paralleled to some extent 
by the French la république francaise. Still in Homer? τοῦτον τὸν 
avadtov=‘this man,’ avadros, ‘that he is.’ Here we probably see 
the origin of the idiom οὗτος ὁ. So fixed did the usage become that 
in the Attic inscriptions the construction is uniform.4 The Beeotian 
inscriptions reveal the same thing.» The order is immaterial, 


« « 


whether ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος (Lu. 2 : 25) or οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος (14 : 80). 
1 Cf. A. Souter, art. Luke, Hastings’ D.C.G., who takes rév=‘his,’ i.e. 
Luke. For pap. exx. see Vélker, Synt. d. griech. Pap., p. 7. 


2 Thompson, Gk. Synt., p. 51. 4 Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 231. 
8 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 181. 6 Claflin, Synt. of B.D. Inser., p. 42. 


THE ARTICLE (TO “APOPON) 771 


In general it may be noted that the absence of the article with 
the noun means that οὗτος is a real predicate, as in Jo. 2:11, 
ταὑτην ἐποίησεν ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων. Cf. Lu. 24:21; Ac. 1:5. Even 
with proper names the article occurs, as in οὗτος ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς (Ac. 
1:11). For further details see chapter on Pronouns. It may be 
remarked that the rigidity apparent in the use of the article in 
connection with οὗτος and ἐκεῖνος does not exist in the case of the 
correlative demonstratives. The article is wanting in the N. T. 
in connection with τοιόσδε and τηλικοῦτος. Tosodros occurs once 
only with the article, a true attributive, ὁ τοσοῦτος πλοῦτος (Rev. 
18:16). Τοιοῦτος, on the other hand, usually appears with the 
article and in the attributive position, as in τῶν τοιούτων παιδίων 
(Mk. 9:37), though once the predicate position is found, aé δυνάμεις 
“τοιαῦται (Mk. 6:2). Most of the examples have no substantive, 
like of τοιοῦτοι (Ro. 16:18), τὰ τοιαῦτα (Gal. 5: 21). 

(p) τη Ὅλος, Ids (“Azras). “Aas is found chieflyin Luke and 
Acts. The MSS. vary greatly between ἅπας and πᾶς. The text 
of W. H. now has πᾶς in the margin (Lu. 9 : 15), now ἅπας (15 : 18). 
Blass! fails to find any satisfactory rule for the use of ἅπας, the 
Attic distinction of ἅπας after a consonant and πᾶς after a vowel 
not holding (cf. Lu. 1 : 3), though in general ἅπας does occur (when 
used at all) after a consonant (cf. Mt. 6 : 82). “Aas, when used 
with a substantive in the N. T., is always with the article. Once 
only does it-appear in the attributive position, τὴν ἅπασαν μακροθυ- 
μίαν (1 Tim. 1:16), ‘the total sum of his long-suffering.’ Else- 
where we have either the order ὁ λαὸς ἅπας (Lu. 19 : 48) or ἅπαντα 
τὸν λαόν (Lu. 3:21). If οὗτος also is used, we have τὴν ἐξουσίαν 
ταύτην ἅπασαν (Lu. 4:6). Cf. of αὐτοῦ ἅπαντες (Ac. 16 : 33). 

The construction of πᾶς is varied and interesting. It is an ex- 
ceedingly common adjective in all parts of the N. T. In general 
it may be said that the idiom of the N. T. is in harmony with the 
ancient Greek in the use of πᾶς and the article.? In the singular 
mas may be used without the article in the sense of ‘every.’ So 
πάντα πειρασμόν (Lu. 4:13), πᾶν στόμα (Ro. 3:19), πᾶσαν συνείδησιν 
ἀνθρώπων (2 Cor. 4 : 2), πᾶν δένδρον (Mt. 3:10), etc. Blass® dis- 
tinguishes between éxkacros=‘each individual’ and 7as=‘any one 
you please.’ 

Πᾶς 6=‘all.’ So πᾶσα ἡ πόλις (Mt. 8 : 84) = ‘all the city’ (dre ganze 
Stadt). This is the order and it is very common. Cf. πᾶσαν τὴν 

1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 161. Cf. Diels, G6tt. Gel.-Anz., 1894, pp. 298 ff. 


2 Cf. K.-G., I, pp. 631 ff. 
esGracis Ns. Gk:, p) 161. 4 W.-Sch., p. 187. 


772 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


γῆν (Mt. 27:45), παντὶ τῷ οἴκῳ (Ac. 10:2). Even without the ar- 
ticle πᾶς may be ‘all,’ if it is a proper noun, like πᾶσα ᾿Ιεροσόλυμα 
(Mt. 2:3), τᾶς ᾿Ισραήὴλ (Ro. 11.:26). In Ac. 2:36, ras olfkos 
Ἰσραήλ, there is only one “house of Israel,” so that ‘all’ is the 
idea. Winer! says that it is treated as a proper name. Abstract 
substantives also may be used with or without the article. There 
is very little difference in idea between πάσῃ γνώσει (1 Cor. 1 : δ) 
and πᾶσαν τὴν γνῶσιν (1 Cor. 13:2). With the abstract word 
“every” and “all” amount practically to the same thing. There 
is an element of freedom in the matter. So πᾶσαν τὴν πίστιν (1 
Cor. 13: 2), but πάσῃ σοφίᾳ (Ac. 7:22). There may indeed be 
occasionally the difference between a specific instance like πάσῃ τῇ 
θλίψει ἡμῶν (2 Cor. 1:4) and a general situation like πάσῃ θλίψει 
(ib.).2 But see πάσῃ ὑπομονῇ (2 Cor. 12: 12), πάσῃ ἁγνίᾳ (1 Tim. 
5:2), μετὰ παρρησίας πάσης (Ac. 4 : 29), etc. See also πᾶσα σἀρξΞΞ 
“wa-b> (Lu. 8 : 6), usually with οὐ (Mt. 24 : 22). But note again 
πληρῶσαι πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην (Mt. 3:15) and πάσης τῆς προσδοκίας 
(Ac. 12:11). See πᾶσα ἐξουσία (Mt. 28:18), πάσης πλεονεξίας 
(Lu. 12:15). Cf. 2 Tim. 1:15. In Ph. 1:3, χάση τῇ weia; the 
article is pertinent as in πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις (Ro. 8:22). But in Col. 
1:15, 23; 1 Pet. 2 : 13 πᾶσα κτίσις has its true idea of ‘every created 
thing.’ But what about πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως (Col. 1 : 15)? 
See also Col.1:9 ff. and πᾶσαν χαράν (Jas. 1:2). Other examples 
somewhat open to doubt are πᾶσα οἰκοδομὴ (Eph. 2 : 21) which is 
most probably ‘every building’ because of εἰς ναόν. So in Eph. 
3:15 πᾶσα πατριά is ‘every family,’ though ‘all the family’ is 
possible. In 2 Tim. 3:16 πᾶσα γραφή is ‘every Scripture,’ if 
separate portions are referred to. Cf. Jo. 19:37, ἑτέρα γραφή. 
Usually in the singular in the Ν. T. we have ἡ γραφή, but twice 
γραφή occurs alone as definite without the article, once in 1 Pet. 
2:6, ἐν γραφῇ, once in 2 Pet. 1:20, γραφῆς. Twice in the plural 
(Ro. 1:2; 16:26) the article is absent. In Col. 4:12 ἐν παντὶ θελή- 
ματι τοῦ θεοῦ it is ‘every,’ ‘whatever be the will of God for you’ 
(Moffatt). In Jas. 1:17, πᾶσα δόσις, we have ‘every,’ as in παντὸς 
προσώπου (Ac. 17:26).3 

Πᾶς ὁ and the participle is a very common construction in the 
N. T. Here the idea is ‘every,’ and 6 and the participle are in 
apposition. Thus πᾶς ὁ ἀκούων (Mt. 7: 26) is practically equivalent 
to πᾶς ὅστις ἀκούει (7:24). Cf. πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόμενος (Mt. 5 : 22), πᾶς ὁ 


1 W.-Th., p. 111ὖ- Cf.1Sam.7:2f. Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 162) calls 
this imitation of Hebrew. 
2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 162. 3 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 187. 


THE ARTICLE (TO “APOPON) 773 


βλέπων (5 : 28), πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων (5 : 32), πᾶς ὁ αἰτῶν (7:8), ete. But 
sometimes we find πᾶς without the article as in παντὸς ἀκούοντος 
(Mt. 13:19), παντὶ ὀφείλοντι (Lu. 11:4), where some MSS. read 
τῷ. See παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι (Ro. 1:16). The abstract neuter πᾶν 
τό is regular. So πᾶν τὸ εἰσπορευόμενον (Mt. 15:17), πᾶν τὸ ὀφειλό- 
μενον (18 : 34). Cf. πᾶν ὅ in Jo. 6 : 37, 39. 

The idiom ὁ 7és=‘the whole,’ ‘the totality,’ is not frequent in 
the singular. It occurs twice.! See τὸν πάντα χρόνον (Ac. 20:18), 
ὁ mas νόμος (Gal. 5: 14), das gesamte Gesetz.2 Cf. also Barn. 4:9, ὁ 
πᾶς χρόνος. Here the whole is contrasted with a part. ‘O πᾶς νόμος ΞΞ 
‘the entire law,’ ‘the whole law.’ It was never so common a con- 
struction in the ancient Greek? as πᾶς ὁ. 

In the plural πάντες is used sometimes without the article. The 
article is not necessary with proper names, like πάντες ᾿Αθηναῖοι 
(Ac. 17:21). Cf. πάντες ᾿Ιουδαῖοι (26:4). But the article is absent 
elsewhere also, aS in πάντες ἐργάται ἀδικίας (Lu. 13:27), πάντας 
ἀνθρώπους (Ac. 22:15; cf. Ro. 5:12, 18), πᾶσιν ἀγαθοῖς (Gal. 6:6; 
οἵ. πᾶσιν τοῖς in 38:10), πάντων ἁγίων (Eph. 3:8), πάντες ἄγγελοι 
(Heb. 1:6). These examples are not numerous, however. Cf. 
1 Pet. 2:1; 2 Pet. 3:16. Blass* considers it a violation of clas- 
sical usage not to have the article in Eph. 3:8 and 2 Pet. 3 : 16, 
because of the adjectives, and in Lu. 4:20, πάντων ἐν τῇ συνα- 
γωγῇ, because of the adjunct. But that objection applies chiefly to 
the literary style. See of ἅγιοι πάντες (2 Cor. 18:12). The usual 
construction is πᾶσαι αἱ yeveat (Mt. 1:17), πάντας τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς 
(2:4), etc. Sometimes we have the other order like τὰς πόλεις 
πάσας (Mt. 9:35). Cf. 2 Cor. 13:12. Πᾶς may be repeated with 
separate words (Mt. 3:5). For the use with the participle see 
Mt.8:16. A few examples of the attributive position are found, 
like of πάντες ἄνδρες (Ac. 19 : 7)=‘the total number of the men,’ as 
in the ancient idiom. See, also, αἱ πᾶσαι ψυχαί (Ac. 27: 37), τοὺς σὺν 
αὐτοῖς πάντας ἁγίους (Ro. 16:15), of σὺν ἐμοὶ πάντες ἀδελφοί (Gal. 
1:2), τοὺς πάντας ἡμᾶς (2 (ὑοΥ. ὅ : 10). The last example=‘we the 
whole number of us.’ Cf. Ac. 21:21. 

But we also find of πάντες without a substantive, as in 2 Cor. 5: 
mie) Core9 322" Ro. 11732; Eph; 4:18; Ph. 2:21. In 1 Cor.10:17, 
οἱ πάντες ἐκ TOD ἑνὸς ἄρτου μετέχομεν, NOte the contrast with τοῦ ἑνός. 
Still more common is τὰ πάντα for ‘the sum of things,’ ‘the all.’ 
ΕΓ 8), 02;711:36;,1 Cor. 11:12; 12:6, 19 (οἵ. here τὰ πάντα 


1 Green, Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 192. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 189. 
2 W.-Sch., p. 189. 
. 3 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 52 f. SCraomNalaGkyipes 161... 


774 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


and ἕν); 2 Cor. 5:18; Col. 1:17, etc. The use of πάντες alone 
(1 Cor. 12 : 29), or of πάντα (1 Cor. 13:7), calls for no comment. 

The story of ὅλος is brief. It is never attributive in position in 
the N. T. It has also an indefinite meaning which πᾶς does not 
have. Thus ἐνιαυτὸν ὅλον (Ac. 11: 26)=‘a whole year.’ Πᾶς does 
not have this idea apart from the article. So Jo. 7:23, ὅλον ἄν- 
θρωπον ὑγιῆ, ‘a whole man sound.’! Cf. Lu. 5:5; Ac. 28:30. In 
Mk. 12:30 compare ἐξ ὅλης καρδίας (ἐν ὅλῃ καρδίᾳ, Mt. 22 : 37) 
with ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχῆς. In this sense the plural also is found as in 
ὅλους οἴκους (Tit. 1:11). One may compare ὅλη ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ (Ac. 
21:31), with πᾶσα Ιεροσόλυμα (Mt. 2:3). We usually have in 
the N. T. the order ὅλη ἡ πόλις (Mk. 1: 33), but sometimes ἡ 
πόλις ὅλη (Ac. 21:30). Sometimes we have ὅλος and πᾶς in the 
same sentence as in 2 Cor. 1:1; 1 Th. 4:10. The word may be 
repeated several times (Mt. 22:37; Mk. 12:30, 33). It occurs 
alone also as a predicate (Jo. 9 : 34), or with τοῦτο (Mt. 1: 22). 

(gq) τη Πολύς. There is a peculiar use of the article with 
πολύς that calls for a word. The regular construction with the 
article (attributive) like τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος (1 Pet. 1: 3) occurs in 
the singular (cf. ὁ τὸ πολύ, 2 Cor. 8 : 15) and much more frequently 
in the plural. So of πολλοὶ alone (Ro. 5:15; 12:5; Heb. 12: 15; 
1 Cor. 10:17), τὰ πολλά (Ro. 15: 22). With the substantive added 
note ὑδάτων πολλῶν (Rev. 17:1), af ἁμαρτίαι αἱ πολλαί (Lu. 7: 47), 
τὰ πολλὰ γράμματα (Ac. 26:24). This is all in harmony with 
classic idiom? as well as the frequent use of πολύς without the ar- 
ticle in an indefinite sense. But in ὁ ὄχλος πολύς (Jo. 12:9, 12) 
Moulton? finds ‘‘a curious misplacement of the article.” Moulton 
cites a piece of careless Greek from Par.P. 60, ἀπὸ τῶν πληρωμάτων 
ἀρχαίων. It is possible that ὄχλος πολύς came to be regarded as one 
idea. Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 284) cites a few rare attributive 
examples of the type ὁ ἀνὴρ ἀγαθός from Homer and Atschylus 
where the adjective is appositive rather than predicative. The 
Homeric examples may be demonstrative. One may note also 
ἐκ Ths ματαίας ὑμῶν ἀναστροφῆς πατροπαραδότου (1 Pet. 1:18) and ὑπὸ 
Ths λεγομένης περιτομῆς ἐν σαρκὶ χειροποιήτου (Eph. 2:11). See 
vi, (c), 5. We do find the usual order 6 πολὺς ὄχλος in Mk. 12: 
37. But it is a fact that ὄχλος πολύς is the usual order in the 
NOT) (Mt. 26 94759 ΜΙ: ΤΑΙ ΕΘ ΟΠ ΟΠ 
analogy of πᾶς, ὅλος, οὗτος may have played some part in the matter. 
For ὄχλοι πολλοί see Mt. 19: 2; Lu. 14:25. In Mt. 21:8 (parallel 


1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 190. 
2 Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 53. 8 Prol., p. 84. 


THE ARTICLE (TO "APOPON) 775 


with Mk. 12 : 37, ὁ πολὺς ὄχλος) we have ὁ πλεῖστος ὄχλος, but it 
is difficult to lay much stress on this point of variation. One is 
reminded of the constant French idiom, but that is merely an 
independent parallel. The idiom of πλείονες may be seen in 1 Cor. 
9:19. See further ch. XIV. 

(r) “Axpos, Ἥμισυς, ἔσχατος, Μέσος. ΑΒ to ἄκρος, it does not 
appear as an adjective in the N. T. In Lu. 16:24 and Heb. 11: 21 
τὸ ἄκρον is a substantive. The same thing is probably true of ἄκρου 
and ἄκρων in Mk. 13:27 and Mt. 24:31. This is in harmony with 
the Septuagint (Ex. 29:20; Is. 5:26).1 The same situation is 
repeated in the case of ἥμισυς. Cf. ἕως ἡμίσους τῆς βασιλείας (Mk. 
6 : 23), ἥμισυ καιροῦ (Rev. 12:14). Cf. ἥμισυ alone (Rev. 11:9, 11). 
But ἔσχατος is used attributively as in ἡ ἐσχάτη πλάνη (Mt. 27: 64), 
τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ (Jo. 6:39, etc.), τὸ ἔσχατον λεπτόν (Lu. 12 : 59), 
etc. The construction ὁ ἔσχατος alone (Rev. 2:8) and τὰ ἔσχατα 
τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (Lu. 11:26) is classical.2 So is indeed also πάντων 
ἔσχατος (Mk. 9:35), ἐν καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ (1 Pet. 1:5). Ἐπ᾿ ἐσχά- 
του τῶν ἡμερῶν (Heb. 1: 2) is probably a substantive use. But 
in 2 Pet. 3:3 ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν we may have the parti- 
tive construction in the predicate position. There is no doubt of 
it as to μέσος. Here also we find usually τὸ μέσον (like τὸ ἄκρον 
above) absolutely (Mk. 3:3), or the various prepositional phrases 
like εἰς μέσον (Mk. 14: 60), ἐν μέσῳ (Mk. 6 : 47), διὰ μέσου (Lu. 4: 30), 
ava μέσον (Mk. 7:31), κατὰ μέσον (Ac. 27: 27), ἐκ μέσου (Mt. 18 : 49) 
or μέσον as preposition (Ph. 2:15). But the old partitive construc- 
tion occurs in μέσης νυκτός (Mt. 25:6), ἡμέρας μέσης (Ac. 26 : 19) 
without the article. The true predicate is found in τὸ καταπέτασμα 
τοῦ ναοῦ μέσον (Lu. 23:45). So μέσος in Ac. 1:18. Cf. also τὸ 
πλοῖον μέσον τῆς θαλάσσης (Mt. 14 : 24, marge. W. H.), where μέσον 
is probably a preposition. In Jo. 19 : 18, μέσον τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν, we have 
‘Jesus in the midst.’ There is, however, no example in the N. T. 
like the old classic idiom which is seen in the LXX. Cf. ἐκ μέσης 
τῆς πόλεως (Kizek. 11: 23).2 See also ch. XIV. 

(s) Witn ἼΛλλος AND “ἕτερος. The article is frequent with 
ἄλλος but never in the sense of ‘the rest of,’ like ancient Greek. 
But of ἄλλοι (1 Cor. 14:29) is close to it. It is used where only 
two are meant, as in 6 Πέτρος καὶ ὁ ἄλλος μαθητής (Jo. 20:3, ἡ ἄλλη 
Μαρία (Mt. 28:1). The order ὁ μαθητὴς ὁ ἄλλος Occurs (Jo. 18 : 16). 
Cf. also rod ἄλλου τοῦ συνσταυρωθέντος (Jo. 19:32) where the ar- 
ticle is repeated, like rots λοιποῖς τοῖς, etc. (Rev. 2:24). Blass* 

1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 190. yf Ib.; Thompson, Synt., p. 58. 
3510. 4 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 180. 


776 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


says that no Attic writer would have said ταῖς ἑτέραις πόλεσιν Ξε 
‘the remaining cities’ (Lu. 4:43). He considers eis τὴν ἑτέραν 
(Mt. 10:23 SB) “incorrect” for ‘the next’ city, as well as ὁ 
érepos=‘the third’ in Lu. 19:20. But it is not the use of the ar- 
ticle here that displeases Blass, but the free interchange of ἄλλος 
and ἕτερος in the κοινή. See ch. XV, Pronouns. 

(ἢ Μόνος. This need detain us but a moment. The essential 
facts are succinctly given by Winer-Schmiedel.! Without the ar- 
ticle μόνος occurs usually even with proper names, as ᾿Ιησοῦς μόνος 
(Lu. 9:36). So μόνῳ θεῷ (Ro. 16:27; 1 Tim. 1:17). But the pred- 
icate use occurs also. So Mt. 12:4 rots ἱερεῦσι μόνοις; (24 : 36) ὁ 
πατὴρ μόνος (NBD); μόνοι of μαθηταί (Jo. 6:22); μόνος ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς 
(Heb. 9:7). The articular attributive use is found a few times, 
as)in τοῦ" μόνου, θεοῦ (Jo..5 3 44). δ Ὁ Jo 1/313 Fie mabe bot 
Ju. 4. See ch. XIV. 

VI. Position with Attributives. The article does not make a 
word or phrase attributive. It may be attributive without the 
article. It is necessary to go over much of the same ground again 
(Adjectives and Participles, Genitives, Adverbs and Adjuncts) in 
order to get the subject clearly before us. 

(a) WitH ADJECTIVES. So ἔργον ἀγαθόν (Ph. 1:6) is attribu- 
tive=‘a good work,’ though it is anarthrous. Cf. also ἔργοις 
ἀγαθοῖς (Eph. 2:10). Cf. μικρὰ ζύμη (1 Cor. 5:6). But when the 
article is used before a word or phrase there is no doubt about its 
being attributive. 

1. The Normal Position of the Adjective. It is between the 
article and the substantive, as in τὸ καλὸν ὄνομα (Jas. 2:7), ὁ 
ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος (Mt. 12:35), τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα (18: 20). In this normal 
attributive type the adjective receives greater emphasis than the 
substantive.? Cf. correct text in Lu. 12:12; 1 Cor. 10:3; 1 Jo. 5: 
20. So τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ (1 Tim. 1:10). There must be a 
special reason for the other construction.’ 

2. The Other Construction (Repetition of the Article). In the 
order* ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός (Jo. 10:11) both substantive and adjective 
receive emphasis and the adjective is added as a sort of climax in 
apposition with a separate article. Cf. 6 vids μου 6 ἀγαπητός (Mt. 


ΣΡ, 1900. 510. Blass,.Grz of ΝΟ ΟΡ. 1655: 

8 Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 47. 

4 For copious classical exx. of both positions see Gildersleeve, Syntax, 
p. 281 f. 

5 In Jas. 8 : 7, τῇ φύσει τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ, the repeated article makes for greater 
clearness. 


THE ARTICLE (TO “APOPON) (ite 


17:5), τὴν γῆν τὴν ἀγαθήν (Lu. 8:8), τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν (Jo. 1: 9), 
τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ζῶν (4:11), ὁ καιρὸς ὁ ἐμός (7: 0), ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινή 
(15 : 1), τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ πονηρόν (Ac. 19:15). Cf. also Mt. 6 : 6; Lu. 
τι ΟΣ ΟΣ 121.91: 2). ΟΣ (603 7; Eph. 67137 Col. 
1:21; Heb. 13: 20;.1 Jo. 1:2; 2:25;4:9. There is an apparent 
difficulty in Heb. 9 : 1, τό τε ἅγιον κοσμικόν, which may be compared 
with ὁ ὄχλος πολύς above (Jo. 12:9). Perhaps both ἅγιον and 
κοσμικόν were felt to be adjectives. 

3. Article Repeated Several Times. So in Ac. 12:10, τὴν πύλην 
τὴν σιδηρᾶν THY φέρουσαν. Cf. τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον τὸ ἡτοιμασμένον (Mt. 
26 :41), ὁ μαθητὴς ὁ ἄλλος ὁ γνωστός (Jo. 1δ : 16), τὴν ῥομφαίαν τὴν 
δίστομον τὴν ὀξεῖαν (Rev. 2:12). In particular note the repetition 
of the article in Heb. 11:12; Rev. 3:14; 17:1; 21:9. In Rev. 
1:5 note four articles, ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός, ὁ πρωτότοκος --- καὶ ὁ 
ἄρχων. Cf. Rev. 12:9; 1 Pet. 4:14. For this common classic 
idiom see Gildersleeve, Syntax, pp. 328 ff. In Ph.1:29, ὑμῖν ἐχα- 
ρίσθη τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, the two infinitives following, each with τό, 
explain the first 76. 

4. One Article with Several Adjectives. When several adjectives 
are used we find an article with each adjective if the adjectives 
accent different aspects sharply. So ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος καὶ ὁ 
ζῶν (Rev. 1:17; οἵ. 22:18). Cf. also 6 ὧν --- καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος (1:4, 
8). But ordinarily the one article is sufficient for any number of 
adjectives referring to the same substantive. So ὁ ταλαίπωρος καὶ 
éXewos Kal πτωχὸς Kal τυφλὸς Kal γυμνός (Rev. 3:17). In Mt. 24: 
45, ὁ πιστὸς δοῦλος καὶ φρόνιμος, the καὶ carries over the force of 
the article.2 So likewise the presence of another attribute may 
explain the probable predicate position πατροπαραδότου (1 Pet. 1: 
18) and χειροποιήτου (Eph. 2:11).3 See further (ὦ), 5. 

5. With Anarthrous Substantives. There is still another order.‘ 
It is εἰρήνην τὴν ἐμήν (Jo. 14:27). Here the substantive is indefinite 
and general, while the attribute makes a particular application. 
Cf. νόμος ὁ δυνάμενος (Gal. 8 : 21). Radermacher (NV. 7’. Gr., p. 93) 
finds this idiom frequent in the κοινή. So γυναῖκα τὴν εὐγενεστάτην 
{ΕΟ OLE 7eNe 2407913); 

6. With Participles. The participle may come between the ar- 
ticle and the substantive like the attributive adjective, as in τὴν 
ἡτοιμασμένην ὑμῖν βασιλείαν (Mt. 25:34). Cf. 1 Tim. 1:10; Ro. 
S183) 1 Cor12 722; 1 Pet. 1:18. On the other -hand. (cf. 5), 


1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 177. 
2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 160. 8 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 181. 
4 It is common enough in classic Gk. Cf. Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 283. 


778 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


all else may come between the article and the participle, as in 
1 Pet. 1:10, of — προφητεύσαντες. A long clause (including a rela- 
tive clause) may come between the article and the participle, as in 
Ro. 16 : 17, τοὺς --- ποιοῦντας. Once more, the participle may come 
in the midst of the attributive phrases, as in 1 Pet. 1:3, 6— ἀνα- 
γεννήσας, or immediately after the article, as in 2 Pet. 1:3. Either 
the participle or the modifier may occur outside of the attributive 
complex (Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 289f.). Gildersleeve gives co- 
pious illustrations of the various constructions of the attributive 
participle. The article may be repeated after the substantive, 
like τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ζῶν above (Jo. 4:11), of γραμματεῖς of — καταβάντες 
(Mk, 8:22). Cf. δι δεν leCor6is 25464) ΡΟ ΟΣ 
Ac. 7:37; Heb. 138: 20. The article may occur with the parti- 
ciple when not with the substantive. This supplementary ad- 
dition of the article is more common with the participle than 
with other adjectives.1 Cf. παιδίοις τοῖς ἐν ἀγορᾷ καθημένοις (Lu. 
7 : 82), γυναῖκες αἱ συνακολουθοῦσαι αὐτῷ (28 : 49), ἀγγέλου τοῦ ὀφθέντος 
αὐτῷ (Ac. 7:35), χρυσίου τοῦ ἀπολλυμένου (1 Pet. 1 : 7), and in 
particular οὐδὲ γὰρ ὄνομά ἐστιν ἕτερον τὸ δεδομένον (Ac. 4:12). Cf. 
also Ac. 1: 12; Gal. 3:21; Ro. 2:14 (ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα). But 
in θεοῦ τοῦ ἐγείραντος (Gal. 1:1), Χριστοῦ τοῦ δόντος (1: 8 f.), the 
proper names are definite without the article. So ’Inaody τὸν 
ῥυόμενον (1 Th. 1:10), etc. Participles in apposition with per- 
sonal pronouns may also have the article. Cf. ἔγώ εἰμι ὁ λαλῶν 
σοι (Jo. 4:26), τῷ θέλοντι ἐμοί (Ro. 7:21), σὺ ὁ κρίνων (Jas. 4: 
12), ἡμῖν τοῖς περιπατοῦσιν (Ro. 8:4), ἡμᾶς τοὺς πιστεύοντας (ΕΗ. 
1:19), αὐτοῖς τοῖς πιστεύουσιν (Jo. 1 : 12), ete. Note two articles 
in 1 Th. 4:15, 17, ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες οἱ περιλειπόμενοι. Cf. Eph. 1: 
12; 1 Jo. 5:18 (ὑμῦν»-ς τοῖς 7r.); 1 Cor. 8:10. The pronoun 
may not be expressed outside of the verb, as in ἔχωμεν᾽ of καταφυ- 
γόντες (Heb. 6:18; οἵ. 4 : 8). Cf., on the other hand, ἡμεῖς, ἀπορφα- 
νισθέντες (1 Th. 2:17). The article and participle may follow 
τινές, AS IN τινας τοὺς πεποιθότας (Lu. 18:9), τινές εἰσιν of ταράσσον- 
τες (Gal. 1: 7). If the substantive has the article and the par- 
ticiple is anarthrous, the participle may be (cf. above) predicate. 
So τὴν φωνὴν ἐνεχθεῖσαν (2 Pet. 1:18), rots πνεύμασιν — ἀπειθήσασιν 
(1 Pet. 3:19f.), ἁρπαγέντα τὸν τοιοῦτον (2 Cor. 12:2), τὸν ἄνδρα 
τοῦτον συλλημφθέντα (Ac. 23:27). Cf. Lu. 16:14; Jo. 4:6; Ro. 
2... 27:1 Cor! lint ὦ Core 322 Tilo Heb ΡΟ τ 
‘he presence of the article with the participle here would radically 
change the sense. The same article may be used with several par- 
1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 243. 


THE ARTICLE (TO "“APOPON) 779 


ticiples, as In τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντός με καὶ παραδόντος (Gal. 2 : 20), τῷ 
ἀγαπῶντι καὶ λύσαντι (Rev. 1:5). The use of the article with the 
participle in the predicate is illustrated by θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν τίς ὁ κα- 
τακρινῶν; (Ro. 8:33; cf. Jo. 5:45). In questions the pronoun, 
though coming first, may sometimes be really predicate. Then 
again the article may be absent from both substantive and parti- 
ciple (predicate or attributive), as In γυνὴ οὖσα (Mk. 5: 25), θεῷ 
ζῶντι (1 Th. 1:9), ἀνθρώπῳ οἰκοδομοῦντι (Lu. 6: 48). 

(ὃ) Wits GeEnitives. From the nature of the case the genitive 
as the genus-case is usually attributive. In general the construc- 
tion in the N. T. follows the ancient idiom.! 

1. The Position between the Article and the Substantive. This 
is common enough, and especially so in 1 and 2 Peter. So ἡ τοῦ 
θεοῦ μακροθυμία (1 Pet. 3:20); 1:17; 2:15, 3:1. See in partic- 
ular demonstrative pronouns like τῇ ἐκείνου χάριτι (Tit. 3:7). 
Plato (Soph., 254a) has τὰ τῆς τῶν πολλῶν ψυχῆς ὄμματα. For a 
series of such genitives in this position see 6 — κόσμος (1 Pet. 3:3). 
For adjective and genitive see 3:4, ὁ κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας ἄνθρωπος. 
CieMti2:: 30s") Pets τ “In 1’ Pet. 4:14 the article 15 re- 
peated, τὸ τῆς δόξης καὶ τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ πνεῦμα. See also Jo. 1:40, 
τῶν δύο τῶν ἀκουσάντον. 

2. Genitives after the Substantives without Repetition of the Ar- 
ticle.” This is even more common. ‘Thus τὸν φόβον τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων 
(Jo. 20:19), τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ θεοῦ (Ro. 8:39). Cf. 2 Cor. 4:4; Ro. 
8:2; 1Th.1:3. Sometimes the two types are combined, thus 
ἡ ἐπίγειος ἡμῶν οἰκία τοῦ σκήνους (2 Cor. 5:1), τῆς τῶν ἀποστόλων 
ὑμῶν ἐντολῆς τοῦ κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος (2 Pet. 3:2). The personal pro- 
nouns illustrate either order except that μου is nearly always out- 
side (but see τῶν πατρικῶν μου παραδόσεων, Gal. 1:14, and ἐν τῇ 
πρώτῃ μου ἀπολογίᾳ, 2 Tim. 4:16); either, as is usual, ὁ κύριός μου 
(Jo. 20 : 28) or μου τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς (Jo. 9:11). We find τῇ αὐτοῦ 
χάριτι (Ro. 8 : 24) and τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ (Mt. 1:21) and αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ 
ἀγάπῃ (Jo. 15:10. Cf. 9:6; 11:82), τὴν ἑαυτοῦ αὐλήν (Lu. 11: 
21) and τὴν σάρκα ἑαυτοῦ (Gal. 6:8), τὴν γενεὰν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ (Lu. 16: 
8) and ἑαυτῶν τὰ ἱμάτια (Mt. 21:8). Cf. also τὸ ὄνομά σου (Mt. 
6:9), ἡ δεξιά σου χείρ (Mt. 5:30; but not 5:29. Cf. also 1 Tim. 
5:23), cov τὴν κεφαλήν (Mt. 6:17), τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν (6:11), ὑμῶν 
τοῦ ἔργου (1 Th. 1:3), τὴν ὑμῶν ἀγάπην (Col. 1:8), etc. With the 
partitive the usual (but see Jo. 6:70; 9:16, 40) position is this: 
τὸ τρίτον τῆς γῆς (Rev. 8:7). Cf. 1 Cor. 15:9. 


1 Cf. K.-G., I, p. 597; Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 49. 
2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 159. 


780 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


3. Repetition of Article with Genitive. The genitive may fol- 
low the other substantive with a repeated article. Here the ar- 
ticle closely resembles the original demonstrative. So ὁ λόγος ὁ 
τοῦ σταυροῦ (1 Cor. 1 : 18), τῷ ἔθει τῷ Μωυσέως (Ac. 15+: 1), τὴν διδα- 
σκαλίαν τὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν (Tit. 2:10). This construction is 
not very common.! 

4. The Article Only with Genitive. Cf. ἐξουσίας καὶ ἐπιτροπῆς 
τῆς τῶν ἀρχιερέων (Ac. 26:12). Cf. Ac. 1:12, ὄρους τοῦ, with Lu. 
19 : 29, τὸ ὄρος 76. Here again the article is almost pure demon- 
strative as in Jas. 1:25, νόμον τέλειον τὸν τῆς ἐλευθερίας =‘ perfect 
law, that of liberty.’ Volker (Syntax, p. 16) finds abundant illus- 
trations of these positions in the papyri. So with proper names 
like Μαρία ἡ ᾿Ιακὠώβου (Mk. 15 : 40),. Aavelé τὸν τοῦ ᾽Ιεσσαί (Ac. 
13 : 22), etc. Cf. Mt. 4:21. | 

5. Article Absent with Both. The genitive may still be attribu- 
tive and both substantives definite. Cf. πύλαι ἅδου (Mt. 16 : 18), 
σημεῖον περιτομῆς (Ro. 4:11), νόμου πίστεως (8 : 27), ete. The con- 
text must decide whether the phrase is definite or not. Cf. θεοῦ 
υἱός (Mt. 27: 54), εὐεργεσίᾳ ἀνθρώπου (Ac. 4:9). 

6. The Correlation of the Article. In such cases, according to 
Middleton,? if two substantives are united by the genitive, the 
article occurs with both or is absent from both.? But note (H. 
Scott) that (1) the genitive may be anarthrous if it is a proper 
name, (2) the governing noun may be anarthrous if it depends 
on a preposition. The normal type may be well illustrated by 
τῷ νόμῳ τῆς ἁμαρτίας (Ro. 7:23) and νόμῳ ἁμαρτίας (7:25). The 
genitive ἁμαρτίας is an abstract noun which may or may not have 
the article. But vouw is definite in either instance in ‘the law of 
sin.’ See again τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ θεοῦ (7: 22) and νόμῳ θεοῦ (7: 25). Θεός 
can be definite with or without the article. So, again, τὸ φρόνημα 
Tov πνεύματος (8:6) and πνεῦμα θεοῦ, πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ (8:9), ὁμοιώματι 
σαρκός (8:3) and τὸ φρόνημα τῆς σαρκός (ὃ : 0). Cf. also ὁ νομός τοῦ 
πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς (8:2), τὴν ἐλευθερίαν τῆς δόξης τῶν τέκνῳν τοῦ θεοῦ 
(ὃ : 21), τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος (Ac. 2 : 38), βίβλος γενέσεως 
Ἰησοῦ» Χριατοῦ. (Mt. 1:1). Cf.1Th.1:3; ΠΥ 1:1. These ex- 
amples could be multiplied indefinitely. If one member of the 
group is a proper name, the article does not always appear. So 
τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ Θεσσαλονικέων (1 Th. 1:1), but ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Γαλα- 
τίας (Gal. 1: 2). Note also θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν (Eph. 1: 2) and ὁ θεὸς 

1 Blass, ΟΥ ΟἿΟΝ ΠΣ {τς ΠΡΟΣ 


2 The Doctrine of the Gk. Art., 1883. Cf. Mk. 10:25 ΥΥ. H. text and marg. 
8. Cf. W. F. Moulton’s remarks, W.-M., pp. 146, 174, 175. 


THE ARTICLE (TO "APOPON) 781 


καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν (1:3). Cf. also τὸ ἔργον Κυρίου (Ph. 2:30), 
τὸ πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ (1 Pet. 1:11; cf. Ac. 16:7). Such examples as 
these with proper names are after all ‘‘very rare.’”’! See Mt. 1: 
12; 16:13; Ac. 2:38; Rev. 12:17. Then again other phrases 
otherwise definite do not require the article. So the prepositional 
phrase ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ (Ro. 8:34; cf. Heb. 1:3), but note τῇ 
δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ (Ac. 2: 33)., In general, where the word without the 
article is not otherwise definite, it is indefinite even when the other 
one has the article. One is indefinite, the other definite. So 
ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων (Jo. 2:11)=‘a beginning of miracles.’ In Mk. 1: 
1, ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, the notion may be the same, 
though here ἀρχή is more absolute as the title of the book. In 
Ro. 3 : 25 it is possible to take εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ ‘for 
a showing of his righteousness,’ while in 3 : 26 πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν τῆς 
δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ may refer to the previous mention of it as a more 
definite conception. Compare also τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην (Ro. 10: 
3) and δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (3 : 21), where, however, as in 1:17, the idea 
may be, probably is, ‘a righteousness of God,’ not ‘the righteous- 
ness of God.’ In examples like this (cf. θεοῦ υἱός, Mt. 27: 54) only 
the context can decide. Sometimes the matter is wholly doubtful. 
Cf. vids ἀνθρώπου (Heb. 2 : 6) and τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (Mt. 16 : 13). 
In an example like διάκονος τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Col. 1:7), therefore, the 
idea is a minister of the Christ, not the minister of Christ. So odpa- 
γῖδα τῆς δικαιοσύνης (Ro. 4:11), ἁπλότητι τῆς κοινωνίας (2 Cor. 9:13). 
Hence υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (Mt. 4:3, 6; Lu. 4 : 8) and ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (Jo. 
1:49; Mt. 16:16; Jo. 11 : 27) do not mean the same thing. The 
devil is represented as admitting that Jesus is a son of God, not 
the Son of God. In Jo. 5:25 Jesus claims ὅτι of νεκροὶ ἀκούσουσιν 
Ths φωνῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ. In Jo. 10:36 Jesus uses argumentum 
ad hominem and only claims to be vids τοῦ θεοῦ. Cf. the sneer of 
the passers-by in Mt. 27: 40 ΟΥ̓. H.), υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, and the demand 
of Caiaphas in 26 : 63, ὁ vids τοῦ θεοῦ. In Jo. 5:27 vids ἀνθρώπου 
may be either ‘the son of man’ or ‘a son of man.’ Cf. a simi- 
lar ambiguity in the Aramaic barnasha. The point may become 
very fine indeed. Cf. παντὸς ἀνδρὸς ἡ κεφαλὴ ὁ Χριστός and κεφαλὴ 
γυναικὸς ὁ ἀνήρ (1 Cor. 11:3). At any rate man is not affirmed to 
be woman’s head in quite the same sense that Christ is man’s 
head. But see also κεφαλὴ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ θεός. In these examples 
the anarthrous substantive is predicate as 1s the case with ἀνήρ 
ἐστιν κεφαλὴ τῆς γυναικὸς ws Kal ὁ Χριστὸς κεφαλὴ τῆς ἐκκλησίας (Eph. 
5:23). Hence the matter is not to be stressed here, as another 
1 W.-M., footnote, p. 146. 


782 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


principle comes into play. It is possible also that the qualita- 
tive force of anarthrous nouns comes in here (Eph. 5 : 23, κεφαλὴ 
τῆς γυναικός, κεφαλὴ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, σωτὴρ τοῦ gwuaTos). See VII, (J). 
Cf. ξένοι τῶν διαθηκῶν τῆς ἐπαγγελίας (Eph. 2:12). So ἑορτὴ τῶν 
Ἰουδαίων (Jo. ὅ : 1)=‘a feast of the Jews,’ ἄρχων τῶν Ιουδαίων (8 : 
1). Cf. Ae. 6:1. Cf. βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν (ΜΚ. 
1:4) and εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν (Ac. 2:38), εὶς κοινωνίαν τοῦ 
υἱοῦ (1 Cor. 1:9), prepositional phrase. But enough of a some- 
what thorny subject.? 

(ὦ Wirn ApsuNcTS OR ADVERBS. In general the same usage 
applies to adjuncts as to adjectives. 

1. Between the Article and the Noun. Thus ἡ ἄνω κλῆσις (Ph. 
9 : 14), ἡ κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις (Ro. 9 : 11), ἡ παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ διαθήκη (11: 27), 
ὁ ἐν ἐλαχίστῳ ἄδικος (Lu. 16:10), τὴν ἐν τῷ σῷ ὀφθαλμῷ δοκόν (Mt. 
7:3), of ἐκ περιτομῆς πιστοί (Ac. 10: 45), ταῖς πρότερον ἐν τῇ ἀγνοίᾳ 
ὑμῶν ἐπιθυμίαις (1 Pet. 1:14). Cf. Ro. 2 : 27. 

2. Article Repeated? ‘Thus πάντων τῶν σπερμάτων τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς 
γῆς (ΜΚ. 4:31), αἱ δυνάμεις αἱ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (18:25), τῆς ἀπολυ- 
τρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ (Ro. 8: 24), τὰ παθήματα τὰ διὰ τοῦ 
νόμου (7:5), ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ εἰς ζωήν (7:10). See further Mt. ὅ : 16; 
Τ1λιῖ: 20 τ᾽ Jon 1246" ACS ποδὶ 24 ον 
1 2. Οὐ ae ae ae Ole 0 eed rae ee 
Ph. 8:19; |Col.)1 4501, Timi ales Rev 25 iccore ls ΡΟ ΒΕ 
Eph. 1:15 we find both constructions τὴν καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς πίστιν καὶ τὴν 
eis πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους. In Rev. 8:3 (9:13), τὸ θυσιαστήριον τὸ xpv- 
σοῦν τὸ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου, the article is repeated with both adjec- 
tive and adjunct. 

3. Only with Adjunct. So οἰκονομίαν θεοῦ τὴν ἐν πίστει (1 Tim. 
1:4), δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ πίστεως (Ro. 9:30), ἐν ἀγάπῃ τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ 
᾿Ιησοῦ (2 Tim. 1:13). For numerous classic illustrations of these 
three positions see Gildersleeve, Syntax, pp. 285 ff. 

4. Only with the Noun. In such cases the adjunct may be either 
attributive or predicate. Only the context can decide. In conver- 
sation the tone of voice, the manner, the inflection make clear 
what in written speech is ambiguous. Still in most instances in 
the N. T. the point is plain.2 The cases here dealt with are those 
that occur without other defining phrases. In Eph. 6:5 some 
MSS. read τοῖς κυρίοις κατὰ σάρκα. So in Lu.16:10 we find both ὁ 
ἐν ἐλαχίστῳ ἄδικος and ὁ πιστὸς ἐν ἐλαχίστῳ. Isee no point in Blass’ 

1 Cf. K.-G., I, p. 607f. 


2 Cf. W.-Th., p. 133, for long list of exx. 
8 ΤΡ, pp. 135 ff.; W.-Sch., p. 179 f.; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 159 f. 


© δὰ ὐμμιμμμὀων. .»κχ««0ν.» σι... »».. 


THE ARTICLE (TO "APOPON) 783 


remark! that ‘‘the closely connected predicative clause could not 
be severed by the insertion of the article.””. The article could easily 
have been repeated or the same order preserved in both clauses. 
It is much simpler and truer to say that the need of another article 
was not felt. The same remark applies to rots πλουσίοις ἐν τῷ νῦν 
αἰῶνι (1 Tim. 6:17), τῶν ἀπειθούντων ἐν τῇ ᾿Ιουδαίᾳ (Ro. 15 : 31), τὸν 
ἼἼσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα (1 Cor. 10:18), τὰ ἔθνη ἐν σαρκί (Eph. 2:11), 
τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν (2 : 15), ὁ δέσμιος ἐν κυρίῳ (4 : 1), οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν 
Χριστῷ (1 Th. 4:16), τῆς κοινωνίας εἰς αὐτούς (2 Cor. 9 : 18), τὸν 
δόκιμον ἐν Χριστῷ (Ro. 106 : 10), οἱ κοιμηθέντες ἐν Χριστῷ (1 Cor. 15: 
18). Cf. Ph.1:1. In Col. 1:4, Τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν ἐν Χριστῷ, and 
Ph. 4:19, τὸ πλοῦτος αὐτοῦ ἐν δόξῃ ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, more than 
one adjunct occurs outside the article. Cf. Eph. ὃ :4,138. Blass? 
considers this idiom peculiar to the N. T., but pertinent examples 
are cited* from Herodotus V, 108, ἡ ἀγγελία περὶ τῶν Σαρδίων, 
Thucydides, II, 52. 1, ete. The vernacular. character of the N. T. 
diction renders it more frequent. It is not common in classic 
Greek.’ 

5. When Several Adjuncts Occur. “It often becomes inconve- 
nient and clumsy to insert all of these between the article and the 
substantive.’’> Even so, but at bottom the matter does not differ 
in principle from the examples above. We have seen the same 
freedom with a second attributive adjective (cf. Mt. 24:45). 
See a good example of two adjuncts in Eph. 1:15, τὴν καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς 
πίστιν ἐν τῷ κυρίῳ ᾿Ιησοῦ. The first attribute may be adjective, 
genitive, adverb or adjunct. So τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον τοῖς 
δόγμασιν (Col. 2:14), τῆς ἐμῆς παρουσίας πάλιν πρὸς ὑμᾶς (Ph. 1: 26), 
τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει (3:9), τὴν ἐμὴν ἀναστροφήν ποτε 
ἐν τῷ ᾿Ιουδαϊσμῷ (Gal. 1:13). Cf. Ph. 1:5. The article and the 
participle readily yield examples like ὁ κατὰ πολὺ ἀναγεννήσας eis 
ἐλπίδα (1 Pet. 1:3), τοὺς ἐν δυνάμει θεοῦ φρουρουμένους διὰ πίστεως 
(1:5). But sometimes the several adjuncts (cf. adjectives and 
genitives) are inserted between the article and the substantive. 
So τῆς ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ φθορᾶς (2 Pet. 1:4). Cf. Ac. 21: 
28. For similar position of several genitives and adjuncts see 
2 Pet. 2:7; Lu. 1:70. In particular note Ro. 16:17 for the 
various phrases between τούς and ποιοῦντας. Note the many ad- 
juncts in Ro. 3:25f. See further v1, (a), 6. 


2 Gr. of N. ΤΟ ΚΡ p..160. 

10 ). 109. 3 W.-Sch., p. 180. 

4 The three regular positions are common. Cf. Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 286. 
§ Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., Ὁ. 160. 


784 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


6. Phrases of Verbal Origin. Phrases that are consciously verbal 
in origin readily do without the repeated article.! So in Ro. 6:3 
we have els τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθημεν and in the next verse we 
read συνετάφημεν αὐτῷ διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος eis τὸν θάνατον. It is plain, 
therefore, that here εἰς τὸν θάνατον is to be construed with βαπτίσμα- 
τος, not with συνετάφημεν. In other examples the verbal construction 
appears in other contexts. It is, however, possible that the usage 
with the verb renders the anarthrous construction more frequent. 
So Ph. 1: 26, τῆς ἐμῆς παρουσίας πάλιν πρὸς buds, May be compared with 
παρεῖναι πρὸς ὑμᾶς (Gal. 4:20). Cf. also παθήματα ὑπέρ (Col. 1: 24) 
with πάσχειν ὑπέρ (1 Pet. 2:21), θλίψεσιν ὑπέρ (Eph. 3:18) with 
θλιβόμεθα ὑπέρ (2 Cor. 1:6). The classic idiom shows similar 
examples.’ 

7. Exegetical Questions. Sometimes it is quite important for 
doctrinal reasons to be careful to note whether the adjunct is 
attributive or predicate. Thus in Ro. 8:38, κατέκρινε τὴν ἁμαρτίαν 
ἐν τῇ σαρκί, if ἐν τῇ σαρκί is attributive with ἁμαρτίαν, there is a defi- 
nite assertion of sin in the flesh of Jesus. But if the phrase is 
predicate and is to be construed with κατέκρινε, no such statement 
is made. Here the grammarian is helpless to decide the point. 
The interpreter must step in and appeal to the context or other 
passages for light. One conversant with Paul’s theology will feel 
sure that ἐν σαρκί is here meant to be taken as predicate. The 
same ambiguity arises in verse 2, ὁ νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς ἐν 
Χριστῷ ἠλευθέρωσέν σε ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ τοῦ θανάτου. Here 
it is reasonably clear that ἐν Χριστῷ is predicate with ἠλευθέρωσεν. 
So in Ro. 3:25 probably ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι, as well as els ἔνδειξιν is 
predicate with προέθετο. Another example from Romans is found 
in 5:8, where εἰς ἡμᾶς belongs to συνίστησιν, not ἀγάπην. So in 
Jo. 15:11 ἐν ὑμῖν is construed with ἢ, not ἡ ἐμή. For further 
illustration see Ac. 22 218; 1) Cori 2:7; 9:18; Eph, 227; 312; 
§ : 26; Phi del4:3": 0: Col#ies 9:7 Phils20 ΞΕ ebmioeeo: 

8. Anarthrous Attributives. Examples occur also of attribu- 
tives when the article is absent from both substantive and ad- 
junct. Thus ἄνθρωπον τυφλὸν ἐκ γενετῆς (Jo. 9: 1), ἄνθρωπος ἐν 
πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ (Mk. 1:23), χαρὰ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ (Ro. 14:17), 
ἔτι καθ᾽’ ὑπερβολὴν ὁδόν (1 Cor. 12 : 351), ete. Note in particular 
2 Cor. 11:23, 27. The older Greek furnishes illustration of this 
idiom.’ 

1 W.-Th., p. 186; W.-Sch., p. 180. 


2 W.-Sch., p. 180. 
5. Ib. But Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 159) doubts it. 


THE ARTICLE (TO “APOPON) 785 


(d) SEVERAL ATTRIBUTIVES WITH Kai. 

1. Several Epithets Applied to the Same Person or Thing. See 
already under νι, (a), 4. Usually only one article is then used. 
For classic examples see Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 330. So, for in- 
stance, ὁ ταλαίπωρος καὶ ἐλεινὸς Kal πτωχὸς Kal τυφλὸς Kal γυμνός (Rev. 
3:17). This is the normal idiom in accord with ancient usage. So 
Mk. 6:3 ὁ vids τῆς Μαρίας καὶ ἀδελφὸς ᾿Ιακώβου, Lu. 6 : 49 ὁ δὲ ἀκούσας 
καὶ μὴ ποιήσας, Ac. 3:14 τὸν ἅγιον καὶ δίκαιον, Jas. 3:9 τὸν κύριον 
καὶ πατέρα, 2 Pet. 2:20 (8:2) τοῦ κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος, 1 Tim. 4:3 
τοῖς πιστοῖς καὶ ἐπεγνωκόσι. Cf. also Gal. 1: 7; Eph. 6:21; 1 Tim. 
6:15; Heb. 3:1; Rev. 1:9 (both 6 and τῇ). When ἃ second 
article does occur, it accents sharply a different aspect of the 
person or phase of the subject. So in Rev.1:17 ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ 
ἔσχατος, καὶ 6 ζῶν, one article would have been sufficient, but would 
have obscured the separate affirmations here made. Cf. also 76 
"Adda καὶ τὸ Ὦ in 1:8; 21:6. In Jo. 21:24 W. H. read ὁ μαρτυρῶν 
περὶ τούτων καὶ ὁ γράψας ταῦτα, but they bracket καὶ ὁ The second 
article is very doubtful. A similar superfluity of the second ar- 
ticle appears in the second ἡ (brackets W. H.) in Ac. 17:19, 
and in the second τό in 1 Pet.4: 14, τὸ τῆς δόξης καὶ τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ 
πνεῦμα (due probably to the second genitive to emphasize each). 
So Jo. 1:40. See(c), 9, above. Outside of special cases like these 
only one article is found when several epithets are applied to the 
same person. The presence of a genitive with the group of words 
does not materially alter the construction. The genitive may occur 
with either substantive and apply to both.! So ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ 
ἡμῶν (1 Th.3:11) and τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος (2 Pet. 1:11). 
As a matter of fact such genitives (see above) occur either inside 
or outside of the regimen of the article. Cf. τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ ἡμῶν 
(Ph. 4 : 20), ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν (1 Pet. 1:3; 2 Cor. 
1:3; Eph. 1:3). The presence of ἡμῶν with κυρίου does not 
affect the construction any more than the use of κυρίου itself or 
ἡμῶν above. In Ph. 3:3 one adjunct comes before one participle, 
the other after the other participle, but only one article occurs. 
A most important passage is 2 Pet. 1:1, τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος 
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Curiously enough Winer? endeavours to draw a 
distinction between this passage, “‘where there is not even a pro- 
noun with owrfpos”’ and the identical construction in 2 Pet. 1:11, 
τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Kal σωτῆρος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, which he cites? as an 
example of “‘merely predicates of the same person.” Stranger 


1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 155. 
2 W.-Th., p. 130. 3. Ib., p. 126. 


786 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


still, he bases his objection on doctrinal grounds, a matter that 
does not per se concern the grammarian. The matter is handled 
in Winer-Schmiedel,! where it is frankly admitted that the con- 
struction in 2 Pet. 1:1 is the same as that in 1:11 and also in 
2:20; 3:2, 18. Schmiedel says also that ‘grammar demands 
that one person be meant.’ In Ju. 4, τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον 
ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν, the same point holds, but the fact that 
κύριος is so often anarthrous like a proper name slightly weakens 
it. The same remark applies also to 2 Th. 1:12, τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν 
καὶ κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, and Eph. 5: 5, ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ 
καὶ θεοῦ (since θεοῦ often occurs without the article). One person 
may be described in these three examples, but they are not so 
clear as the type τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος (2 Pet. 1:1, 11). In 
Tit. 2:18, τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ ᾿Ϊ]ησοῦ, it is 
almost certain that one person is again described. Cf. also τὴν 
μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα Kal ἐπιφάνειαν THs δόξης, Where the one article unites 
closely the two substantives. Moulton? quotes most pertinently 
papyri examples of vii/A.D., which show that among Greek-speak- 
ing Christians “our great God and Saviour” was a current form 
of speech as well as the Ptolemaic formula, τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ 
εὐεργέτου kal σωτῆρος (G. H. 15, ii/B.c.). He cites also Wendland’s 
argument? that the rival rendering in Titus is as great an “ex- 
egetical mistake” as to make two persons in 2 Pet. 1:1. Moul- 
ton’s conclusion? is clear enough to close the matter: “ Familiarity 
with the everlasting apotheosis that flaunts itself in the papyri 
and inscriptions of Ptolemaic and Imperial times lends strong 
support to Wendland’s contention that Christians, from the latter 
part of i/A.D. onward, deliberately annexed for their divine Master 
the phraseology that was impiously arrogated to themselves by 
some of the worst of men.” 

2. When to be Distinguished. Then the article is repeated. So 
Mt. 23:2 of γραμματεῖς καὶ of Φαρισαῖοι, Mk. 2:18 of μαθηταὶ 
᾿Ιωάνου καὶ of Φαρισαῖοι, 6 : 21 τοῖς μεγιστᾶσιν αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῖς χιλιάρχοις 
καὶ τοῖς πρώτοις, 11:9 οἱ προάγοντες καὶ οἱ ἀκολουθοῦντες, 11 : 18 (cf. 
14 : 43) οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς, Mk. 12:13 τῶν Φαρισαίων 
καὶ τῶν Ἡρῳδιανῶν, Lu. 11:39 τοῦ ποτηρίου καὶ τοῦ πίνακος, 15:6 
τοὺς φίλους καὶ τοὺς γείτονας, 20 :4 τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ τοὺς ὄχλους, 
Jo. 4:37 ὁ σπείρων καὶ ὁ θερίζων, 1 Cor. 8 : ὃ ὁ φυτεύων καὶ ὁ ποτίζων, 
Jas. 3:11 τὸ γλυκὺ καὶ τὸ πικρόν, Ac. 20: 80 ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ ὁ ἡγεμών, 
Rev. 18 : 20 of ἅγιοι καὶ of ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ προφῆται. Cf. Rev. 11: 4; 


1 P, 158. 3 On Σωτήρ in ZNTW, v. 335 f. 
2 Prol., p. 84. 4 Prol., p. 84. 


THE ARTICLE (TO "APOPON) 787 


13:16; 2 Th. 1:8. The list can be extended almost indefinitely.! 
But these are examples of the same number, gender and case. 
Nor have I referred to abstract words of quality like the list in 
Rev. 7:12, or examples like τὰς συναγωγὰς καὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς Kal τὰς 
ἐξουσίας (Lu. 12:11). It is not contended that these groups are 
all absolutely distinct (cf. of γραμματεῖς καὶ of Φαρισαῖοι), but that 
they are treated as separate. Even with the scribes and Pharisees 
they did not quite coincide. Cf. Mt. 21:45; Ac. 11:6. The use 
of another attributive may sometimes be partly responsible for 
two articles. So Lu. 8:24 τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ τῷ κλύδωνι τοῦ ὕδατος, Mk. 
2:18 οἱ μαθηταὶ ᾿Ιωάνου καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι, 11:15 τὰς τραπέζας τῶν 
κολλυβιστῶν καὶ τὰς καθέδρας τῶν πωλούντων. Cf. also Lu. 20 : 20; 
νυ ον δ. Ly Corll ΕΗ 18.510; 

3. Groups Treated as One. Sometimes groups more or less dis- 
tinct are treated as one for the purpose in hand, and hence use 
only one article. Cf. ras φίλας καὶ γείτονας (Lu. 15 : 9), τοὺς νομικοὺς 
καὶ Φαρισαίους (14: 3), τὰς πλατείας Kal ῥύμας (14: 21), τῶν πρεσβυτέρων 
καὶ γραμματέων (ΜΚ. 15:1), τῶν ᾿Επικουρίων καὶ Στωικῶν (Ac. 17: 
18), τῶν Φαρισαίων καὶ Σαδδουκαίων (Ac. 28 : 7), τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ 
προφητῶν (Eph. 2:20), τῇ ἀπολογίᾳ καὶ βεβαιώσει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου 
(Ph. 1:7), τὸ πλάτος καὶ μῆκος καὶ βάθος καὶ ὕψος (Eph. 3:18), τὴν 
κλῆσιν καὶ ἐκλογήν (2 Pet. 1:10). Cf. τήν in Tit. 2:13. So in Mt. 
17: 1 ΟΥ̓́. H. text) we have τὸν Πέτρον καὶ ᾿Ιάκωβον καὶ ᾿Ιωάνην, where 
the three are one group. This is probably more frequent in ex- 
amples where a genitive occurs also, or some other attribute.? 
So Ph. 1: 20 τὴν ἀποκαραδοκίαν καὶ ἐλπίδα μου, 1:19 τῆς ὑμῶν δεήσεως 
καὶ ἐπιχορηγίας τοῦ πνεύματος, 2: 17 τῇ θυσίᾳ καὶ λειτουργίᾳ τῆς πίστεως. 
ΠΤ ΠΟ ΠΡ ΜΙ os) Ro: 1520; Col. 2: 8: Eph. 
πε ον 0, ΤΠ 521 Pets 22259) Ph: 25; 1 Th. 81:7. 
These are all the simplest and clearest illustrations. 

4. Point of View. Obviously, therefore, whether one or more 
articles are to be used depends on the point of view of the speaker 
or writer. In geographical terms the matter of freedom is well 
illustrated. Thus in 1 Th. 1:7 we have ἐν τῇ Μακεδονίᾳ καὶ ἐν τῇ 
᾿Αχαίᾳ, while in the very next verse we meet ἐν τῇ Μακεδονίᾳ καὶ 
᾿Αχαίᾳ asin Ac. 19:21. These two Roman provinces are distinct, 
but adjacent. Cf. also τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας καὶ Σαμαρίας (Ac. 8:1; cf. 1: 
8), τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας καὶ Γαλιλαίας καὶ Σαμαρίας (9 : 31), where these sec- 
tions of Palestine are treated together. Cf. Ac. 27:5. In Ac. 
15:3 note τήν re Φοινίκην καὶ Σαμαρίαν, the two sections treated 
together are not even contiguous. In Ac. 15: 23, κατὰ τὴν ᾿Αντιό- 

1 Cf. W.-Th., p. 128. 2 W.-Sch., p. 156 f. 


788 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


χειαν καὶ Συρίαν καὶ Κιλικίαν, we have a city grouped with two coun- 
tries (as in Lu. 5:17; Mt. 4 :.25), while in 15:41 we meet τὴν 
Συρίαν καὶ τὴν Κιλικίαν (W. H. text). Hence no absolute conclu- 
sions can be drawn from the one article in Ac. 16:6, τὴν Φρυγίαν 
καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν (cf. reverse order in 18 : 23) as to the separate- 
ness! of the terms.“ Phrygia” and ‘“Galatic region.” Cf. also 
Lu. 3:1, τῆς ᾿Ιτουραίας καὶ Tpaxwvitidos χώρας. But the matter is 
not wholly whimsical. In Ac. 2:9 f. note the τήν with Μεσο- 
ποταμίαν, Which stands alone, while we have also Πόντον καὶ τὴν 
᾿Ασίαν, probably because the province of Asia (not Asia Minor as 
a whole) is meant. Then again we meet τὰ μέρη τῆς Λιβύης τῆς κατὰ 
Κυρήνην, because of the details stated. In Ac. 6:8 f. the use of τῶν 
twice divides the synagogues into two groups (men from Cilicia 
and Asia on the one hand, men from Alexandria, Cyrene and 
Libertines (?) on the other). The matter is simple geography but 
for Λιβερτίνων, and may be after all if we only knew what that 
term means. See Winer-Schmiedel, p. 158. Cf. also Rev. 14: 7, 
where two words have articles and two do not, and Ac. 15: 20, 
where three words in the list have articles and one, πνικτοῦ, does 
not. So in Ac. 13:50 we have τὸν Παῦλον καὶ B., while in 15 : 2 
we find τῷ II. καὶ τῷ B. Then (cf. 4) in Mt. 17:1 observe the one 
article with Peter, James and John, while in Heb. 11:20 we see 
εὐλόγησεν ᾿Ισαὰκ τὸν ᾿Ιακὼβ καὶ τὸν ’"Hoad. The articles here empha- 
size the distinction between subject and object as in Mt. 1 : 2-16. 
Cf. also τῶν ἀπ. καὶ τῶν rp. (Ac. 15 : 4) and of ἀπ. καὶ of rp. (15 : 6) 
with τῶν ἀπ. καὶ mp. τῶν (16: 4). 

5. Difference in Number. If the words combined differ in 
number, usually each one has its own article. The reason is that 
they generally fall into separate classes. So ὁ ἀναγινώσκων καὶ of 
ἀκούοντες (Rev. 1:3), τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τῶν διανοιῶν (Eph. 2:3), τὴν 
ἀσέβειαν καὶ τὰς κοσμικὰς ἐπιθυμίας (Tit. 2:12). But one article may 
also be found, as in τῷ κόσμῳ καὶ ἀγγέλοις Kal ἀνθρώποις (1 Cor. 4: 9). 
Here, however, the anarthrous words “ particularize the τῷ x6ouw.’’? 
Yet in 1 Jo. 2:16 πᾶν τὸ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ is “particularized” by three 
words each with the article. 

6. Difference in Gender. So, if the gender is different, there is 
likewise usually the repetition of the article. Cf. Ac. 17:18 τὸν 
᾿Ιησοῦν καὶ τὴν ἀνάστασιν, Mt. 22:4 of ταῦροί μου καὶ τὰ σιτιστά, Lu. 
10 :21 τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς, Ac. 13:50 τὰς εὐσχήμονας καὶ τοὺς 
πρώτους, Ro. 8:2 τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ τοῦ θανάτου, Col. 4:1 τὸ δίκαιον 


1 Cf. W. M. Ramsay, Expos., 1895, July, pp. 29-40. 
a War ΠΡ 


THE ARTICLE (TO "APOPON) 789 


καὶ τὴν ἰσότητα, ΡΠ. 2:1 τοῖς παραπτώμασιν καὶ ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις, 
Heb. 3:6 τὴν παρρησίαν καὶ τὸ καύχημα. ‘Though usual, the re- 
peated article is not necessary.! See τὰς ὁδοὺς καὶ φραγμούς (Lu. 
14 : 23), τῶν ὁλοκαυτωμάτων Kal θυσιῶν (Mk. 12 : 33), τὰ ἐντάλματα καὶ 
διδασκαλίας (Col. 2 : 22). 

If indeed the words differ in both gender and number (as in 
Col. 2 : 22), it is still more customary to have separate articles. 
Cf., for instance, Lu. 14: 26, τὸν πατέρα ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τὴν μητέρα Kal τὴν 
γυναῖκα καὶ τὰ τέκνα Kal τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς Kal τὰς ἀδελφάς. So also Ac. 
εὐ ΟΠ οἰ. ΠΥ ΓΙ δ: 2370 Rev... 2 0 ΓΠηὸ 
papyri illustrate the N. T. usage of the article with several sub- 
stantives (cf. Volker, Syntax, p. 20). So 6 ἥλιος καὶ σελήνη, Pap. L, 
Dieterich, Abraxas, p. 195. 9. 

7. With Disjunctive Particle. If a disjunctive preposition be 
used, there will naturally be separate articles (even when καί is 
the connective), whatever be true about number and gender. So 
μεταξὺ τοῦ ναοῦ καὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου (Mt. 23 : 35 οἵ. Lu. 11:51). So 
when the conjunction ἤ occurs as in τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας (Mt. 
5:17), τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρὶ (15: 5), τὸ σκότος ἢ τὸ φῶς (Jo. 8 : 19), 
ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον ἢ ὑπὸ τὴν κλίνην (Mk. 4 : 21), τῷ λαῷ ἢ τοῖς ἔθεσι (Ac. 
28:17). Blass? makes the point that outside of Ac. 14:5, τῶν 
ἐθνῶν τε καὶ ᾿Ιουδαίων, we generally find the repeated article with 
τε kal. Even here ’Iovéaiwy as a proper name does not need the 
article. Cf. Ἰουδαίων τε καὶ Ἑλλήνων in 14:1, but ὅ τε στρατηγὸς 
καὶ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς (5 : 24) with difference in number also. 

VII. Position with Predicates. It 15 not the use of the article 
with the predicate noun, like οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ κληρονόμος (Mk. 12 : 7), 
that is here before us. That point has already been discussed 
under v, (ὃ. When the article occurs with the substantive, but 
not with the adjective, the result is the equivalent of a relative 
clause. Cf. μεγάλῃ φωνῇ (Ac. 14:10) and φωνῇ μεγάλῃ (7: 57) = 
‘with a loud voice,’ with μεγάλῃ τῇ φωνῇ (26: 24)=‘with the voice 
elevated.’ See also ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳ προσώπῳ (2 Cor. 3 : 18)=‘with 
unveiled face’ and ἀκατακαλύπτῳ τῇ κεφαλῇ (1 Cor. 11 : 5)=‘with 
the head unveiled.’ Cf. Mk. 3:1, ἐξηραμμένην ἔχων τὴν χεῖρα. 
Other examples are πεπωρωμένην τὴν καρδίαν (Mk. 8:17), τὴν μαρτυ- 
ρίαν μείζω (Jo. 5:36), τὴν ἀγάπην ἐκτενῆ (1 Pet. 4:8), τὴν ἀναστροφὴν 
καλήν (2:12), ἀπαράβατον τὴν ἱερωσύνην (Heb. 7: 24), τὰ αἰσθητήρια 
γεγυμνασμένα (5:14). In all these and similar examples the point 
is quite different from that of the attributive position of the article. 
Most of the instances occur with ἔχω. Note the absence of the 

1 1b: 2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 163. 


790 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


article with ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη (Lu. 2: 2) because it is in the pred- 
icate. Cf. τοῦτο ἀληθὲς εἴρηκας (Jo. 4:18). The position of αὐτῇ 
τῇ καλουμένῃ (Lu. 1:36) may be noted. D in Mk.7: 5 reads κοι- 
vats tats χερσίν. Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 292) considers this 
use of the predicate position ‘a gnomon of artificial style” out- 
side of the more simple combinations. See also Milden, The 
Limitations of the Predicative Position in Greek (1900, p. 43). It 
is noticeable in prepositional phrases, as in Xen., Anab., 1, 3, 14, 
διὰ φιλίας τῆς χώρας. 

VIII. The Absence of the Article. I do not care to use the 
term ‘‘omission”’ in connection with the article. That word im- 
plies that the article ought to be present. As has been already 
shown, the article is not the only means of showing that a word is 
definite. This luxury in language did not become indispensable. 
The servant never became master. There remained in the classic 
period many parallel phrases which were intelligible without the 
article. Indeed, new phrases came into use by analogy without 
the article. I do not think it is necessary to devote so much space 
to this phase of the subject as is done in most grammars. Most 
‘of the cases have already come up for discussion in one way or 
another. It is sufficient here to give a résumé of the chief idioms 
in the N. T. which are without the article and are still definite. 
Much of the modern difficulty about the absence of the Greek 
article is due to the effort to interpret it by the standard of the 
English or German article. So Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 119) 
speaks of ‘‘appellatives, which as expressing definite objects should 
have the article’! Even Gildersleeve, in discussing the ‘‘Absence 
of the Article’ (note the phrase, Syntax, p. 259), says that ‘‘ prep- 
ositional phrases and other formule may dispense with the ar- 
ticle as in the earlier language,” and he adds ‘‘but anaphora or 
contrast may bring back the article at any time and there is no 
pedantical uniformity.”’ Admirably said, except “dispense with”’ 
and ‘bring back,” dim ghosts of the old grammar. Moulton? 
cites Jo. 6: 68, ῥήματα ζωῆς αἰωνίου, which should be translated 
‘words of eternal life’ (as marg. of R. V.). There are indeed “few 
of the finer points of Greek which need more constant attention’’? 
than the absence of the article. The word may be either definite 
or indefinite when the article is absent. The context and history 
of the phrase in question must decide. The translation of the 
expression into English or German is not determined by the mere 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 315. 
2 Prol., p. 83. Matar 


THE ARTICLE (TO "APOPON) 791 


absence of the Greek article. If the word is indefinite, as in Jo. 
4 :27; 6: 68, no article, of course, occurs. But the article is ab- 
sent in a good many definite phrases also. It is about these that 
a few words further are needed. A brief summary of the various 
types of anarthrous definite phrases is given.! A sane treatment 
of the subject occurs in Winer-Schmiedel.? 

(a) WitH ProprerR Names. Here the article is used or not at the 
will of the writer. So τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν ὃν Παῦλος κηρύσσει (Ac. 19 : 13), 
but τὸν Παῦλον in verse 15. The reason is apparent in these three 
examples. Words in apposition with proper names are usually 
anarthrous. Cf. Mt.3:6; Mk.1:5. See further v, (a), 3. 
εὐ (Ὁ) Wita GeEnitives. We have seen that the substantive 
may still be definite if anarthrous, though not necessarily so. 
Cf. πύλαι ἅδου (Mt. 16 : 18), ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν (Ac. 23 : 6), χάριτι θεοῦ 
(1 Cor. 15:10), λόγον θεοῦ (1 Th. 2:18), ποτήριον κυρίου (1 Cor. 
10:21), υἱὲ διαβόλου (Ac. 13:10), etc.2 In particular, personal 
pronouns in the genitive were not always felt to need the article. 
Cf. κῆπον ἑαυτοῦ (Lu. 18:19). See further v, (h). The LXX uses 
this idiom freely (Blass-Debrunner, p. 151). English can show the 
same construction. 


“Kye of newt and toe of frog, 
Wool of bat and tongue of dog, 
Adder’s fork and blind ‘worm’s sting, 
Lizard’s leg and hornet’s wing.’?’ — Macbeth. 


(c) PREPOSITIONAL PuraAsES. These were also often consid- 
ered definite enough without the article. So ἐν οἴκῳ (1 Cor. 11: 34. 
Cf. ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ, ‘in the house,’ Jo. 11 : 20)=‘at home.’ So we say 
“go to bed,” ete. Moulton‘ pertinently cites English “down 
town,” “on ’change,” ‘‘in bed,’ ‘“‘from start to finish.” This 
idiom is not therefore peculiar to Greek. It is hardly necessary 
to mention all the N. T. examples, so common is the matter. 

Thus with ἀνά observe ava μέρος (1 Cor. 14: 27). With ἀπό note 
am’ ἀγροῦ (Mk. 15:21), am’ ἀγορᾶς (Mk. 7:4), ἀπ᾽’ οὐρανοῦ (Lu. 
17: 29), am’ οὐρανῶν (Heb. 12 : 25), ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς (Rev. 21:18), ἀπὸ 
ἀνατολῶν (Mt. 2:1), am’ ἀρχῆς (1 Jo. 1:1), ἀπὸ καταβολῆς (Mt. 18 : 
35), ἀπὸ μέρους (Ro. 11:25), ἀπὸ νεκρῶν (Lu. 16:30). Cf. Rev. 
21:13, ἀπὸ βορρᾶ, ἀπὸ νότου, ἀπὸ δυσμῶν. So ἄχρι καιροῦ (Lu. 4: 13). 

For διά note διὰ νυκτός (Ac. 5:19), διὰ μέσου (Lu. 4:30), διὰ μέσον 
1:11}. 

1 See on the whole subject K.-G., I, pp. 598 ff. 2 Pp. 102 ff. 
3 See extensive list in W.-Sch., p. 166 f. 4 ῬτΟΙ;, Ρ. 82. 


792 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


For eis see εἰς ἄδην (Ac. 2: 27), els οὐρανόν (1 Pet. 3: 22), 
eis ἀγρόν (Mk. 16:12), εἰς θάλασσαν (Mt. 17:27), εἰς οἶκον (Mk. 
3 : 20), εἰς πρόσωπον (Mk. 12 : 14), εἰς μέσον (Mk. 14:60), εἰς οἰκίαν 
(2 Jo. 10), εἰς τέλος (Mt. 10 : 22). 

Yor ἐν may be noticed ἐν οὐρανῷ (Mt. 6 : 20), ἐν οὐρανοῖς (Heb. 
12:23), ἐν ὑψίστοις (Lu. 2:14), ἐν δεξιᾷ (Heb. 1:3), ἐν κόσμῳ 
(Col. 2 : 20), ἐν ἀγρῷ (Lu. 15 : 25), ἐν ἀγορᾷ (Lu. 7: 82), ἐν οἴκῳ (1 
Cor. 14 : 35), ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ Ξε “αὖ church’ (1 Cor. 14 : 19), ἐν προσώπῳ 
(2 Cor. 5:12), ἐν ἡμέρᾳ (Ro. 13:13), ἐν καιρῷ (Mt. 24 : 45), ἐν 
ἀρχῇ (Jo. 1 : 1), ἐν σαρκί (2 Cor. 10 : 3), ἐν ἀνθρώποις (Lu. 1 : 25), ἐν 
νυκτί (Ac. 18 : 9). 

Examples of ἐξ are ἐκ μέρους (1 Cor. 12:27), ἐκ ψυχῆς (Eph. 6 : 6), 
ἐκ νεότητος (Ac. 26:4), ἐξ ἀρχῆς (Jo. 6 : 64), ἐκ δεξιῶν (Mt. 27: 38), 
ἐξ εὐωνύμων (Mt. 25:41), ἐξ ἀριστερῶν (Lu. 23 : 33), ἐκ μέσου (2 Th. 
2:7), ἐκ καρδίας (Ro. 6:17), ἐκ νεκρῶν (Lu. 9:7), ἐξ οὐρανοῦ (Jo. 
14:32). 

For ἕως observe ἕως adov (Mt. 11: 28), ἕως οὐρανοῦ (Mt. 11: 23), ἕως 
δυσμῶν (Mt. 24: 27), ἕως ἑσπέρας (Ac. 28:23), ἕως τέλους (1 Cor. 1: 8). 

Examples of ἐπί are ἐπὶ γῆς (Lu. 2 : 14), ἐπὶ θύραις (Mt. 24 : 33), 
ἐπὶ πρόσωπον (Lu. 5 : 12). 

For κατά see kar’ ὀφθαλμούς (Gal. 3:1), κατὰ λίβα καὶ κατὰ χῶρον 
(Ac. 27:12), κατὰ μεσημβρίαν (Ac. 8 : 26), κατ᾽ ἀρχάς (Heb. 1 : 10), 
κατὰ πρόσωπον (Ac. 25 : 16), κατὰ μέρος (Heb. 9 : 5), κατὰ σάρκα (2 Cor. 
10 : 3), κατὰ ἀνθρώπους (1 Pet. 4:6). | 

For μέχρι observe μέχρι μεσονυκτίου (Ac. 20:7), μέχρι τέλους 
(Heb. 3 : 6). 

For παρά note παρὰ θάλασσαν (Ac. 10:32), παρὰ ποταμόν (Ac. 
ΤΌΣΣΟΝ 

For περί see περί μεσημβρίαν (Ac. 22 : 6). 

For πρό see πρὸ καιροῦ (Mt. ὃ : 29). 

For πρός observe πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον (1 Cor. 18 : 12), πρὸς 
ἑσπέραν (Lu. 24:29). 

For ὑπό see ὑπ᾽ οὐρανόν (Lu. 17: 24). 

It will be noted that this usage after all is confined to a rather 
narrow range of words, some of which, like οὐρανός and γῆ, repre- 
sent single objects. More of this a little later. Most of these 
examples have articular parallels. See also v, (f). For classic 
examples see Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 259f. The papyri furnish 
abundant parallels (Vélker, Syntax, pp. 15-17) as do the inscrip- 
tions (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 92). 

(d) WitH BotH PREPOSITION AND GENITIVE. It is not sur- 
prising to find no article with phrases which use both preposition 


THE ARTICLE (TO ’APOPON) 793 


and genitive like εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ (Ro. 1:1), ἀπὸ ὀφθαλμῶν σου 
(Lu. 19:42), ἐκ δεξιῶν μου (Mt. 20:28), am’ ἀρχῆς κόσμου (Mt. 
24:21), παρὰ καιρὸν ἡλικίας (Heb. 11:11), ἐν καιρῷ πειρασμοῦ (Lu. 
8:13), ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου (Mt. 25:34), ἐν βραχίονι αὐτοῦ (Lu. 
1:51), ete. Ἶ 

(6) ΤΊἼΤΙΙΕΒ oF Booxs or Sections. These may be without 
the article, being already specific enough. So Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ 
Μάρκον before the Gospel in many MSS., ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (Mk. 
1:1), βίβλος γενέσεως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Mt. 1:1), ᾿Αποκάλυψις ᾿Τησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ (Rev. 1:1). A good example of anarthrous headings may 
be seen in | Pet. 1f. (ef. Hort, 1 Peter, Ὁ. 15), where no article 
occurs in the whole opening sentence of five lines. The article 
is used quite idiomatically in 1 Peter. 

(f) Worps In Pairs. These often do without the article. 
Very often, of course, the article is used. Words for day and night 
(as in English) frequently occur together. Cf. νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας 
(Mk. 5:5), ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός (Rev. 4:8). They occur singly also 
without the article, as νυκτός (Jo. 3:2), ἡμέρας (Rev. 21: 25), 
μέσης νυκτός (Mt. 25:6). See also other pairs like ἐν οὐρανῷ εἴτε 
ἐπὶ γῆς (1 Cor. 8: 5; cf. 2 Pet. 3:5), πατέρα ἢ μητέρα (Mk. 7: 10), 
ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς (1 Pet. 4:5). Indeed the anarthrous construc- 
tion is common in contrast with 4, εἴτε, οὔτε, μήτε, οὐ — ἀλλά (cf. 
Ro. 6:14). For long lists of anarthrous words (definite and in- 
definite together) see Ro. 8:35; 1 Cor. 3 : 22; 12: 13, 28; 2 Cor. 
ΕΝ ort le Petinils 2-sHebil2 18} 23; .1 Tim. 3.: 16.1 Cf. also 
ἀνὴρ ἐκ γυναικός (1 Cor. 11:8). Some of these usages belong to 
proverbs, formule and enumerations. See Gildersleeve, Syntaz, 
p. 260. The κοινή (inscriptions and papyri) shows the idiom (Ra- 
dermacher, N. 7’. Gr., p. 94). 

(g) OrpINAL NuMERALS. The article is usually absent in ex- 
pressions of time. The ancient idiom is here followed.? The ordi- 
nal was often felt to be definite enough alone. This was true of the 
predicate. Cf. ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη (Lu. 2 : 1), ἦν dpa τρίτη (Mk. 15 : 25), 
ἦν ὡς ἕκτη (Jo. 19:14). Cf. Eph. 6:2; Ac. 2:15. But it was not 
confined to the predicate by any means, nor even to prepositional 
phrases like ἀπὸ πρώτης ἡμέρας (Ac. 20:18), ἕως τρίτου οὐρανοῦ (2 
Cor. 12 : 2), ἀπὸ τετάρτης ἡμέρας (Ac. 10 : 80), περὶ ὥραν ἕκτην 
(Ac. 10:9), ἐν ἔτει πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ (Lu. 8 : 1), ἕως ὥρας ἐνάτης (ΜΚ. 
15 : 33), etc. Cf. Ac. 23 : 28. The same construction occurs also 


1 Cf. W.- Sch., p. 168; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 149. 
2 Thompson, Synt., etc., p. 54; W.-Th., p. 126. See further J. Thompson, 
Cl. Rev., 1906, p. 304; Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 261. 


794 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


in διελθόντες πρώτην φυλακὴν καὶ δευτέραν (Ac. 12:10). Cf. Mk. 
15 : 33, γενομένης ὥρας ἕκτης. Examples with the article are not 
wanting. Cf. Mt. 27:64; Lu. 12 : 38; Ac. 10 : 40. 

(h) IN THE PRepicATE. As already shown in V, (2), in the predi- 
cate the article is often absent. See v, (ὃ. Cf. θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος 
(Jo. 1:1), ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν (1 Jo. 4:8), ete. This is the rule unless 
the terms be convertible or the predicate is singled out as promi- 
nent. For the superlative without the article see also 1 Jo. 2: 18. 
Cf. 1 Pet. 1:5, ἐν ἐσχάτῳ καιρῷ. 

(ἢ ABsTRAcT Worps. In English the presence, not the ab- 
sence, of the article with abstract words needs explanation. Hence 
the anarthrous lists in Gal. 5 : 20 f., 22 f., seem to us much more 
in harmony with our idiom than the lists with the article in Rev. 
5:12,18; 7:12. In German,! however, the opposite is often 
true. The article is often absent in the Greek, where the German 
would have it. Cf. Ro. 1:29. See rv, (ὁ), for discussion of article 
with abstract nouns. No vital difference was felt between articu- 
lar and anarthrous abstract nouns (Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 259). 

(7) QuaLITATIVE Forcr. This is best brought out in anarthrous 
nouns. So εἰ ἔξεστιν ἀνδρὶ γυναῖκα ἀπολῦσαι (Mk. 10 : 2; ef. 1 Cor. 
7:10), παραδώσει ἀδελφὸς ἀδελφὸν εἰς θάνατον Kal πατὴρ τέκνον — τέκνα 
ἐπὶ γονεῖς (13 : 12), ὡς μονογονοῦς παρὰ πατρός (Jo. 1 : 14), γονεῦσιν 
ἀπειθεῖς (Ro. 1:30). Cf. also Eph. 5:28, ἀνήρ ἐστιν κεφαλὴ τῆς 
γυναικός, ὁ Χριστὸς κεφαλὴ τῆς ἐκκλησίας and αὐτὸς σωτὴρ Tod σώματος. 
In αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἀνδράσιν (verse 24) note the generic article, class 
and class. See υἱός --- πατήρ (Heb. 12: 7).? 

(k) ONLY OBsecT oF KiNp. These partake of the nature of 
proper names and often occur without the article. They also 
often have the article. Some of these anarthrous examples ap- 
pear in prepositional phrases like ἐξ ἀριστερῶν (Lu. 23 : 33), ἐκ 
δεξιῶν (2b.), etc. These may be passed by (already discussed). The 
point is best illustrated by such words as γῆ and οὐρανοί (2 Pet. 
3:5). Cf. English “heaven and earth.” Cf. (7), Words in Pairs. 
Θάλασσα we find sometimes anarthrous with prepositions (Ac. 7: 36; 
10 : 32) and in Lu. 21: 25 ἠχοῦς θαλάσσης καὶ cadov. But it has the 
article in contrast with γῆ.) See also Lu. 21: 25 ἐν ἡλίῳ καὶ σελήνῃ καὶ 
ἄστροις, Mt. 13: 6 ἡλίου ἀνατείλαντος, 1 Cor. 15 : 41 δόξα ἡλίου. So we 
can say ‘sun, moon and stars,” etc. Θάνατος should also be noted. 
Cf. 1 Cor. 15:21; Mt. 16: 28; 20:18; Lu. 23: 15; Ph. 1: 20, ete. It 
is anarthrous as subject, object, with adjectives and with preposi- 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 150. 
2 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 82 f.; W.-Sch., p. 170. 8 W.-Th., p. 121. 


THE ARTICLE (TO "APOPON) 795 


tions. Many of these examples occur with prepositions like Lu. 21: 
25 above, or with a genitive like υἱὲ διαβόλου (Ac. 18: 10).! Cf. 1 Pet. 
5:8. The word θεός, like a proper name, is freely used with and 
without the article. But it is ““beyond comparison the most fre- 
quently in the Epistles without the article.’’? This may be alone as 
subject, θεός (Ro. 8 : 33); as a predicate, θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (Jo. 1:1); as 
genitive, γνώσεως θεοῦ (Ro. 11:33); with prepositions, ἐν θεῷ (Jo. 
3:21); with adjectives, θεὸς εὐλογητός (Ro. 9 : 5); with participles 
also, θεῷ ζῶντι καὶ ἀληθινῷ (1 Th. 1:9); in conjunction with πατήρ 
(Gal. 1:1). These illustrations can be greatly multiplied. So 
also πνεῦμα and πνεῦμα ἅγιον may occur with and without the ar- 
ticle. Garvie’ quotes Bartlet on Acts as saying that when πνεῦμα 
ἅγιον is anarthrous it describes the human condition, not the divine 
agency. But it may be questioned if this is not a purely artificial 
rule, as there are evident exceptions to it. The use of πνεῦμα with 
a genitive like πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ (Ro. 8:9) and with a preposition, 
-ék πνεύματος (Jo. 3:5), accounts for some examples. An example 
like οὔπω jv πνεῦμα (Jo. 7:39) merely illustrates the use of πνεῦμα 
like θεός as substantially a proper name. As for Middleton’s rule 
that the article is absent when the personality of the Holy Spirit 
is taught,‘ that is nullified by Jo. 14 : 26, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, where 
the Holy Spirit is spoken of in distinction from the Father and 
the Son. Cf. also 15:26. See also τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον (Lu. 3 : 22), 
at the baptism of Jesus. Κύριος, like θεός and πνεῦμα, is often prac- 
tically a proper name in the N. T. In the Gospels it usually refers 
to God, like the O. T. Lord, while in the Episties of Paul in par- 
ticular it nearly always means the Lord Jesus.’ It is not merely in 
a prepositional phrase like the common ἐν κυρίῳ (1 Cor. 7: 22), or 
the genitive like 16 ἔργον κυρίου (1 Cor. 16:10), but especially 
κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός (Ph. 1:2; 2:11, etc.). In the Gospels ὁ 
Χριστός is usually a verbal adjective=‘the Anointed One,’ the 
Messiah (Mt. 2:4; Jo. 1:41). In Mt. 1:1; Mk. 1:1, we have 
Χριστός aS ἃ proper name and even in the words of Jesus as re- 
ported in Mk. 9:41, Χριστοῦ, and in the address of Peter in Ac. 2: 
38, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. It was a natural growth. In Paul’s Epistles 
Χριστός is more frequent than ὁ Χριστός. There is even a de- 
velopment in Paul’s use of ᾿Ϊησοῦς Χριστός and Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς. 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 148. 4 Cf. W.-M., footnote, p. 151. 

2 W.-Th., p. 122. 5 W.-Th., p. 124. 

8 Expos., Oct., 1909, p. 327. 

6 See Rose’s list for Paul’s use of κύριος, Χριστός, etc., in Middleton’s Doc- 
trine of the Gk. Art., pp. 486 ff. It is based on Textus Rec. 


796 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


In his earlier Epistles the former is the rule (cf. 1 Th. 1 : 1), while 
in the later Epistles he prefers Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς (2 Tim. 1:1). 
Other examples of this idiom are seen in κόσμος, which even in the 
nominative is anarthrous, ἐμοὶ κόσμος ἐσταύρωται (Gal. 6:14). Cf. 
Ro. 4:13. See also ἐν κόσμῳ (Ro. 5:13) and ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου 
(Lu. 11:50), ete. Νόμος is a word that is used with a deal of free- 
dom by Paul. In general when νόμος is anarthrous in Paul it 
refers to the Mosaic law, as in ἐπαναπαύῃ νόμῳ (Ro. 2:17). So 
ἐὰν νόμον πράσσῃς (2 : 25), etc. It occurs so with prepositions, as 
ἐν νόμῳ (2 : 23), and in the genitive, like ἐξ ἔργων νόμου (Gal. 2 : 16). 
Cf. ἐγὼ διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον (2:19), ὑπὸ νόμον ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ χάριν 
(Ro. 6:14). In ἕτερον νόμον (7: 23) νόμος Ξε ΄ ῬΓΙΠΟΙΡΙΘ,᾽ and is here 
indeterminate. In 2:14, ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα, the Mosaic law 
is meant, but not in ἑαυτοῖς εἰσὶν νόμος. It is at least problematical 
whether νόμος in 2:18, of ἀκροαταὶ νόμου, and οἱ ποιηταὶ νόμου (note 
the article with the other words) means the Mosaic law and so 
really definite or law as law (the hearers of law, the doers of law).! 

X. The Indefinite Article. The Greek had no indefinite article. 
It would have been very easy if the absence of the article in 
Greek always meant that the noun was indefinite, but we have 
seen that this is not the case. The anarthrous noun may per se 
be either definite or indefinite. But the Greek made an approach 
to the modern indefinite article in the use of εἷς and τις. The later 
writers show an increasing use of these words as the practical 
equivalent of the present indefinite article. This matter has al- 
ready been discussed under these two words (ch. XV). An 
example of τις is seen in νομικός τις (Lu. 10:25). The tendency 
was constantly for eis to displace τις, so that ‘in modern Greek 
the process is complete,’’? i.e. εἷς drives out τις in this sense. 
This use of eis is seen in the papyri and need not be denied in the 
N. T.2 As a N. T. example of eis=‘a’ see εἷς γραμματεύς (Mt. 
8 :19).4. The indefinite article does not appear with predicates in 
the modern Greek.’ Unus in the sense of the indefinite article 
is one of the peculiarities of the Latin Vulgate (Jacquier, Le 
N. T. dans l’Egl. Chr., Tome II, p. 122). 


1 For a full and detailed discussion of the whole matter see W.-Sch., pp. 
174 ff. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 96. See Thumb, Handb., p. 41. 

8 Moulton, ib., p. 97. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 164 f. 

4 Cf. for LXX use, C. and §S., Sel., p. 25. 

δ Thumb., Handb., p. 42. 


CHAPTER XVII 
VOICE (ΔΙΑΘΕΣΙΣ, Genus) 


I. Point of View. For a discussion of the nature of the verb 
see chapter VIII, Conjugation of the Verb, 1 and 1m. 

(a) DISTINCTION BETWEEN VOICE AND TRANSITIVENESS. See 
11, (b), and chapter VIII, vi, for a discussion of this point. The 
matter might have been well reserved for syntax, but it seemed 
worth while to set forth at once the fundamental facts about 
voice. It is here assumed, therefore, that one understands that 
voice per se does not deal with the question of transitive or in- 
transitive action. That point concerns the verb itself, not the 
voice. Active and middle verbs may be either transitive or in- 
transitive. Passive verbs may even be transitive, though usually 
intransitive, in one sense of ‘‘transitive.’’? But Gildersleeve! holds 
that ‘a transitive verb is a verb that passes over to a passive 
rather than one that passes over to an object.”? That is truer of 
Latin than of Greek, which, “with a lordliness that reminds one 
of English,” makes a passive out of any kind of an active. Ter- 
minology in syntax is open to dispute at many points, but I see 
only hopeless confusion here unless voice is kept to its real mean- 
ing. In Kihner-Gerth? it is held that “the active has a double 
meaning,”’ either intransitive or transitive. My point is that the 
voice per se has nothing to do with that question. Some verbs 
are intransitive, some are transitive, some are used either way. 
This freedom in the use of verbs increased till in the later Greek 
verbs that were once intransitive become transitive. Brugmann‘4 
properly separates the question of transitive and intransitive 
verbs from that of voice (cf. iterative, intensive, inchoative, de- 
siderative verbs). Some of the intransitive uses of verbs were due 
to the absence of the reflexive pronoun, as in περιῆγε (Mk. 6: 6), 
ἀπορρίψαντας (Ac. 27: 43). The modern Greek preserves the same 


1 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 279. 4 Griech. Gr., p. 467. 
= Bd: I, p. 89. 5 Jebb.,V. and D.’s Handb., p. 318. 
3 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 357. 

797 


798 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


freedom in the use of transitive and intransitive verbs and has 
peculiarities of its own.! 

(Ὁ) MEANING oF VorcE. Voice relates the action to the sub- 
ject. The use of voice then is to direct attention to the subject, 
not to the object. That concerns transitive and intransitive verbs. 
Stahl? puts it crisply: “The voice of the verb describes a relation 
of the verb-idea to the subject.”’ 

(c) Names oF THE Voices. Cf. chapter VIII, νι, (b). The 
names come from Dionysius Thrax (about B.c. 30), but “he has 
no inkling of a middle sense,”* showing that already the middle 
is disappearing before the passive. The terminology is very poor. 
Gildersleeve* calls the fashion of the Germans ‘‘a positively in- 
decent nomenclature,” since they call the voices genera (γένη), 
“based on a fancied resemblance to the genders.”’? We in English 
follow the French voix (Latin vox), found first in this sense in the 
Grammatica graeca nova of J. Weller (a.p. 1638) 5 

(d) History oF THE Voices. See chapter VIII, vt, (c), (d), (e). 
Cf. also Jannaris, Historical Gr., p. 362 f.; Moulton, Prol., p. 152. 
In the pro-ethnic language there were probably both active and 
middle. Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Syntax, Bd. II, p.413. There was 
no passive as there was none in the Sanskrit, save in the present 
system.® The rise of the passive meaning with the use of middle 
and active endings was sure to bring confusion and a tendency 
towards simplification. It was inevitable that the three voices 
should go back to two. In the actual outcome, the passive, 
though an interloper, ousts the middle of its forms and of most of 
its uses.”7. In the modern Greek vernacular, therefore, we find only 
two voices as to form, for the passive has taken over the meaning 
of the middle also (Thumb, Handb., p. 111 f.). In the beginning 
there were only active and middle. In the end we find only active 
and passive. 

(6) HeLP FROM THE SANSKRIT. The verb development in the 
Indo-Germanic languages has been more independent than that 
of nouns. Latin, for instance, has recast its verb-system, and it 
is quite difficult to compare the Greek and Latin voices. Sanskrit 


1 Thumb., Handb., p. 112 f. 

2 Krit.-hist. Synt. ἃ. griech. Verbums, p. 42. 

3 Thompson, Synt., p. 158. 

4 Notes on Stahl’s Synt. of the Gk. Verb in Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, 
p. 275. 

5 Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 233. 

© Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 201. 7 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 362. 


VOICE (ΔΙΑΘΕΣΙΣ) 799 


and Greek have preserved the voices best of all. Hence the San- 
skrit can throw a good deal of light on the Greek voices.! 

(f) DrrectTivE VerBs. Not all verbs were used in all the voices. 
Some were used only in one, some in two, some in all three. Then 
again, some verbs had one voice in one tense, another voice in 
another tense. This is just like the Sanskrit,? and just what one 
would expect from a living language in contrast with an artificial 
one. Brugmann,’ indeed, divides verbs, as to voices, according to 
this principle (those with active only, middle only, with both, etc.). 
In the N.T. Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 180) finds the same general 
use of the voices as in the older Greek, the same difficulty in differ- 
entiating the voices, and the same ‘‘arbitrariness” in the use of 
individual verbs. But much of this difficulty is due to coming at 
the matter with preconceived rules. Blass’ treatment of the voices 
is quite unsatisfactory. Cf. further for this matter, chapter VIII, 
γι, (ὦ). 

II. The Active Voice (διάθεσις ἐνεργετική). The Stoics called 
the active ὀρθή also. 

(a) MEANING oF THE AcTIVE Voicr. In this voice the sub- 
ject is merely represented as acting or existing, for state (cf. eiul) 
must be included as well as action. It is not certain whether the 
active or the middle is the older, but the active is far the more 
common. 

(Ὁ) Erruer TRANSITIVE oR INTRANSITIVE. There is nothing 
peculiar in the N. T. about this. Each verb has its own history. 
One originally transitive may become intransitive and vice versa.* 
Cf. ἄγω which may- be intransitive ἄγωμεν (Mt. 26:46; cf. the 
interjectional aye, Jas. 4: 13) or transitive ἤγαγον αὐτόν (Lu. 19:35). 
In ἄραντες (Ac. 27: 13, 17) the object is probably understood (τὴν 
ναῦν). Cf. also αὐξάνω in Mt. 6:28 and 2 Cor. 9:10. Βάλλω is 
usually transitive, even in Jo. 13:2 (cf. Ac. 22:28), but it is 
intransitive in Ac. 27: 14 (ἔβαλεν, ‘rushed’). Cf. Βλαστάνω in Jas. 
5:18 (tr.) and in Mt. 13:26 (intr.). So βρέχω is transitive in 
Lu. 7:38, but intransitive in Mt. 5:45. ’Evyeipw is usually tran- 
sitive (Mt. 10:8), but see Mt. 26:46. Ἐῤαγγελίζω is transitive 
in Rev. 10:7, but intransitive in 14:6. "ἔχω is transitive except 
when used with adverbs, when, as in ancient Greek, it may be 
intransitive. Cf. τοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας (Mt. 4: 24), ἐσχάτως ἔχει (Mk. 


1 Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 404 f. 

2 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 200. 

δ᾽ Griech. Gr., pp. 459 ff. Cf. Thompson, Synt., p. 159. 
4 Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 357. 


800 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


5:23), ἤδη ἔχοντα (Jo. 11:17), οὕτως ἔχει (Ac. 7:1), τὸ viv ἔχον 
(Ac. 24:25). Κλίνω is transitive in Mt. 8:20, but intransitive in 
Lu. 9:12. In Ac. 7:42 στρέφω is intransitive, though also transi- 
tive elsewhere. In the N.T. θριαμβεύω is transitive and the same 
is true of μαθητεύω. But in Text. Rec. ἐμαθήτευσε is intransitive in 
Mt. 27:57. Cf. δύνω intransitive in Lu. 4:40 and φύω in Heb. 
12:15. Let these serve as specimens of many such verbs in the 
N. T. Modern Greek is specially rich in intransitive active verbs 
(Thumb, Handb., p. 112) and verbs that oscillate from one use 
to the other. 

(c) Errect oF PREPOSITIONS IN ComposiTION. These may 
make the verb transitive or the result may be just the opposite. 
As examples of transitive compounds from an intransitive semplex 
take διαβαίνω (Heb. 11:29), but intransitive in Lu. 16:26. So 
διήρχετο τὴν ᾿Ιερειχώ (Lu. 19:1), παρέρχεσθε τὴν κρίσιν (11:42). On 
the other hand, instransitive compounds abound. The compounds 
of ἄγω (simplex either tr. or intr.) which are often intransitive 
are ἀπάγω (Mt. 7:18), παράγω (Mt. 9:9), περιάγω (Ac. 13:11), 
προάγω (Lu. 18:39), ὑπάγω (Jo. 3:8), but not ἀνάγω. Cf. also 
παραδίδωμι in Mk. 4:29. With βάλλω note ἐπιβάλλω in Mk. 4:37 
and the peculiar ἐπιβαλών in 14:72. Examples of several intran- 
sitive compounds of ἔχω occur in the N. T. Thus ἀπέχω (Mk. 
14:41), ἐνέχω (ΜΚ. 6:19), ἐπέχω (Lu. 14:7; Ac. 19 : 22), περιέχω 
(1 Pet. 2:6), προσέχω (Mt. 7:15), ὑπερέχω (Ph. 4:7). Here the 
substantive has dropped out in most cases and the verb comes to 
stand alone (cf. προσέχω νοῦν). Cf. ἀνακάμπτω (Mt. 2:12), ἐκκλίνω 
(Ro. 16:17) and προσκόπτω (Jo. 11:9). Καταπαύω is transitive 
in Ac. 14:18, but intransitive in Heb. 4:4,10. Cf. ἀπορρίπτω in 
Ac. 27:43. Στρέφω shows intransitive compounds with dva— (Ac. 
5 : 22), ἀπο-- (Ac. 8 : 26), ém— (Lu. 2:39). The modern’ Greek 
surpasses even the κοινή in its facility for making all sorts of com- 
pound verbs (tr. and intr.) and in particular verbs compounded 
with nouns, like ἐτεκνοτρόφησεν and ἐξενοδόχησεν (1 Tim. 5:10). Cf. 
Thumb, Handb., p. 112. 

(d) DirrERENT TENSES Vary. Thus where both second and 
first aorists occur, the second is intransitive and the first transitive. 
Cf. ἔστη (Lu. 6 : 8), but ἔστησεν αὐτό (Mk. 9 : 86). This distinction 
applies to all the compounds of ἵστημι. Acts 27: 28 (διαστήσαντες) 
is no exception, as τὴν ναῦν is to be supplied. Some of the “strong” 
or primitive perfect actives are intransitive when the present is 
transitive. Thus avewya (1 Cor. 16:9) from ἀνοίγω, ἀπόλωλα (Mt. 
10:6) from ἀπόλλυμι, ἑστάναι (Lu. 18:25) from ἵστημι, πέποιθα 


VOICE (ΔΙΑΘΕΣΙΣ) 801 


(Ro. 2:19) from πείθω, σέσηπα (Jas. 5:2) from ofmw. Moulton! 
seems to confuse ‘‘transitive” with ‘active’ and “intransitive” 
with “middle” in his discussion of these perfects: ““We have a 
number of cases in which the ‘strong’ perfect active attaches itself 
in meaning to the middle.’”” The middle is not in itself intransitive, 
nor is the active in itself transitive. ‘‘The conjecture that the 
perfect originally had no distinction of active and middle, its 
person-endings being peculiar throughout, affords the most prob- 
able explanation of the facts: when the much later -xa perfect 
arose, the distinction had become universal.’ It is doubtless true 
that in the primitive —a perfect there was no distinctive middle 
form. But why seek for a middle sense in the primitive perfect 
active because it happens in many cases to be intransitive? It 
does happen that yéeyova.(Jo. 1:4) is found with γίνομαι and ἐλήλυθα 
(Jo. 17: 1) from ἔρχομαι, two intransitive middles. It is also true 
that future middles are the rule with a few verbs which have 
this primitive, but not always intransitive, perfect. So it is with 
ἀκήκοα (trans., Ac. 6:11), εἴληφα (trans., Rev. 11:17), πέπονθα 
(intr. as the verb itself is, Lu. 13 : 2), rervxa (trans., Heb. 8 : 6). 
So with κέκραγεν (Jo. 1:15, intr. like the verb itself), though 
κεκράξομαι (some MSS. in Lu. 19:40) is future perfect middle. 
Οἶδα (Jo. 10:4) is transitive, though defective, while ἔοικα (Jas. 
1:6), like εἴωθα (Mk. 10:1), is intransitive. But γέγραφα (Jo. 
19 : 22) is transitive. 

(ὁ) THe AcTIVE AS CAUSATIVE. But this usage is not due to 
the voice, and is, besides, common to all languages.?_ Cf. the Hebrew 
Hiphil conjugation. Viteau (“Essai sur la Syntaxe des Voix dans 
le Gree du N. T.,’”’ Revue de Philologie, 1894, p. 2) says that the 
Greek voices would not be strange to a Jew who was used to the 
seven conjugations of the Hebrew verb. But the point is not 
strictly parallel. In one sense this idiom is due to the fact that 
what one does through another he does himself.2 Cf. τὸν ἥλιον 
αὐτοῦ ἀνατέλλει (Mt. ὅ : 45), strictly causative. But in Jo. 19:1, 
ἔλαβεν 6 Πιλάτος τὸν ᾿]ησοῦν καὶ ἐμαστίγωσεν, the other kind of causa- 
tive occurs. So also with περιέτεμεν (Ac. 16:3). There was in- 
deed a remarkable increase in the LX X in the number of verbs 
used in the causative sense, many of which had been usually in- 
transitive: Cf. βασιλεύω, which occurs 36 times in the causative 
sense in the LXX (οἵ. Judg. 9:0). The Hebrew Hiphil is partly 


1 Prol., p. 154. 2 Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 359. 
3 Gildersleeve, Synt. of Cl. Gk., p. 63. 
4 C. and §., Sel., p. 76. 


802 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


responsible for this increase! See further verbs in —ow, like 
καταδουλόω (Gal. 2 : 4). 

(7) AcTivE wiTH REFLEXxiIvEs. Certainly there is nothing 
unusual in this construction. Cf. σῶσον σεαυτόν (Mk. 15: 30), 
ἔβαλεν ἑαυτόν (Jo. 21:8), προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς (Lu. 17:3). Cf. Jo. 
21:18. Blass? indeed says that the “active for middle” occurs. 
One hesitates to subscribe to that dictum. It is indeed true that 
the use of the reflexive pronoun with the active brings out much 
more sharply the reflexive relation than the mere middle. It is 
not necessary to say that καταδουλοῖ (2 Cor. 11: 20) is used “for” 
the middle. It is true that πειράζω in the κοινή supplants the Attic 
πειράομαι, but this is not due to a confusion of voice. With ποιέω 
the N. T. does show a number of examples of the active where 
the middle was more common in the Attic, though the N. T. gen- 
erally has ποιεῖσθαι ἀναβολήν, λόγον, πορείαν, σπουδήν. And the 
MSS. vary greatly between active and middle of ποιέω with 
ἔλεος (Lu. 10:37), μονήν (Jo. 14:23), κοπετόν (Ac. 8:2), συνωμοσίαν 
(23:13), but not with συμβούλιον (Mk. 15:1), ἐκδίκησιν (Lu. 18:7 f.), 
συστροφήν (Ac. 23:12), πόλεμον (Rev.11:7). But this is precisely 
what we find in the κοινή (inscriptions and papyri). Cf. Rader- 
macher, NV. 7. Gr., p. 120. So even βιάζω and ἐπιλανθάνω (Mayser, 
Gr., p. 386). The same tendency appears in modern Greek 
(Thumb, Handb., p. 114). Cf. διέρρηξεν τὰ ἱμάτια αὑτοῦ (Mt. 
26:65). In these examples Blass has in my judgment read too 
much into the active voice. But it is certain that in προσέχετε 
ἑαυτοῖς (Lu. 12 : 1) there is more emphasis on the reflexive idea than 
in φυλάσσεσθε (12:15). Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 157. 

(g) ImpERSONAL Active. Some impersonal verbs occur in the 
active. Cf. περιέχει ἐν τῇ γραφῇ (1 Pet. 2:6), and ἔβρεξεν (Jas. 
Datel ioe 

(h) Inrinttives. These do not always reflect the force of the 
voice, especially in the “epexegetic” use,? like our English “ fair 
to see,” “good to eat:” Cf. κριθῆναι and λαβεῖν, Mt. 5: 40. The 
infinitive has no voice in Sanskrit. See further under Infinitive 
(ch. XX, Verbal Nouns). 

(ὃ Active VERBS AS PASSIVES OF OTHER VERBS. Thus ἀπο- 
θνήσκω is More common than the passive of ἀποκτείνω (--κτέννω), 
though examples of this passive occur in the N. T. (Rev. 6:11, 
etc.). W. H. read κακῶς ἔχει in Mt. 17:15 rather than κακῶς 
πάσχει (cf. ποιῶ κακῶς, etc.). So ἐκπίπτω (Ac. 27: 17, 26, 29) occurs 


1 Thack., Gr. of the O. T. in Gk., p. 24. 3 Cf. Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 63. 
4 Gr. of Ne atk pass: 4 Thompson, Synt., p. 172. 


VOICE (ΔΙΑΘΕΣΙΣ) 803 


as passive of ἐκβάλλω, but note ἐκβάλλεσθαι in Mt. 8:12. Cf. 
Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 75. In 1 Cor. 11:18 ἀκούω has the classic 
turn ‘I am told.’ But in 5:1 ἀκούεται the passive itself occurs 
in the sense ‘It is reported.’ But in all such cases the distinction 
between the voices is not really lost. 

III. The Middle Voice (διάθεσις μέση). 

(a) ORIGIN OF THE MippuE. See chapter VIII, vi, (c), for the 
uncertainty as to the priority of active and middle. That ques- 
tion is an open one and must be left open. Both active and 
middle appear in Sanskrit and in Homer. The prehistoric situation 
is purely speculative. Logically the active would seem to come 
first, though the difference in form may be due to variation in 
sound (ablaut).1 Probably at first there was neither active nor 
middle, the distinction being a development. In the Sanskrit? 
we meet a full system of both active and middle forms for all the 
tenses (not all the modes), the participle, however, having only a 
partial system and the infinitive no voice at all. But each verb 
has its own development and that was by no means uniform. 
Some had a very limited use as to voice, tense and mode. In 
Homer indeed the middle is rather more common than in later 
Greek.’ It is only in the Sanskrit, Zend (Old Persian), Greek and 
Gothic that the middle is kept as a distinct voice. In the Gothic 
only remnants of the middle are found,’ while in Latin the middle 
as a separate voice disappears.® It is very difficult to run a parallel 
between the Latin and Greek voices. But there is a considerable 
remnant of Latin middles like miror, sequor, utor (cf. Draeger, Hist. 
Syntax, pp. 145 ff.). The final disappearance of the Greek future 
and aorist middle before the passive is well sketched by Jannaris.? 
But at first we are not to think of the passive at all, that inter- 
loper that finally drove the middle out of use. 

(Ὁ) Mnantina or THE Mrippie. It is urged that the term 
“middle” is good because the voice in meaning stands between 
the active and the passive. But, unfortunately for that idea, 
the middle is older than the passive. It is true that-the passive 
arose out of the middle and that the middle marks a step towards 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 152. 

2 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 200. 3 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 7. 

4 Cf. O. Hoffmann, Das Priisens der indoger. Grundspr., 1889, p. 25. In 
the Bantu language Mr. Dan Crawford finds 16 voices (reflexive, reciprocal, 
intensive, etc., all having special forms). 

5 Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 406. > * Hist. Gk, Gr., p. 362.f. 

6 Ib., p. 405. 8 Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 57. 


804. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the passive. The passive idea existed before there was a sepa- 
rate passive form, a thing never true of all tenses and all verbs. 
The Hebrew Hithpael conjugation is somewhat parallel,! but not 
wholly so. The only difference between the active and middle 
voices is that the middle calls especial attention to the subject. 
In the active voice the subject is merely acting; in the middle the 
subject is acting in relation to himself somehow. What this pre- 
cise relation is the middle voice does not say. That must come out 
of the context or from the significance of the verb itself. Gilder- 
sleeve? is clearly right in holding that the interpretation of the 
difference between active and middle is in many cases more 
lexical than grammatical. “The middle adds a subjective ele- 
ment.’’? Sometimes the variation from the active is too minute 
for translation into English. This “word for one’s self” is often 
very difficult of translation, and we must not fall into the error 
of explaining the force of the middle by the English translation. 

(c) OFTEN DIFFERENCE FROM AcTIvVE AcuTE. As examples 
note: aipew, ‘I take’; αἱρέομαι, ‘I take to myself’ (‘choose’) ; ἀναμιμνή- 
σκω, ‘I remind’; ἀναμιμνήσκομαι, ‘I remind myself’ (‘remember’); 
ἀπέχω, ‘I hold. off’; ἀπέχομαι, ‘I hold myself off’ (‘abstain’); 
ἀποδίδωμι, ‘I give back’; ἀποδίδομαι, ‘I give back of my own’ 
(‘sell’) ; ἀπόλλυμι, ‘I destroy’; ἀπόλλυμαι, ‘I perish’; ἅπτω, “1 fasten’; 
ἅπτομαι, “1 touch’; ἄρχω, ‘I rule’; ἄρχομαι, ‘I begin’; βουλεύω, “1 
counsel’; βουλεύομαι, ‘I take counsel’ (‘deliberate’); γαμέω, ‘I 
marry’ (‘bridegroom’), γαμέομαι (‘bride’); γεύω, ‘I give to taste’; 
γεύομαι, ‘I taste’; γράφω, ‘I enrol’; ypadoua ‘I indict’ (but ‘enrol 
one’s self’ in Lu. 2:5); δανείζω, ‘I lend’; δανείζομαι, ‘I borrow’; 
διδάσκω, “41 teach’; διδάσκομαι, ‘I get taught’; ἵστημι, ‘I place’; 
ἵσταμαι, ‘I stand’; λανθάνω, ‘1 escape notice’; λανθάνομαι, ‘I forget’; 
μισθόω, “1 let,’ μισθόομαι, “1 hire’; παύω, ‘I make to cease’; παύομαι, 
‘I cease’; πείθω, ‘I persuade’; πείθομαι, ‘I obey’; daivw, ‘I show’; 
φαίνομαι, ‘I appear’; φοβέω, ‘I frighten’; φοβέομαι, ‘I fear.’ These 
examples in the N. T. illustrate the difference between the two 
voices.* 

(d) Tue Usk oF THE MippLE Not OsuicaTory.® This remark 
may sound like a truism, but it is justified when one can read 
this: ‘““As the active is used in place of the middle, so the middle 


1 Ewald, Heb. Gr., ὃ 248. 2 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 277. 

3 Viteau, Essai sur la Synt. des Voix, p. 17. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 153. 

4 Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 360; Clyde Gk. Synt., p. 58 f.; Farrar, Gr. 
Synt., p. 117 f.; Thompson, Synt., pp. 168 ff. 

5 Gildersleeve, Synt. of Class. Gk., p. 66. 


VOICE (AIAQESIS) 805 


often stands for the active which would naturally be expected.’ ! 
Winer? also speaks of the two voices being used “interchangeably.” 
But Winer loses one of his examples, for W. H. have συγκαλεῖ in 
Lu. 15:9, as in verse 6. Winer correctly says that “‘it depended 
on the writer’? which he would use. Of course, but that is not to 
say that no distinction existed. In Jas. 4:2 f., αἰτεῖτε καὶ οὐ λαμ- 
Bavere, διότι κακῶς αἰτεῖσθε, the middle seems rather on purpose 
(‘ye ask for yourselves amiss,’ Farrar, Gk. Syntax, p. 118). Blass® 
calls this “δὴ arbitrary interchange,’ though he admits in general 
the N. T. use of αἰτέω for ordinary requests (as from God), but 
αἰτέομαι in business transactions (its usual use in the N. T., Mt. 
27:20; Lu. 23 : 23). This may be the very point in Jas. 4:2f. 
and 1 Jo. 5:14. Moulton‘ agrees with Mayor (James in loco) on 
the correctness of the distinction. Mayor (in loco) says: ‘When 
αἰτεῖτε is thus opposed to αἰτεῖσθε, it implies using the words, 
without the spirit of prayer.’’ See the same distinction drawn in 
MiG i722-252 10559,.68 (Mt. 202 20,22) 1 Jo. 5:15. Blass (Gr. 
of N. T. Gk., p. 186 note) observes that Herod’s offer to Salome 
gave her business relations to him justifying her use of the middle 
(Mk. 6:24f.). When the active and the middle occur side by 
side the attention is drawn to the distinction. It is to be recalled 
again that the same verb varied in different stages of the language 
in the voice used. Hence it is hardly pertinent to bring an in- 
dictment against the N. T. writers, because the middle is not used 
with all verbs just as it was in the Attic Greek. As a matter of 
fact, Homer differs from the Attic. Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 186) 
succinctly says that “‘the New Testament writers were perfectly 
capable of preserving the distinction between the active and the 
middle.” So in Mk. 14:47 note σπασάμενος τὴν μάχαιραν, while in 
Mt. 26: 51 we have ἀπέσπασεν τὴν μάχαιραν αὐτοῦ. In Matthew we 
have the pronoun αὐτοῦ and ἀπό supplanting the middle in Mark 
(cf. Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 120f.).. Radermacher (op. cit., 
p. 119), however, as a result of his researches, finds in the 
κοινή “ Unsicherheitt im Gebrauch des Mediums.” The point of 
the middle is not the same always. So in Ac. 7: 24 ἀμύνεσθαι -- 
‘assist,’ not ‘ward off from one’s self,’ but the force of the middle 
is present. So in Col. 2:15, ἀπεκδυσάμενος τὰς ἀρχάς, it is not 
‘undress,’ but ‘throw off from one’s self.’ Cf. also πληροῦσθαι in 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 185. 
2 W.-Th., p. 256. 

3 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 186. 
Prol’, p 100): 


806 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Eph. 1:23 and πληροῦν in 4:10. Moulton! shows that there is 
as much freedom in the papyri in the use of active and middle 
as in the N. T. Thus ἐὰν αἱρῆτε and ἐὰν αἱρῆσθε (ἃ. H. 36, B.c. 
95) occur side by side. So yayetoOac=nubere fell out of use. See 
also 1, (f). | 

(6) ErrHeR TRANSITIVE OR INTRANSITIVE. Thus ἐὰν μὴ νίψωνται 
τὰς χεῖρας (Mk. 7:3) and ἥψαντο αὐτοῦ (6:56), but ἐξίσταντο (6: 
52) and εἰσεπορεύοντο (6: 56) are intransitive. The middle is not, 
therefore, intransitive in itself. That is a matter that belongs to 
the verb-stem. As to the future middles, like βήσομαι, see discus- 
sion a little later. Some verbs, indeed, are transitive in the active, 
but intransitive in the middle (ἀπόλλυμι, ἀπόλλυμαι, φαίνω, φαίνομαι). 
Cf. Hatzidakis, Hinl., pp. 201 ff.; Thompson, Syntax, p. 161. 

(f) Direct Mippue. It is necessary to discuss the various uses 
of the middle, but the divisions made by the grammarians are more 
or less arbitrary and unsatisfactory. They are followed here merely 
for convenience. The middle voice is very broad in its scope and 
no one word, not even reflexive, covers all the ground. It is essen- 
tially the voice of personal interest somewhat like the dative case. 
Grosse (Bevtrdge zur Syntax des griechischen Mediums und Passi- 
vums, 1891, p. 4) denies that the reflexive is the original use of the 
middle. But Rutherford (First Gk. Syntax, 1890, p. 74), derives 
both passive and middle out of the reflexive use. For the various 
uses of the middle in Homer, who is specially fond of this voice, 
see Monro, Homeric Gr., p. 7. But, curiously, Monro mentions 
“the Intransitive use” as one of the separate idioms of the 
middle. Nearly every grammarian? has his own division of these 
“uses”? of the middle, none of which the Greeks themselves had. 
Gildersleeve*® is justly impatient with this overrefinement and 
observes that “one must needs fall back on the way of the lan- 
guage,” which “is capricious in such matters.’’ It is needless to 
take up philosophical abstractions like “subjective” and ‘‘ob- 
jective.” It is not possible to tell whether the direct middle 
(reflexive middle) was the original use of the voice or not. The 
direct middle is comparatively rare in Homer and in the early 
Greek generally.’ It began in the κοινή to disappear, before the 
active and the reflexive pronoun (cf. N. T.), but the direct middle 


1 Prol., p. 158f. He cites also συνᾶραι λόγον, B.U. 775 (ii/A.p.). But the 
pap. use the middle also. 

2 Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 117; Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 459 ff.; K.-G., 
Bd. I, pp. 100 ff.; Stahl, Krit.-hist. Synt., pp. 49 ff. 

3 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 278. 4 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 7. 


VOICE (ΔΙΑΘΕΣΙΣ) 807 


revived again as the indirect middle disappeared before the passive 
because of “its subtle meaning.’’! Hence in Neo-Hellenic “al- 
most every transitive verb, if active, admits of a direct middle.’’? 
In modern Greek this direct reflexive is nearly the sole use of the 
middle.2 The modern Greek has no distinction in forms between 
middle and passive, but the middle signification survives. Thus 
λούζομαι means ‘I bathe myself’ (Thumb, Handb., pp. 111, 114). 
Thumb finds the direct reflexive use common. Moulton‘ practi- 
cally confines this idiom in the N. T. to ἀπήγξατο (Mt. 27: δ), ‘he 
hanged himself,’ and even here Moulton suggests ‘choked’ as a 
truer English translation. This is indeed “ἃ survival from clas- 
sical Greek,’’ but there seem to be other N. T. examples also. 
The example cited by Winer® from Jo. 8 : 59 (cf. also 12 : 36), 
ἐκρύβη, 18 passive, as Moulton® points out. But in ds λουσαμένη 
(2 Pet.2 : 22) the direct middle is evident, as Moulton admits in 
the Appendix (p. 238). Cf. λούσασθε (Is. 1:16), ‘wash you.’ Note 
also ἀπελούσασθε, ‘washed yourselves’ (1 Cor. 6:11, correct transla- 
tion in margin of Rev. V.). A good example also is θερμαινόμενος 
(Mk. 14: 54), ‘warming himself’ (Rev. V.). It is rather gratuitous 
to doubt the direct middle παρασκευάσεται, ‘prepare himself’ (1 
Cor. 14:8). But Moulton adds μὴ σκύλλου (Lu. 7:6) to Winer’s 
list and illustrates by “the illiterate contemporary papyrus O.P. 
295, μὴ σκλύλλε ἑατήν᾽᾽ (active and reflexive pronoun). So also 
ῥαντίσωνται (W. H., Mk. 7:4) and βαπτίσωνται (marg.) are both 
direct middles. Ζῶσαι (Ac. 12:8), ‘gird yourself,’ is also direct 
middle. Δογματίζεσθε (Col. 2 : 20) is probably direct middle, ‘sub- 
ject yourselves to ordinances.’ And ὑποτάσσεσθε (Col. 3 : 18) may 
be also. “ἽΑστομαι (‘fasten myself to,’ ‘touch’) is really the direct 
middle (Mk. 8: 22). ’Emexrewouevos (Ph. 3: 13) is ‘stretching 
myself forward.’ Cf. also ὑπεστειλάμην (Ac. 20: 27), ‘withdraw 
myself’; ἀντιτασσόμενος (Ro. 13:2), ‘line one’s self up against.’ 
In the case of περιβάλλομαι it is probable that we have the direct 
middle ‘clothe one’s self’ (Mt. 6 : 29). The accusative of the thing 
is added in Rev. 3:18. It is possible to regard ἀναπαύεσθε (Mt. 
26:45) as direct middle. ᾿Απογράψασθαι (Lu. 2:5) may be 
merely the direct middle, ‘enrol himself,’ though the causative 
idea is possible. In Lu. 12:15 φυλάσσεσθε (‘guard yourselves 
from’) follows the classic idiom. ’Avexduevor ἀλλήλων (Eph. 4: 2) 
is also the direct middle, ‘holding yourselves back from one an- 
1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 360. 40: 


25 Thy: ΠΡ: 259: 
3 Moulton, Prol., p. 156. § Prol., p. 156. 


S08 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


other.’ The same thing is true of ἀπέχεσθαι εἰδωλοθύτων (Ac. 
15:29). In 1 Pet. 5:5 ταπεινοφροσύνην ἔγκομβώσασθε, ‘gird your- 
selves with humility,’ we may have the same idiom. In Ac. 18: 
5, συνείχετο TS λόγῳ, We may have the direct middle, ‘held him- 
self to the word.’ There are to be added, besides, some of the 
causative middles, like βάπτισαι (Ac. 22:16), ‘get yourself bap- 
tized’ (cf. ἐβαπτίσαντο, 1 Cor. 10:2). It is true that the list is 
not a large one, but the idiom is clearly not obsolete in the N. T. 
The causative middle has a wider use also, as will be shown 
directly. 

(g) CAUSATIVE OR PERMISSIVE MippuE. Cf. the German sich 
lassen. This occasional use of the middle does not distinguish 
it from the active and occurs both with the direct and the indi- 
rect use of the middle.! It is just so in modern Greek (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 114 f.).- It is, like transitive and intransitive, more 
the notion of the word than a phase of the middle voice.2 In 
later Greek the causative sense occurs only with the direct middle.’ 
It is not to be forgotten that originally there was no passive form 
at all. The verb-idea and the context then alone decided the 
voice as between middle and passive. Even in the aorist and 
_ future, where the passive later has a distinct form, the line was 
not always sharply drawn, especially in the future. More about 
this a little later. But in the aorist in particular one hesitates to 
find a passive voice in the middle form, though it sometimes 
happens. Some few of these causative middles could be explained 
as passives, but by no means all. Certainly ἐκλεξαμένους (Ac. 15 : 
22) is a true middle. A considerable residuum remains. “In 
Tb.P. 35 (ii/B.c.) ἑαυτὸν αἰτιάσεται, ‘will get himself accused,’ is a 
middle.”* In Ac. 22:16, βάπτισαι καὶ ἀπόλουσαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου, 
we have the causative middle, one a direct, the other an indirect, 
middle, ‘get yourself baptized and get your sins washed away.’ 
So then ἐβαπτίσαντο (W. H. text in 1 Cor. 10:2) is causative, 
though many MSS. read ἐβαπτίσθησαν. Blass® has eccentric notions 
of textual criticism, for he rejects the middle here and contends 
for it in Lu. 11:38 on the authority of one minuscule! Blass® 
also argues that the sense of ‘let’ or ‘allow’ belongs to the pas- 
sive rather than to the middle, but this is by no means certain. 
Thus ἀδικεῖσθε and ἀποστερεῖσθε (1 Cor. 6:7) may be middles (cf. 
actives in next verse), ‘let yourselves be wronged and robbed.’ 


1 Gildersleeve, Synt. of Class. Gr., p. 67. 4 Moulton, Prol., p. 162. 
2 Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 162. 5 Gr. of NN. TuGk, p. 187. 
$ Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 361. . 6 Ib., p. 185. 


VOICE (ΔΙΛΘΕΣΙΣ) 809 


This permissive sense of the middle is closely allied to the causa- 
tive and approaches the passive.1 In Lu. 2:5 ἀπογράψασθαι may 
be (see (f) above) causative, ‘have himself enrolled,’ though ἀπο- 
γράφεσθαι (2:1) is passive. In Mt. 5:42 davicacba is ‘to have 
money lent’ (‘to borrow’). Μισθώσασθαι (Mt. 20:1) is ‘to let 
out for wages’ (‘to hire’). In 1 Cor. 11:6, κειράσθω, κείρασθαι ἢ 
ξυρᾶσθαι (or ξύρασθαι), we find the permissive middle. Cf. ξυρή- 
σονται τὴν κεφαλήν (Ac. 21:24). But ἀποκόψονται (Gal. 5:12) is 
causative, ‘have themselves castrated’ (cf. Deut. 23:1). So ἀπε- 
λούσασθε, according to text of Rev. V. (1 Cor. 6:11). In Rev. 
3:5 περιβαλεῖται comes rather close to the passive sense. See 
(f) above. In Lu. 14:18, 19, ἔχε we παρῃτημένον, we have a con- 
struction more like modern English. The causative idea in dva- 
κεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ (Eph. 1:10) is not due to 
the voice, but to the verb itself (—dw). 

(h) InptrEcT Mippie. In the flourishing period of the language 
this was by far the most frequent use, but it finally faded before 
the active and the intensive (reflexive) pronoun or the passive.?. In 
1 Cor. 15 : 28, ὑποταγήσεται, the passive may bear the middle force 
(Findlay, Expos. Gr. T., in loco). But in general the indirect 
middle is abundant and free in the N. T. In the modern Greek 
Thumb gives no instances of the indirect middle. The precise 
shade of the resultant meaning varies very greatly. The subject is 
represented as doing something for, to or by himself. Often the 
mere pronoun is sufficient translation. Each word and its context 
must determine the result. Thus in Heb. 9: 12, αἰωνίαν λύτρωσιν 
εὑράμενος, Jesus is represented as having found eternal redemption 
by himself. He found the way. In Mt. 16:22, προσλαβόμενος 
αὐτόν, ‘Peter takes Jesus to himself.’ In Mk. 9:8, περιβλεψάμενοι, 
‘the disciples themselves suddenly looking round.’ In Lu. 8 : 27, 
οὐκ ἐνεδύσατο ἱμάτιον, ‘did not put a garment on himself.’ In 8: 52, 
ἐκόπτοντο αὐτήν, the word has really changed meaning, ‘they beat 
themselves for grief as to her’ (‘bewailed her’), actually a direct 
middle. ‘We have, in fact, to vary the exact relation of the re- 
flexive perpetually if we are to represent the middle in the form ap- 
propriate to the particular example.’ That is precisely the case. 
So προσκαλεσάμενος (Mt. 10: 1) represents Jesus as calling the dis- 
ciples to himself. Cf. εἰσκαλοῦμαι (Ac. 10 : 23). So προσλαμβάνεσθε 
(Ro. 15:7; cf. also προσελάβετο) is ‘take to yourselves.’ Καίσαρα 
ἐπικαλοῦμαι (Ac. 25 : 11) is ‘I call upon Cesar in my behalf.’ Λὲρήσο- 


1 Thompson, Synt., p. 162. 
2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 360, 362. 3 Moulton, Prol., p. 157. 


810 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


μαι (Ph. 1: 22) is ‘I take for myself’ (‘choose’), while κτήσησθε (Mt. 
10 : 9), though only in the middle, means ‘provide for yourselves’ 
(‘procure’). In σπασάμενος τὴν μάχαιραν (Mk. 14:47), the possessive 
is probably sufficient, ‘drawing his own sword’ (cf. ἀπέσπασεν --- 
αὐτοῦ in Mt. 26:51). ᾿Εκτιναξάμενος τὰ ἱμάτια (Ac. 18 : 6) is rather 
‘shaking out his clothes from himself,’ while ἀπενίψατο ras χεῖρας 
(Mt. 27 : 24) is probably ‘he himself washed his hands.’ In 
ἀπωθεῖσθε αὐτόν (Ac. 13:46; οἵ. Ro. 11:1) the idea is ‘ye push it 
away from yourselves’ (‘reject’). ᾿Απέδοσθε (Ac. 5: 8) is ‘ye gave 
away for your own interest’ (‘sold’). ᾿Ενοσφίσατο (Ac. 5 : 2) means 
‘kept back for himself.’ In ἐπιδεικνύμεναι χιτῶνας (Ac. 9 : 39) the 
women were ‘showing garments belonging to themselves.’ Note 
the fulness of meaning in περιεποιήσατο (Ac. 20:28). Cf. παρα- 
τηρεῖσθε (Gal. 4:10), ἀπειπάμην (2 Cor. 4 : 2), ἐκτρέπομαι (1 Tim. 
6:20). In διεζώσατο (Jo. 21:7) we have ‘he girded round himself.’ 
Παραιτήσησθε (Heb. 12 : 25) is ‘beg off from yourselves’ (‘reject’). 
In Col. 4 : 5, τὸν καιρὸν ἐξαγοραζόμενοι, we have ‘buying the oppor- 
tunity for yourselves out of the open market.’ ᾿Αποθέμενοι (Heb. 
12: 1) is ‘laying aside from yourselves every weight.’ In ἐξελέξατο 
(Lu. 10 : 42) we have ‘she selected for herself’ (‘chose’). ’Eve- 
διδύσκετο (Lu. 16:19) is ‘he put clothes on himself,’ though this 
may be direct middle with accusative of thing added. Karorrpi- 
ζόμενοι (2 Cor. 3:18) is probably ‘beholding for ourselves in a 
mirror.’ In Ro. 3:25, ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεός, note that it was God’s 
own Son whom he set forth. This free indirect reflexive use came 
to be the typical middle in the flourishing period of the Greek 
language. No fixed rule can be laid down for the translation of 
this or any other use of the middle. Even “‘deponents”’ like 
χράομαι may be indirect middles. This word from χρή (‘neces- 
sity’) means ‘I make for myself what is necessary with something’ 
(Moulton, Prol., p. 158). An interesting group of middles occurs 
in Ac. 24: 22-25, ἀνεβάλετο, διαγνώσομαι, διαταξάμενος, παραγενόμενος, 
μετεπέμψατο, διαλεγομένου, πορεύου, μετακαλέσομαι. These are not all 
“indirect”? middles, as is obvious. Cf. also ἐκβαλλόμενοι (Ac. 27 : 38) 
and προσελάβετο (Ro. 14:3). It is interesting to note the difference 
between παρεῖχε in Ac. 16:16 (the damsel who furnished gain for 
her masters) and παρείχετο in Ac. 19: 24 (Demetrius who furnished 
gain for his craftsmen and himself). So πείθω is ‘to exercise 
suasion,’ and πείθομαι ‘to admit suasion to one’s self’ (Moulton, 
Prol., p. 158). 

(ἢ RectprocaAL Mippue. Since ἑαυτῶν was used in the recip- 
rocal sense, it was natural for the middle to fall in with this idiom. 


VOICE (ΔΙΑΘΕΣΙΣ) 811 


Thus συνεβουλεύσαντο (Mt. 26 : 4), ‘they counselled with one an- 
other,’ does not differ radically from ἐξελέγοντο (Lu. 14 : 7), ‘they 
selected the first seats for themselves.’! So also ἐβουλεύσαντο 
(Jo. 12:10), συνετέθειντο (9:22), συναναμίγνυσθαι (1 Cor. 5:9), xpi- 
γεσθαι (6:1), ἐμάχοντο (Jo. 6:52), διαλεγόμενος (Ac. 19:8. In Mk. 
9 : 34, πρὸς ἀλλήλους διελέχθησαν, we have passive deponent with 
reciprocal pronoun).? The reciprocal middle survives in modern 
Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 114). For classic examples see Gil- 
dersleeve, Syntax, p. 66. 

(j) REDUNDANT MippuE. Here the pronoun and the middle 
both occur. This idiom is found as early as Homer and indicates 
a dimness in the force of the middle on the part of the speaker. 
“The effect is artificial” according to Thompson.’ Gildersleeve 
(Syntax, p. 68) sees in this idiom the effort to bring out more 
clearly the reflexive force of the middle. Moulton (Prol., p. 162) 
cites from the papyri ἑαυτὸν αἰτιάσεται, Th.P. 35 (1i/B.c.). This 
redundance probably began very naturally. Thus in Ac. 7: 58, 
ἀπέθεντο τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτῶν, the personal pronoun is added, not the 
reflexive. So in ὑπόδησαι τὰ σανδάλιά cov and περιβαλοῦ τὸ ἱμάτιόν 
σου (12:8) and ἄλειψαί σου τὴν κεφαλήν (Mt. 6 : 17). Cf. νίπτονται 
τὰς χεῖρας (Mt. 15: 2) without the pronoun. So in Lu. 14:1, καὶ 
αὐτοὶ ἦσαν παρατηρούμενοι, the αὐτοὶ wavers between mere personal 
and intensive. Cf. the active in Eph. 5 : 26, παραστήσῃ αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ. 
But in Jo. 19 : 24 the LXX quotation is given as διεμερίσαντο --- 
ἑαυτοῖς, While in Mt. 27:35 it is merely dveuepioavto. Note also 
σεαυτὸν παρεχόμενος (Tit. 2:7) and ποιοῦμαι --- ἐμαυτῷ (Ac. 20 : 24). 
See also ἀνεθρέψατο αὐτὸν ἑαυτῇ eis υἱόν (Ac. 7:21) and 1 Tim. 3: 13 
ἑαυτοῖς περιποιοῦνται. Most of the examples, however, in the N. T. 
occur with verbs which are not found in the active. Cf. Lu. 9: 
23 ἀρνησάσθω ἑαυτόν, Ac. 24:10 τὰ περὶ ἐμαυτοῦ ἀπολογοῦμαι, 26: 2 
ἥγημαι ἐμαυτόν, Ph. 8. : 12 ἐμαυτὸν οὔπω λογίζομαι. 

(k) Dynamic (ὈΒΡΟΝΕΝΤ) Mippie. “I would fain call the 
drip-pan middle, the πανδέκτης middle, the middle that is put at 
the bottom to catch the drippings of the other uses.’”’* And this 
is the most difficult use of the middle to explain. Some writers 
distinguish between the dynamic and the deponent. Others, like 
Thompson,® make the dynamic include the deponent. The name 
‘“deponent”’ is very unsatisfactory. It is used to mean the laying 


ἱ Moulton, Prol., p. 157. 

2 Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 361. 3 Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 166. 
4 Gildersleeve, Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 277. 

5 Synt., p. 161. 


812 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


aside of the active form in the case of verbs that have no active 
voice. But these verbs in most cases never had an active voice. 
Moulton! is clearly right in his contention that the term in reality 
applies as well to active verbs that have no middle as to middle 
verbs that have no active. The term is usually applied to both 
middles and passives that have no active (Clyde, Gk. Syntaz, p. 
61). Others? use the term for middle verbs that have no longer 
a reflexive idea. But ‘‘deponent”’ is a very poor definition. Nor 
is the word “dynamic”? much better. Winer’s remark? is not 
very lucid: “From Middle verbs are to be carefully distinguished 
Deponents.”” They are indeed either transitive or intransitive, 
but some are in the middle voice, others passive. But the point 
about all the “dynamic” middles is that it is hard to see the dis- 
tinctive force of the voice. The question is raised whether these 
verbs have lost the middle idea or never had it. ‘Like the rest 
of us, Stahl has to go into bankruptcy,’’ Gildersleeve* remarks on 
Stahl’s attempt to explain this use of the middle. Moulton (Prol., 
p. 158) thinks that in these verbs ‘‘it is useless to exercise our in- 
genuity on interpreting the middle, for the development never 
progressed beyond the rudimentary stage.” But these verbs per- 
sist in the modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 113). It is possible 
that the Greeks were more sensitive to the exact force of this 
middle than we are, just as they used the intensive particles so 
freely. Where guessing is all that we can do, is it not clear that 
these “dynamic” middles represent the original verb before the 
distinction was drawn between active and middle? The French 
says je m’apercois, ‘I perceive.’ The intensive force of this middle 
is partially seen in verbs of mental action which are so common in 
Greek, like αἰσθάνομαι (Lu. 9 : 45), ἀρνέομαι (Lu. 12 : 9), προαιτιάομαι 
(Ro. 3:9), ἀσπάζομαι (Ac. 25:13), διαβεβαιοῦμαι (Tit. 3:8), κατα- 
λαμβάνομαι (Ac. 4:13, but note καταλαμβάνω in the same sense in 
Ph. 3:12), ἐντέλλομαι (Heb. 11:22), ἐπιλανθάνομαι (Mt. 16: 5), 
εὔχομαι (Ro. 9 : 3), ἡγέομαι (Ph. ὃ : 8), λογίζομαι (Ph. 4 : 8), μαίνομαι 
(Ac. 26 : 25), μέμφομαι (Ro. 9 : 19), φείδομαι (Ro. 8 : 32). 1 imagine 
that the personal interest of the subject is not so difficult to recog- 
nise in such verbs, especially since in a word like καταλαμβάνομαι 
it is not ‘‘deponent,”’ but occurs also in the active. The papyri 
vary,’ as does the N. T. in the use of ποιοῦμαι and ποιῶ with nouns. 
Thus we have συμβούλιον ποιήσαντες (Mk. 15:1), but μνείαν ποιού- 
ΤΡ ΠΡΟ 56: 4 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 278. 


2 Thompson, Synt., p. 161. 5 Moulton, Prol., p. 159. 
2 ΠΡ 258: 


VOICE (ΔΙΛΘΕΣΙΣ) 813 


μενος (Eph. 1.: 10). There is the utmost freedom in the matter in 
the Ν. T. Not all the “deponents” of mental action are middles 
in the aorist. Cf. βούλομαι, ἐνθυμέξομαι, ἐπιμελέομαι, εὐλαβέομαι. These 
are commonly called passive deponents in the present as well as 
in the aorist and future, but the matter is not clear by any means. 
At any rate there are middle verbs which are very hard to explain, 
like γίνομαι (Mt. 8 : 26), ἅλλομαι (Jo. 4 : 14), ἀφικνέομαι (Ro. 16 : 19), 
διαμαρτύρομαι (Ac. 2:40), ἔρχομαι (Jo. 1:39), ἐργάζομαι (Mt. 25: 
16), καθέζομαι (Mt. 26 : 55), κάθημαι (Mt. 18 : 1), cvvéroua (Ac. 20: 
4; cf. sequor). ἹΚεῖμαι is probably passive. It is not hard to see 
the reflexive idea in δέχομαι (Mt. 10 : 14). Περιβλέπομαι is always 
middle in the N. T. (cf. Mk. 8 : 5), accenting the movement of the 
eyes or concern expressed in the look. There are also passive 
deponents that correspond to this list that really do not seem to 
be passive in idea, like βούλομαι, δύναμαι, φοβέομαι. Some of these 
verbs have both middle and passive forms, like γίνομαι (éyévero, 
ἔγενήθην), δέχομαι (ἐδέξατο, ἐδέχθην). Not all of these middle “de- 
ponents” have middle forms in all tenses. Cf. γέγονα, ἦλθον, 
ἐλήλυθα, ἔλαθον. Then, again, some verbs have the deponent or 
dynamic middle only in the future, like ὄψομαι, though Homer is 
fond of the middle forms of this νου. But the aorist and future 
middle call for special treatment. 

(ἢ MrippLe Future, THoucH ACTIVE PRESENT. Some verbs, 
active in the other tenses, have the future only in the middle. 
No real explanation of this phenomenon is known. For a list see 
chapter VIII, v1, (d). Some of them are really separate verb- 
roots, as dpaw, ὄψομαι; ἐσθίω, φάγομαι. Others represent a special 
variation of the future form, like ἀποθανοῦμαι, πεσοῦμαι, πίομαι, but 
both κομίσομαι and κομιοῦμαι. Others are regular enough, like 
ἀκούσομαι, --ἢήσομαι, γνώσομαι, ἔσομαι, θαυμάσομαι, τέξομαι, φεύξομαι. 
In other instances the old classic middle has vanished in the 
N. T. before the active future, as in ἁμαρτήσω, ἀπαντήσω, ἁρπάσω, 
γελάσω, κλαύσω, κράξω, παίξω, ῥεύσω, etc. Some verbs, like ἀκούω, 
ζάω, use either voice in the future. Some of these middle futures 
create no difficulty. Thompson? calls them all “strict middles,”’ 
but most of them are as ‘‘deponent”’ as the verbs in the previous 
section. Clyde* quotes Curtius’ explanation that an act in the 
future lies mainly in the mind of the speaker. But on the whole 
the matter remains unexplained, though the number has greatly 
decreased in the N.T. as in the κοινή generally. See also Dieterich, 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 7. So the other poets. Thompson, Synt., p. 165. 
2 Synt., p. 165. 3 Gk. Synt., p. 60. 4 Moulton, Prol., p. 154. 


814 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Untersuch., Ὁ. 205; Radermacher, N. 7. Gr., p. 120. Moulton! 
justly takes ‘‘the existence of this large class of futures as addi- 
tional evidence of a close connection between the middle flexion and 
the stressing of the agent’s interest in the action of the verb.” 
The use of the middle future (and occasionally aorist) as passive 
comes under the passive voice, for it is really passive. See under Iv. 

(m) THe MippLe RETREATING IN THE N. T. This is happen- 
ing because of the active (cf. ἁμαρτήσω above) as well as the passive. 
This is true of the xow in general.2 There was a considerable 
amount of variation and even of confusion among writers in the 
later period.’ Different words had different histories in the mat- 
ter. But we have just seen from the list of “‘dynamic-deponent”’ 
middles plenty of evidence that from the day of Homer on the 
function of the middle voice was indistinct in many verbs.’ ‘‘The 
accuracy with which the middle was used would naturally vary 
with the writer’s Greek culture.”> And, it may be added, with 
the author’s feelings at the moment. The judgment of Simcox® 
is right, that the middle “15 one of the refinements in Greek idiom 
which is perhaps beginning to be blurred in some of the N. T. 
writers, but is preserved to a greater or less extent in most.” 
But it is no more “blurred”? than in other writers of the κοινή. 
It is simply that all the distinctions of earlier times did not sur- 
vive with all the verbs. On the whole, in the N. T., αἰτῶ is 
used colloquially and αἰτοῦμαι for the more elevated style, but 
usage varies with different writers as in the LXX. Cf. Abbott, 
Johannine Gr., Ὁ. 389. So ὑστερέω in Heb. 4:1, but ὑστεροῦμαι in 
Ro. 3:23. But the change in the N. T. is mainly in the disuse 
of the middle, not in a new use of it. From Homer to modern 
Greek plenty of middles are hard to define, and the N. T. is no 
more erratic than the rest of Greek, not to say of the κοινή 
(Moulton, Prol., p. 159). But the delicate distinctions between 
the active and the dynamic middle are lost in modern Greek 
(Thumb, Handb., p. 112), if indeed they ever really existed. 

IV. The Passive Voice (διάθεσις παθητική). 

(a) ORIGIN OF THE Passive. See chapter VIII, νι, (e), for a 
discussion of the rise of the passive voice.’ In Sanskrit the middle 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 155. Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 42. 

2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 363 f. 

8 Hatz., Einl., pp. 194 ff. Cf. Thumb, Hellen., p. 127. 

4 Moulton, Prol., p. 158 f. 

5 Ib., p. 159. 

6 Lang. of the N. T., p. 95. 7 Cf. K.-G., Bd. I, pp. 121 ff. 


VOICE (ΔΙΑΘΕΣΙΣ) 818 


was liable to be used in the passive sense.! As is well known 
in Homer, the future passive forms do not occur except two, 
μυγήσεσθαι and dance (Stahl, Syntax, p. 66), and the distinction 
between aorist middle and aorist passive is indistinct. Indeed, 
strictly speaking, there was no passive voice as to form in 
Greek, as there was none in the original Indo-Germanic speech.? 
The passive sense was developed in various languages in different 
ways. This sense may be due to verbs of state, but Greek fell 
upon various devices like the active of some verbs (κακῶς ἔχω, 
πάσχω), the mere use of the middle, the development of two special 
tenses by the use of active endings (aorist) and middle (future) 
with a special suffix. In Homer® ἐβλήμην, ἐκτάμην, ἐσχόμην occur 
as passives just like βάλλομαι, ἔχομαι. ‘Even in Attic ἐσχόμην 
appears as a passive, ἐσχέθην being late.”’* In Homer also the 
distinctive aorist passive form sometimes has practically the active 
or middle signification.» This much of repetition is necessary to 
get the position of the passive clearly before us. It is really no 
voice at all in form as compared with the active and middle. Cf. 
French je me trouve and the use of reflexive pronouns in English. 

(b) SIGNIFICANCE OF THE Passive. The subject is represented 
as the recipient of the action. He is acted upon. The name 
“passive” comes from patior (cf. πάσχω ὑπό in Mt. 17:12). 
᾿Αποκτανθῆναι (Mk. 9:31) occurs as well as ἀποθνήσκειν. The use 
of περίκειμαι as the transitive passive (Ac. 28 : 20) of περιτίθημι is 
somewhat different. The idea of having an experience is very 
vague and allows wide liberty. The point to note is that at first 
this idea had no distinctive form for its expression. Only the 
context and the force of the verb itself could make it clear. The 
future passive, being built upon the earlier aorist passive, reflects 
the Aktionsart of the aorist. 

(c) With INTRANSITIVE OR TRANSITIVE VERBS. “Theoret- 
ically the passive ought to be formed from transitive verbs only 
with an accusative object.”"7 But Greek follows no such narrow 
rule. That is an artificial rule of the Latin which Greek knows 
nothing about.’ Cf. κατηγορεῖται ὑπὸ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων (Ac. 22 : 30). 
Other N. T. examples are διακονηθῆναι (Mk. 10: 45), ἔγκαλεῖσθαι (Ac. 


1 Whitney, Sans. Gr., pp. 201, 275. 

2 Thompson, Synt., p. 162. 3 Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 464. 
4 Gildersleeve, Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 278. 

5 Sterrett, The Dial. of Hom., N. 27. 6 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 464. 

7 Gildersleeve, Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 279. 

8 Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 359. 


816 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


19:40), εὐαρεστεῖσθαι (Heb. 13:16), κατεγνωσμένος (Gal. 2:11), 
μαρτυρεῖσθαι (Ac. 6:3), χρηματίζεσθαι (Mt. 2:12). Blass (Gr. of 
N. T. Gk., p. 185) notes that ‘only in Lu. 2: 26 do we have jv 
αὐτῷ κεχρηματισμένον.᾽" The passive is used with both active and 
middle verbs. Thus we have from λογίζομαι both ἐλογισάμην and 
ἐλογίσθην. Cf. ἐγενόμην and ἐγενήθην from γίνομαι. 

(d) Tue Passive ΠΡΌΔΙΥ INTRANSITIVE. But it is not neces- 
sarily so. Διδάσκω, for instance, is transitive in the passive, ἃς 
ἐδιδάχθητε (2 Th. 2:15), and note κατηχημένος τὴν ὁδόν (Ac. 18: 25). 
See also 1) Cor:''92 175 Gu.17: 253492 25> Galil siransinive 
passives are usually verbs that in the active have two accusatives 
or an accusative of the thing with the person in the dative or ab- 
lative. This accusative of the thing is retained in the passive. 
Cf. ἐπιστεύθησαν τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ (Ro. 8 : 2), περιβεβλημένους στολὰς 
λευκάς (Rev. 7:9). For full list see ‘ Accusative” in chapter ΧΙ, 
Cases. Cf. also τὴν ἅλυσιν ταύτην περίκειμαι (Ac. 28:20). The 
transitive passive “‘deponents,” like μὴ φοβηθῆτε αὐτούς (Mt. 10: 
26), call for special discussion a little later. Certainly there is 
no “passive” sense in πορευθῆναι. The vernacular! in later times 
preferred the active to passive. Cf. αἰτοῦσιν (Lu. 12:20) as a 
N. T. illustration. In ἁγνίσθητι (Ac. 21:24) the passive appar- 
ently has the force of ‘let’ or ‘get’ (cf. the causative middle). 
Cf. also περιτέμνησθε (Gal. 5: 2).2 It is possible so to regard ἀδικεῖσθε 
and ἀποστερεῖσθε (1 Cor. 6:6f.). Sometimes, indeed, it is difficult 
to tell whether a verb is middle or passive. Cf. πτωχοὶ εὐαγγε- 
λίζονται (Mt. 11:5), προεχόμεθα (Ro. 3:9), ἐνδυναμοῦσθε (Eph. 6: 
10). Indeed, as already said,-in all the Greek tenses save the 
aorist and the future it is always an open question whether we 
have middle or passive. ‘‘The dividing-line is a fine one at best”’ 
(Moulton, Prol., p. 162). Only the context and the verb-idea can 
decide. So with ἐγείρομαι (Mt. 27:63), περιεσπᾶτο (Lu. 10:40) 
and θορυβάζῃ (10:41), βιάζεται (Mt. 11:12). Cf. perfects in Ac. 
139:235025212 ΠΟΥ 21 ΠΟΙ Jone 22: } 

(6) Aorist PasstvE. This tense calls for special comment. 
As already stated, in Homer the aorist middle form, like the other 
middle forms, was sometimes used as passive.* In itself there is 
no reason why this should not be so. The distinctive passive 
aorist (second and first) grew up side by side with this use of the 
aorist middle. ᾿Εφάνην and ἔβην are really the same form at 

1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 359. 


2 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 185. 
8. Seymour, The Hom. Dial., p. 74. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 464. 


ee 


VOICE (ΔΙΛΘΕΣΙΣ) 817 


bottom.'! Out of this intransitive aorist active (cf. ἀπόλωλα) grew 
the so-called second aorist passive forms (—nv) with active endings. 
We have ἐκρύβην (Jo. 8:59) from the transitive κρύπτω (cf. ἐστάλην 
from στέλλω, etc.) and ἐχάρην (Jo. 14:28) from the intransitive 
χαίρω. It is probable that ἠγέρθη sometimes (as in Mk. 16 : 6) is 
merely intransitive, not passive, in idea. Moulton (Prol., p. 163) 
says “often.” In 1 Cor. 15:15 f., etc., the true passive “empha- 
sizes the action of God.” But ὑπετάγησαν (Ro. 10 : 3) is more likely 
passive in sense, like ἐκοιμήθην (1 Th. 4:14), ‘was put to sleep’ 
(Moulton, Prol., p. 162). Moulton quotes from the papyri “a 
purely middle use of κοιμηθῆναι, ‘fell asleep’,” ἡνίκα ἤμελλον κοιμηθῆναι 
ἔγραψα, Ch.P. 3 (iii/B.c.). He finds a “clear passive” in ἵνα τὰ 
πρόβατα ἐκεῖ κοιμηθῆι, F.P. 110 ((,,Α.0.), but ἐκολλήθη (Lu. 15 : 15) can 
be explained as passive or middle in sense. In a few verbs (ἔστην, 
ἐστάθην) a distinction was developed.22 W. F. Moulton thinks 
(Winer-M., p. 315, n. 5) that ‘‘a faint passive force’? may be ob- 
served in σταθῆναι in the N. T., but hardly in Mk. 3: 24. Cf. also 
intransitive σταθήσομαι in Mt. 12:25, 46. ᾿Εστάθηκα in modern 
Greek is aorist passive for στέκω, ‘stand,’ and ἐστήθηκα for στήνω, 
‘place’ (Thumb, Handb., p. 145). The correct text (W. H.) in 
Ac. 21:3 is ἀναφάναντες τὴν Κύπρον (active), not ἀναφανέντες (pas- 
sive). But still some MSS. do have this transitive second aorist 
passive participle. If one keeps in mind the origin of this aorist 
passive form (from the active), he may be the less surprised to 
find it also transitive like the active. Already in Homer this was 
true. 

The so-called passive “‘deponents,’”’ verbs which had no active, 
formed the aorist with the passive form. But they were not always 
intransitive. Some of them were so, like πορεύομαι (Mt. 8 : 9), 
μεταμέλομαι (Mt. 27:3), δύναμαι (Mt. 17:16), but most of them 
are really transitive. They probably represent a survival of the 
old active origin of the aorist passive forms.? As examples of 
the transitive passive deponents note ἐβουλήθη (Mt. 1:19), ἐδεήθη 
(Lu. 5:12), ἐνθυμηθέντος (Mt. 1:20), ἐπεμελήθη (Lu. 10: 34), ἐφοβήθη 
(Mt. 14:5). These passive aorists have precisely the construc- 
tion that the middle or active would have so far as case is 
concerned. The distinctive passive sense is absent. Some of the 
“deponents” have both a middle and a passive aorist with a dis- 
tinct passive sense. Thus note the middle and passive voices side 


1 Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 410; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 465. 


2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 181. 
8 See ch. VIII, vi, (e), for list of these N. T. passive aorists. 


818 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


by side in ἀρνησάμενος and ἀπαρνηθήσεται (Lu. 12:9). It so happens 
that this context is full of passive forms. Some of them in the 
strict passive sense, like ἐπισυναχθεισῶν (12 : 1), συγκεκαλυμμένον ἐστὶν 
ὃ οὐκ ἀποκαλυφθήσεται (12 : 2), γνωσθήσεται (12 : 2), ἀκουσθήσεται and 
κηρυχθήσεται (12:3), πωλοῦνται and οὐκ ἔστιν ἐπιλελησμένον (12 : 6), 
ἠρίθμηνται (12 : 7), ἀφεθήσεται (12:10). But note also the passive 
deponents φοβηθῆτε (12:4 f.), φοβήθητε (12:5), φοβεῖσθε (12:7). 
Cf. also ἀποδέξασθαι (Ac. 18 : 27) and παρεδέχθησαν (15 : 4), where the 
voices are distinguished, θεάσασθαι τοὺς ἀνακειμένους (Mt. 22:11) and 
πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι αὐτοῖς (Mt. 6:1), λογισάμενος (Heb. 11:19) and 
ἐλογίσθη (Lu. 22:37), ἰάσατο (Lu. 9:42) and ἰάθη (Mt. 8: 13), 
ἐρύσατο (Col. 1:13) and ἐρύσθην (2 Tim. 4:17), ἐχαρίσατο (Lu. 
7:21) and χαρισθῆναι (Ac. 3:14). One may note also παρῃτήσαντο 
(Heb. 12 : 19) and ἔχε με παρῃτημένον (Lu. 14 : 19, perfect passive) ; 
ἐξελέξατο (Mk. 18 : 20), but ὁ ἐκλελεγμένος (Lu. 9 : 35); κορεσθέντες 
τροφῆς (Ac. 27:38) and ἤδη κεκορεσμένοι ἐστέ (1 Cor. 4:8). It is 
possible to see a difference also between ἐγένετο (Jo. 1:14) and 
γενηθήτω (Mt. 6:10). ᾿Απεκρίθην (Mt. 25:9) steadily drove out 
ἀπεκρίνατο (Ac. 3:12), though both are used transitively with no 
difference in sense. The papyri more frequently! have ἀπεκρινάμην, 
though both forms continue in the κοινή. Cf. also ἀπολογηθῆναι (Lu. 
21 : 14), διελέχθησαν (Mk. 9 : 34), ἐθαυμάσθη (Rev. 18 : 4), though 
with passive sense in 2 ΤῊ. 1:10. As a result of this inroad of 
the comparatively new passive forms the aorist middle forms 
vanished. In modern Greek the passive aorist form is almost 
invariably used for both the middle and the passive ideas. This 
tendency seen in the N. T. (and the rest of the κοινή) has triumphed 
over the aorist middle.2, In Ro. 10:38, τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐχ 
ὑπετάγησαν, the Rev. V. translates ‘they did not subject themselves 
to the righteousness of God.’ 

({) Furure Passtve. As has been mentioned several times 
already, Homer has only two future passive forms (second futures). 
The passive voice indeed occurs but rarely in the Boeotian dialect.’ 
The future in -θήσομαι is comparatively late. At first, certainly, 
the distinction between passive and middle (and active also, --ν, 
-θην) was “a distinction of function, not of form.”4 It is not 
surprising to find the middle future form in Homer used with the 
passive sense (cf. all the other tenses save aorist), where the forms 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 161. 

2 Cf. Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 362; Hatz., Einl., pp. 196 ff.; Jebb in V. 
and D.’s Handb., p. 315. 3 Claflin, Synt. of the Bceot. Dial., p. 67. 

4 Gildersleeve, Synt. of Class. Gk., p. 61. 


VOICE (AIAOQEZIZ) 819 


for the two voices are identical. In later prose the future middle 
form continued to be used in the passive sense even in the great 
prose writers (Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Plato, De- 
mosthenes).! In the LXX Conybeare and Stock (Selections, Ὁ. 
75 f.) find the same idiom. Cf. Ex. 12:10, οὐκ ἀπολείψεται ἀπ᾽ 
αὐτοῦ ἕως πρωί, καὶ ὀστοῦν οὐ συντρίψεται ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ. It is quite within 
bounds, therefore, to speak οἱ ‘‘medio-passives”’ in the future as 
in the aorist.2, The idiom appears in the papyri.* So narrow is the 
dividing-line between middle and passive. Is περιβαλεῖται (Rev. 
3:5) middle or passive in sense? The same ambiguity exists as 
to ἀποκόψονται (Gal. 5:12). Considering the rather large list of 
verbs‘ that once used the middle future as passive in sense the 
idiom is rare in the N. T. In general, therefore, the future passive 
form has made its place secure by the time of the κοινή. Even verbs 
that have no active form have the future passive as well as the 
future middle. Thus ἀπαρνήσομαι (Mk. 14:31), but ἀπαρνηθήσομαι 
(Lu. 12 : 9); ἰάσομαι (Ac. 28 : 27), but ἰαθήσεται (Mt. 8 : 8); and in 
Ro. 2 : 26 λογισθήσεται is passive in sense. But the future passive 
form was destined, like the other futures, to disappear as a dis- 
tinct form. Only the compound tense occurs in the modern Greek.® 
But, meanwhile, the future passive form took over the uses of the 
vanishing future middle forms.® It is possible to find a passive 
sense in ἐπαναπαήσεται (Lu. 10: 6), μεταμεληθήσεται (Heb. 7 : 21), 
ἀνακλιθήσονται (Mt. 8:11), κοιμηθησόμεθα (1 Cor. 15:51), κολληθή- 
σεται (Mt. 19: 5). Cf. also θαυμασθήσονται (Rev. 17 : 8), πεισθήσονται 
(Lu. 16 : 31), φανήσεται (Mt. 24 : 30), ὑποταγήσεται (1 Cor. 15 : 28).’ 
In 1 Cor. 15 : 28 note also ὑποταγῇ, which reinforces the argument _ 
for the true passive. But the future passive may also be devoid 
of the passive idea and even transitive just like the aorist passive. 
Cf. ἀποκριθήσομαι (Mt. 25 : 37), ἐντραπήσονται τὸν υἱόν (Mt. 21: 37), 
φοβηθήσομαι (Heb. 13:6). The passive ἀφαιρεθήσεται (Lu. 10 : 42) 
has the usual sense, but one wonders if in ὧν τε ὀφθήσομαί σοι (Ac. 
26 : 16) the passive voice is transitive and even causative (cf. 
Is. 1:12). Cf. the examples of reflexive passives in the LXX 
(Conybeare and Stock, Sel., p. 76), like ὄφθητιτε ‘show thyself’ (1 


1 Gildersleeve, ib., p. 73 f. Cf. Hartel, Abri8 der Gr. d. hom. und herod. 
Dial., 1888, p. 40. 
2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 463 f. 3 Moulton, Prol., p. 162. 
4 Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 61; Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 171. 
5 Cf. Thumb, Handb., pp. 115, 125. 
6 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 363. 
7 Moulton, Prol., p. 163. Cf., for the LX X, Helbing, Gr., p. 98. 


820 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Ki. 18:1). It is possible, of course, for ὧν to be attracted to the 
case of τούτων from οἷς (‘in which,’ ‘wherein’). Then ὀφθήσομαί 
σοι would be ‘I will appear to thee.’ Note the new present ὀπτά- 
vouat (Ac. 1:3). But the future middle persisted in γενήσομαι, 
δυνήσομαι, ἐπιμελήσομαι, πορεύσομαι. 

(9) THE AGENT WITH THE Passive Voice. As already noted, 
the Greek has no difficulty in using a verb in the passive which 
was not used with the accusative in the active. Thus note ἐγκαλεῖ- 
σθαι (Ac. 19:40), κατηγορεῖται ὑπὸ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων (Ac. 22: 30), πεπί- 
στευμαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (Gal. 2: 7).} A few verbs idiomatically use the 
dative with the passive. Thus ἔγνὠώσθη τῷ Σαύλῳ (Ac. 9: 24), εὑρέθην 
(Ro. 10: 20), ἐφάνη (Mt. 1: 20), ὥφθη (1 Cor. 15:7 f.), θεαθῆναι (Mt. 
6: 1).2 The direct agent is most commonly expressed by ὑπό (Mt. 
4:1), the intermediate by διά (Mt. 1: 22). The agent (see chapter 
on Prepositions) is also expressed by ἀπό (2 Cor. 8 : 18), ἐκ (Gal. 4: 
4), παρά (Jo. 17:7). See also discussion under Instrumental Case 
(chapter XI, Cases) for discussion of αὐτῷ with ἐστὶν πεπραγμένον 
(Lu. 28 : 15), whether dative or instrumental. In the N. T., as 
in ancient Greek (Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 72), the instrument 
is sometimes personified and treated as an agent. Cf. κάλαμον ὑπὸ 
ἀνέμου σαλευόμενον; (Mt. 11:7). 

(h) IMpERSONAL CONSTRUCTION. This is the usual idiom in 
the Coptic in lieu of the absence of the passive. But it is often 
rather rhetorical than syntactical as Moulton shows. He com: 
pares also the French on, the German man, the English one. 
Wellhausen* shows how in the Aramaic this impersonal plural 
was common. One notes αἰτοῦσιν (Lu. 12:20), where a passive 
would be possible. Cf. συνάγουσιν καὶ βάλλουσιν καὶ καίεται (Jo. 15: 
6) where the passive occurs in καίεται. Note in particular ἐξηράνθη 
καὶ συνάγουσιν αὐτά (Jo. 15:6). Cf. also τρέφωσιν αὐτήν (Rev. 12 : 6). 
The use of the impersonal passive like πιστεύεται and ὁμολογεῖται 
(Ro. 10:10) is another matter and calls for no comment. It is 
rare in Greek as compared with Latin (Gildersleeve, Syntaz, p. 
77). Cf. the plural in 10:14 f. See also the personal construction 
in 1 Cor. 15:12 εἰ δὲ Χριστὸς κηρύσσεται ὅτι. 


1 Cf. Gildersleeve, Synt., etc., p. 77. ΡΟ ἢ bs 
2 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 185. 4 Einl., p. 25 f. 


CHAPTER XVIII 
TENSE (XPONOZ) 


I. Complexity of the Subject. 

Probably nothing connected with syntax is so imperfectly un- 
derstood by the average student as tense. This is due to various 
causes. 

1. THe DirricuLtty or COMPARING GREEK TENSES WITH GER- 
MANIC TENSES. ‘The translators of our English version have 
failed more frequently from their partial knowledge of the force 
of the tenses than from any other cause.”’! Ignorance, one may 
add, both of English and Greek still stands in the way of proper 
rendering of the Greek. The English, like the other Germanic 
tongues,” has only two simple verb-forms. We have a great 
wealth of tenses in English by means of auxiliary verbs, but they 
do not correspond with any of the Greek tenses.* It is the com- 
monest grammatical vice for one to make a conjectural translation 
into English and then to discuss the syntactical propriety of the 
Greek tense on the basis of this translation. Burton? indeed justi- 
fies this method for the benefit of the English student of Greek. 
But I submit that the practice brings more confusion than help. 
“The Aorist for the English Perfect, and the Aorist for the English 
Pluperfect’”’ Burton urges as ‘‘a pertinent illustration.”” But that 
method keeps the student at the English standpoint, just the thing 
to be avoided. The Greek point of view affords the only sure 
basis of operation. Winer® laments that “Ν. T. grammarians 
and expositors have been guilty of the greatest mistakes’”’ here, 
though it cannot be said that Winer himself always lives up to 
his just ideal. Translation into English or German is the least 
point to note in judging a tense. 


1 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 123. 2 K.-G., Bd. I, p. 129. 
3 Weymouth, On Rendering into Eng. of the Gk. Aorist and Perf., 1894, 
p. 11. 
4 Cf. Broadus, Comm. on Matthew, p. 54 note. 
5 N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 4 f. 6 W.-Th., p. 264. 
821 


822 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


2. Bap INFLUENCE OF THE LATIN ON GREEK GRAMMARIANS. 
Most of the older Greek grammars were made by men who knew 
Latin better than Greek. Even to-day! the study of the Greek 
tenses is hampered by the standpoint of Latin idioms which de- 
veloped under very different conditions. This is true of school 
grammars? in particular, whereas Latin has had no influence on 
the Greek tenses themselves by the time of the κοινή. The perfect 
and the aorist blend in Latin, while that is not true in Greek. till 
a very late date (1000 a.p.).4 The separate Greek development 
(cf. the Sanskrit) was due to the genius and spirit of the Greek 
people and has continued throughout the history of the language,‘ 
though in modern times the Greek tenses have suffered serious 
modification. The Latin tenses must be left to one side. The 
time element is more prominent in the Latin. 

3. ABSENCE OF HEBREW INFLUENCE. There is no time ele- 
ment at all in the Hebrew tenses. Hence it is not strange that the 
LXX translators had much trouble in rendering the two Hebrew 
tenses (perfect and imperfect) into the Greek with its richness 
of tense. A similar difficulty exists for the English translators. 
Curious devices (possibly slips) sometimes occur, like éyw εἰμι 
καθίσομαι (B in Ju. 6:18), ἔσομαι διδόναι (BA in Tob. 5:15). But 
such translation Greek left no lasting impress on the Greek of 
the N. T. save in προσέθετο πέμψαι (Lu. 20:12; cf. Ex. 25:21). 
The problems of the Greek tenses are not to be solved by an ap- 
peal to the Semitic influence. 

4. GRADUAL GROWTH OF THE GREEK TENSES. There is no 
future optative in Homer and no future passive. The aorist pas- 
sive is also rare.6 The past perfect is rare in Homer,’ and it does 
not occur with the idea of relative time. ‘In the examination of 
tense usages, we must be careful to observe that tenses, in the 
sense in which the word is now used, are of comparatively late 
development.’’® In the beginning the verb-root was used with 
personal suffixes. At first this was enough. Some verbs developed 
some tenses, others other tenses, some few all the tenses. 


1 Mutzbauer, Die Grundl. d. griech. Tempusl., 1893, p. i. 

2 K. Roth, Die erzihlenden Zeitformen bei Dion. von Hal., p. 5. 

 Ernault, Du Parfait en Grec et en Lat., 1886, p. 164. Cf. Jann., Hist. 
Gk. Gr., p. 440. 

4 Mutzb., Die Grundl. ἃ. griech. Tempusl., 1893, p. vi f. 

5 Cf. Swete, Intr. to O. T. in Gk., p. 308. 

6 Sterrett, Dial. of Hom., N. 42. 

7 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 44. 

8 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 482. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 823 


5. “AKTIONSART” OF THE VERB-STEM. Aktionsart (‘kind of ac- 
tion”’) must be clearly understood. The verb-root plays a large part 
in the history of the verb. This essential meaning of the word 
itself antedates the tense development and continues afterwards. 
There is thus a double development to keep in mind. There were 
originally two verb-types, the one denoting durative or linear 
action, the other momentary or punctiliar action.! Hence some 
verbs have two roots, one linear (durative), like φέρω (fero), the 
other punctiliar (momentary), like ἤνεγκον (tuli). So ὁράω, εἶδον; 
τολμάω, ἔτλην. With other verbs the distinction was not drawn 
sharply, the root could be used either way (cf. φη-μί, ἔ-φη-ν; 
hey-w, €-Aey-o-v). All this was before there was any idea of the 
later tense. So éday-ov is punctiliar, while ἐσθίω is linear or 
durative. Moulton? rightly observes that this is the explanation 
of ‘‘defective’”’ verbs. Moulton notes ἔχω as a word that can be 
used either for durative, as in Ro. 5:1, or punctiliar, like aorist 
ἔσχον (cf. ἔσχες and ἔχεις in Jo. 4:18). The regular idiom for a 
papyrus receipt is ἔσχον mapa σοῦ. This matter of the kind of 
action in the verb-root (Aktionsart) applies to all verbs.* It has 
long been clear that the ‘‘tense’”’ has been overworked and made 
to mean much that it did not mean. The verb itself is the begin- 
ning of all. But scholars are not agreed in the terminology to be 
used. Instead of “punctiliar” (punktuelle Aktion, Brugmann), 
others use “perfective” (Giles, Manual, p. 478). But this brings 
inevitable confusion with the perfect tense. All verbs may be 
described as ‘‘punctiliar” (punktuell) and ‘“‘non-punctiliar”’ (nicht- 
punktuell). But the ‘‘non-punctiliar” divides into the indefinite 
linear (durative) and the definite linear (completed or perfect). 
The notion of perfect action as distinct from point action came 
later. The three essential’ kinds of action are thus momentary 
or punctiliar when the action is regarded as a whole and may be 
represented by a dot (.), linear or durative action which may be 
represented by a continuous line ——, the continuance of per- 
fected or completed action which may be represented by this 
graph e——. The distinction between punctiliar and perfected 
action is not clearly drawn in the verb-root itself. That is a 
later refinement of tense. Brugmann® credits this “perfected” 
idea to the perfect stem. “Iterative” action belongs to certain 


1 Giles, Man., etc., p. 477 f. 

trols, po 110 {. 8 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 469. 

4 Cf. K.-G., Bd. I, p. 131; Stahl, Krit.-hist. Synt. d. griech. Verbums, p. 86 f. 
6 Griech. Gr., p. 472. 


824 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


stems (reduplicated, like γίγνομαι), but it is not a fundamental 
kind of action. 

6. Tort THREE Kinps or ACTION EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF 
Tense. These ideas (punctiliar, durative, perfected state) lie be- 
hind the three tenses (aorist, present, perfect) that run through 
all the moods. ‘The forms of these tenses are meant to accentu- 
_ate these ideas.! The aorist stem presents action in its simplest 
form (a-opioros, ‘undefined’). This action is simply presented as 
a point by this tense. This action is timeless. The present is also 
timeless in itself as is the perfect.2 It is confusing to apply the 
expression “relations of time”’ to this fundamental aspect of tense, 
as is done by some grammars.’ Radermacher (N. 7'. Gr., p. 121) 
uses Zeitart and Zeitstufe, but why Zeitart instead of Aktionsart? 
It is better to keep “time” for its natural use of past, present and 
future, and to speak of “kind of action” rather than ‘‘kind of 
time.”’* These three tenses (aorist, present, perfect) were first 
developed irrespective of time. Dionysius Thrax erred in explain- 
ing the Greek tenses from the notion of time, and he has been 
followed by a host of imitators. The study of Homer ought to 
have prevented this error. The poets generally do not bring the 
time relations to the fore. Even Paul (Principles of the History 
of Language, p. 300) falls into this error. It is doubtless easier ® 
to trace the history of the verb than of the noun, but as many 
mistakes he along the way. 

7. Time ELEMENT IN TENSE. But for the indicative the Greek 
tenses would have had a simple history. There are no past 
tenses in the subjunctive. The future subjunctive is an anomaly 
of very late Greek. The future optative occurs only in indirect 
discourse and is not found in the N. T. The time element in the 
infinitive is confined to indirect discourse and μέλλω. Time in the 
participle is only relative to the principal verb. It is thus kind of 
action, not the time of the action, that is expressed in these forms.’ 
But in the indicative the three grades of time had tenses of their 
own. The Greeks evidently felt that there was no need for time 
in the other modes except in a relative sense. As a matter of fact, 
the real time of subjunctive, optative, and imperative is future 


1 K.-G., Bd. I, p. 180. 2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 469. 
8 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 483; Gildersleeve, Synt. of Class. Gk., p. 79. 
4 Cf. Benard, Formes Verb. en Gree, 1890, p. 279. 

5 Mutzb., Die Grundl. d. griech. Tempusl., 1890. 

8 Sayce, Intr. to the Sci. of Lang., vol. IT, 1880, p. 149. 

7 Cf. Spyridis, Lang. grec. actuelle ou mod., 1894, p. 287. ae 


“TENSE (XPONOS) 825 


in relation to speaker or writer. It was evidently with difficulty 
(cf. absence of time in Hebrew) that time was expressed in a posi- 
tive (non-relative) sense even in the indicative. It is only by the 
augment (probably an adverb) that past time is clearly expressed.? 
“Homer and later Greek writers often use the present with an 
adverb of time instead of a past tense, a construction which has 
an exact parallel in Sanskrit and which is therefore supposed to 
be Indo-Germanic.’’*? There is no really distinctive form for the 
present indicative. The future was a later development out of both 
the present and aorist. See chapter VIII, Conjugation of Verb. 
The augment was not always used. Homer used it only when it 
suited him. But past time was objective and the three kinds of 
action (punctiliar, durative, perfected) were regularly expressed 
with the tenses (aorist, imperfect, past perfect). There is Aktions- 
art also in the present and future time, but the tense development 
did not go on to the full extent here. There are only two tense- 
forms in the present and practically only one in the future. But 
both punctiliar and linear action are expressed, but not differen- 
tiated, in the present time by the same tense, as is true also of 
the future. The kinds of action exist, but separate tense-forms 
unfortunately do not occur.4 There might thus have been nine 
tenses in the indicative: three punctiliar (past, present, future), 
three linear (past, present, future), three perfect (past, present, 
future).6 Because of this difference between the indicative and 
the other moods in the matter of time some grammars® give a 
separate treatment to the indicative tenses. It is not an easy 
matter to handle, but to separate the indicative perhaps accents 
the element of time unduly. Even in the indicative the time 
element is subordinate to the kind of action expressed. A double 
idea thus runs through tense in the indicative (kind -of action, 
time of the action). 

8. Fautty NOMENCLATURE OF THE TENSES. There is no con- 
sistency in the names given the tenses, as has already been ex- 
plained. Cf. chapter VIII, vir, (Ὁ). The terms aorist, imperfect 
and perfect (past, present, future) are properly named from the 
point of view of the state of the action, but present and future 
are named from the standpoint of the time element. There is 


1 Goodwin, Gk. Moods and Tenses, 1890, pp. 23, 27. 

2 Cf. Seymour, Trans. of the Am. Philol. Asso., 1881, p. 89. 

3 Giles, Man., etc., p. 487. SG K.-Gy Bdel Ρ 151. 
5 Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 120 f. 

5 Cf. Goodwin, Gk. Moods and Tenses, pp. 8, 22. 


826 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


no time element in the present subjunctive, for instance. But the 
names cannot now be changed, though very unsatisfactory. 

9. Tue ANALYTIC TENDENCY (Periphrasis). This is the com- 
mon way of expressing tense in the Germanic tongues. It 
was not unknown to the older Greek and was very frequent in 
the LX X under the Hebrew influence. See an extended list in 
Conybeare and Stock, Selections from the LXX, pp. 68-71. The 
tendency is strong in the N. T. See the summary already given in 
chapter VIII, vir, (j). In the modern Greek the periphrastic form 
has displaced the usual inflected forms in all the tenses but the 
present, imperfect and aorist. These are ‘“‘simple.” The rest 
are “compound” (Thumb, Handb., p. 115).: This analytic ten- 
dency affected the durative and perfect kinds of action. It did 
not suit the purely punctiliar idea. 

10. THE Errect oF PREPOSITIONS ON THE VERB. This is 
another aspect of Aktionsart. This subject has already been 
briefly discussed from the standpoint of the prepositions.? Del- 
briick® has worked the matter out with thoroughness and he is 
followed by Brugmann.*— Moulton® has applied the principle to 
N. T. verbs. The point is that often where the simple verb is 
durative it is rendered ‘‘ perfective” by the preposition in composi- 
tion. This peculiarity is common to all the Indo-Germanic tongues 
and reaches its highest development in the Germanic (cf. English 
and German) and the Balto-Slavic languages. Thus we in Eng- 
lish say bring and bring up, burn and burn up, carry and carry off, 
come and come on, drive and drive away (home, in, off, out), drink 
and drink up, eat and eat up, follow and follow up, go and go away, 
grow and grow up, knock and knock down, make and make over, 
pluck and pluck out, run and run away, speak and speak out, stand 
and stand up, take and take up, wake and wake up, work and work 
out.’ The “imperfective” simplex becomes “perfective” in the 
compound. Prof. A. Thumb® has a paper “Zur Aktionsart der 
mit Prépositionen zusammengesetzten Verba im Griechischen,” in 
which he compares some tables of Schlachter for Thucydides with 
some by Prof. 8. Dickey for the N. T. Thucydides shows for the 
present tense 260 simplicia verbs to 83 compound, for the aorist 
158 to 199. Dickey has investigated about thirty N. T. verbs 


1 Jebb in V. and D.’s Handb., pp. 323, 326. 


2 Cf. chax ΤΙ ΙΝ @)s 6 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 482, 
3 Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, pp. 146-170. 7 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 112. 
4 Griech. Gr., pp. 482 ff. 8 Indoger. Forsch., XX VII. 


5 Prol., pp. 111-115. 


TENSE (XPONO2) 827 


like ἀπέχω, etc. He reports for the present tense a proportion of 
1160 stmplicia to 83 compound, for the aorist 885 to 226. It is un- 
fortunate that the term “‘perfective”’ is used for this idea, since it 
inevitably suggests the perfect tense. Some writers! use “perfec- 
tive” also for the aorist or punctiliar action, a means of still fur- 
ther confusion. Brugmann? uses ‘Perfektive Aktion” for the 
effect of the preposition in composition and ‘‘ Perfektische Aktion” 
for the perfect tense, a distinction hard to draw in English. Latin 
and Greek both show abundant illustrations of this use of prep- 
ositions. Cf. sequor and consequor, facio and efficio, teneo and 
sustineo. Moulton’ thinks that the freedom in the position of 
the preposition in Homer helped the adverb to retain its force 
longer than in later Greek and Latin. The point of the preposi- 
tion here is best seen in the prepositions ἀπο--, δια--, κατα-, συν--: 
But even in these the actual majority of examples preserve the 
original local meaning and so are not perfective. But in Lu. ὃ : 29, 
πολλοῖς χρόνοις συνηρπάκει αὐτόν, the perfective sense of σύν combines 
with the past perfect tense and the locative (or instrumental) 
πολλοῖς χρόνοις to denote “ποὺ the temporary paroxysm, but the 
establishment of a permanent hold’ (Moulton, Prol., p. 113). So 
γινώσκω 15 durative (‘gaining knowledge,’ as in Mk. 18 : 28), ἔγνων 
is effective (‘grasping the point,’ as in Lu. 16:4, ἔγνων τί ποιήσω), 
ἐπιγινώσκω is perfective (‘knowing my lesson,’ as in 1 Cor. 13 : 12), 
and ἐπιγνῶναι also (‘recognising,’ as in Mt. 14:35). Moulton (7b., 
p. 114) calls particular attention to of ἀπολλύμενοι (1 Cor. 1:18), ‘the 
perishing,’ where the destiny is accented by ἀπό, and the process is 
depicted by the tense. In Heb.6:18, of καταφυγόντες, the perfective 
sense of xara coincides with the effective aorist. So even when 
the tense is durative, the notion of completion is expressed in the 
preposition as contemplated or certain. In τέθνηκεν (Lu. ὃ : 49) 
the perfect tense of the simplex is sufficient, but not so in ἀπέθανεν 
(Lu. 8:53). Θνήσκω as simplex became obsolete outside of the 
perfect, so that ἀπέθνησκεν (Lu. ὃ : 42; οἵ. 2 Cor. 6:9; Heb. 11: 21) 
occurs for the notion of ‘dying.’ “The linear perfective expressed 
its meaning sufficiently, denoting as it does the whole process 
leading up to an attained goal.”®> Moulton notes also the itera- 
tive use of ἀποθνήσκω in 1 Cor. 15:31, and the frequentative in 
1 Cor. 15:22. See also the “perfective” use of ἀποκτείνω, the 
active of ἀποθνήσκω. In ἀπόλλυμι and ἀπόλλυμαι (ἀπόλωλα) the sim- 
1 So Giles, Man., p. 478; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 187. 


2 Griech. Gr., p. 472. 4 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 482. 
8. Prol., p. 112. 5 Moulton, Prol., p. 114. 


828 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


plex is obsolete. Even in the present tense the force of ἀπο-- is 
obvious. Cf. rots ἀπολλυμένοις (1 Cor. 1:18), ἀπόλλυμαι (Lu. 15:17), 
ἀπολλύμεθα (Mt. 8 : 25), where Moulton! explains ἀπο-- as suggest- 
ing “the sense of an inevitable doom.” Cf. also φεύγω (Mt. 2 : 13), 
‘to flee,’ with διαφεύγω (Ac. 27:42), and ἐκφεύγω (Heb. 2:3), ‘to 
escape,’ καταφεύγω (Heb. 6:18), ‘to find refuge’; τηρέω (Ac. 24: 23), 
‘to watch,’ with διατηρέω, ‘to keep continually’ (Lu. 2 : 51), and 
συντηρέω (Lu. 2: 19), ‘to keep together (safely)’; craw (Mk. 14: 47), 
‘to draw,’ with διασπάω (Mk. 5:4), ‘to draw in two’; καίω (Jo. 15: 6), 
‘to burn,’ with κατακαίω (Ac. 19:19), ‘to burn up’; κρίνω (Jo. 5: 30), 
‘to judge,’ with κατακρίνω (Mt. 12:41), ‘to condemn’; λύω (Lu. 
3:16), ‘to loosen,’ with καταλύω (Mt. 24:2), ‘to destroy’; ἔχω 
(Ac. 18 : δ; Rev. 10 : 2), ‘to have’ or ‘hold,’ with ἐπέχω (Ac. 3 : δ), 
‘to hold on to,’ and συνέχω (Lu. 8 : 45), ‘to hold together’ or ‘press,’ 
and ἀπέχω (Mt. 6:5), ‘to have in full,’ etc. As to ἀπέχω for 
‘receipt in full,’ see Deissmann, Light, p. 110f. The papyri and 
ostraca give numerous illustrations. It is not necessary to make 
an exhaustive list to prove the point. Cf. μενῶ καὶ παραμενῶ (Ph. 
1 : 25), χαίρω καὶ συνχαίρω (2 : 17), where the point lies in the prep- 
osition, though not ‘“‘perfective” here. So γινωσκομένη καὶ ἀναγινω- 
σκομένη (2 Cor. 3: 2), ἀναγινώσκετε ἢ καὶ ἐπιγινώσκετε (1:13), μετρεῖτε 
ἀντιμετρηθήσεται (Lu. 6:38), ἔχοντες --- κατέχοντες (2 Cor. 6: 10). Cf. 
ἔκβαλε (Mt. 22:13). In some verbs? the preposition has so far 
lost its original force that the “perfective” idea is the only one 
that survives. Dr. Eleanor Purdie (Indog. Forsch., [X, pp. 63-153, 
1898) argues that the usage of Polybius as compared with Homer 
shows that the aorist simplex was increasingly confined to the 
constative sense, while the ingressive and effective simplex gave 
way to the “perfective”? compounds. Moulton® is inclined to 
agree in the main with her contention as supported by the papyri 
(and Thumb thinks that modern Greek supports the same view). 
At any rate there is a decided increase in the number of compound 
verbs. The ingressive and effective uses of the aorist would natu- 
rally blend with the “perfective” compounds. But it remains 
true that the Aktionsart of the verb-root is often modified by the 
preposition in composition. 

11. “AKTIONSART” WITH EACH TENSE. It is not merely true 
that three separate kinds of action are developed (punctiliar, dura- 
tive, perfected), that are represented broadly by three tenses in 
all the modes, though imperfectly in the present and future tenses 
of the indicative. The individual verb-root modifies greatly the 

1 Moulton, Prol., p. 114. 1b. 0 11}: 3 Ib., pp. 115-118. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 829 


resultant idea in each tense. This matter can only be hinted at 
here, but must be worked out more carefully in the discussion of 
each tense. The aorist, for instance, though always in itself merely 
point-action, “punctiliar,” yet may be used with verbs that accent 
the beginning of the action or the end of the action. Thus three 
distinctions arise: the unmodified point-action called “constative,”’ 
the point-action with the accent on the beginning (inceptive) called 
“ingressive,” the point-action with the accent on the conclusion 
called “effective.” The names are not particularly happy, but 
they will answer. ‘‘Constative”’ is especially awkward.! In real- 
ity it is just the normal aorist without any specific modification 
by the verb-meaning. Hirt? does not use the term, but divides the 
aorist into “ingressive”’ and “effective” when there is this special 
Aktionsart. But the use of these demands another term for the 
normal aorist.2 As an example of the “constative”’ aorist for the 
whole action take ἐσκήνωσεν (Jo. 1: 14), for the earthly life of Jesus. 
So also ἐξηγήσατο (1:18), while ἐγένετο (1: 14) is “ingressive,”’ and 
accents the entrance of the Logos upon his life on earth (Incar- 
nation). ᾿Εθεασάμεθα (1:14) is probably “effective” as is ἐλάβομεν 
(1:16), accenting the result (‘“resultative,’ Brugmann, Grech. 
Gr., p. 475). So likewise in the so-called “present”? tense various 
ideas exist as set forth by the various “classes” of verbs or ‘‘con- 
jugations.”” The perfect and the future likewise have many varia- 
tions in resultant idea, growing out of the varying verb-idea in 
connection with the tense-idea. These must be borne in mind 
and will be indicated in the proper place in discussing each tense. 

12. INTERCHANGE OF TENSES. The point here is not whether 
the Greeks used an aorist where we in English would use a per- 
fect, but whether the Greeks themselves drew no distinction be- 
tween an aorist and a perfect, a present and a future. It is not 
possible to give a categorical answer to this question when one 
recalls the slow development of the Greek tenses and the long 
history of the language. There was a time long after the N. T. 
period‘ when the line between the aorist and the perfect became 
very indistinct, as it had been largely obliterated in Latin. It is 
a question for discussion whether that was true in the N. T. or not. 
The subject will receive discussion under those tenses. The future 
grew out of the present and the aorist. The present continued to 
be used sometimes as vivid future, as is true of all languages. But 
it is a very crude way of speaking to say that one tense is used 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 109. 8 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 475. 
2 Handb. d. Griech ete., p. 392. 4 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 440. 


᾽ 


830 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


“for” another in Greek. That would only be true of ignorant 
men. In general one may say that in normal Greek when a cer- 
tain tense occurs, that tense was used rather than some other be- 
cause it best expressed the idea of the speaker or writer. Each 
tense, therefore, has its specific idea. That idea is normal and 
can be readily understood. Various modifications arise, due to 
the verb itself, the context, the imagination of the user of the 
tense. The result is a complex one, for which the tense is not wholly 
responsible. The tenses, therefore, are not loosely interchange- 
able. Each tense has a separate history and presents a distinct 
idea. That is the starting-point. Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 264) 
is entirely correct in saying: ‘No one of these tenses strictly and 
properly taken can stand for another.” Writers vary greatly in 
the way that the tenses are used. A vivid writer like Mark, for 
instance, shows his lively imagination by swift changes in the 
tenses. The reader must change with him. It is mere common- 
place to smooth the tenses into a dead level in translation and 
miss the writer’s point of view. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 
124) is doubtful whether in the N. T. we are justified in making 
“sharp distinctions between the imperfect, aorist or perfect; a 
subjunctive, imperative, or infinitive of the aorist or present.” 
But for my part I see no more real ground in the papyri and in- 
scriptions for such hesitation than we find in the ancient Attic 
Greek. Thumb (Handb., p. 116) notes that modern Greek, in 
spite of heavy losses, has preserved the distinction between linear 
and punctiliar action even in the imperative and subjunctive. I 
shall discuss the tenses according to the three ideas designed by 
them rather than by the names accidentally given. 

II. Punctiliar Action. 

This is the kind of action to begin with. It is probably not 
possible always to tell which is the older stem, the punctiliar 
or the linear. They come into view side by side, though the 
punctiliar action is logically first. The aorist tense, though at first 
confined to verbs of punctiliar sense, was gradually made on verbs 
of durative sense. So also verbs of durative action came to have 
the tenses of punctiliar action. Thus the tenses came to be used 
for the expression of the ideas that once belonged only to the 
root. The Stoic grammarians, who gave us much of our termi- 
nology, did not fully appreciate the aorist tense. They grouped 
the tenses around the present stem, while as a matter of fact in 
many verbs that is impossible, the root appearing in the aorist, 

1 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., Bd. 11, pp. 241, 316. 


TENSE (xponoz) 831 


not in the present. Cf. ἔσστη-ν (ἱ-στη-μιὶ), ἔ-λαβ-ο-ν (AauBav-w), ete. 
This error vitiated the entire theory of the Stoic grammarians.! 
Grammatical forms cannot express the exact concord between 
the logical and the grammatical categories,” but the aorist tense 
came very near doing it. By Homer’s time (and Pindar’s) the 
distinction between the aorist and imperfect tenses is fairly well 
drawn, though some verbs like €y-v remain in doubt.’ So we 
start with the aorist tense. In modern Greek the ancient aorist 
is the base-form on which a number of new presents are formed 
(Thumb, Handb., p. 148). J. C. Lawson (Journ. of Th. St., Oct., 
1912, p. 142) says that Thumb would have smoothed the path of 
the student if he had “dealt with the aorist before proceeding to 
the present.” 
1. Tur Aorist (ἀόριστος). The aorist, as will be shown, is not 
the only way of expressing indefinite (undefined) action, but it is 
the normal method of doing so. The Greek in truth is “‘an aorist- 
loving language”’ (Broadus).* In the κοινή the aorist is even more 
frequent than in the classic Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 120), 
especially is this true of the N. T. 
Gildersleeve® does not like the name and prefers ‘‘apobatic,”’ 
but that term suits only the “‘effective” aorist. The same thing 
is true of “culminative.’”’ The name aorist does very well on the 
whole. I doubt if the aorist is a sort of ‘“‘residuary legatee,” taking 
what is left of the other tenses. The rather, as I see it, the aorist 
preserved the simple action and the other tenses grew up around 
it. It is true that in the expression of past time in the indicative 
and with all the other moods, the aorist is the tense used as a 
matter of course, unless there was special reason for using some 
other tense. It gives the action “an und fiir sich.” The comnion 
use of the “imperfect” with verbs of speaking (ἔφη, ἔλεγε) may 
be aorist in fact. 
(a) Aktionsart in the Aorist. 
(a) Constative Aorist. There is still a good deal of confusion 

in the use of terms. Gildersleeve (Syntax of Attic Gr., p. 105) 
prefers “complexive” to ‘‘constative.’”’ Moulton® comments on 
Miss Purdie’s use of “perfective” in the sense of “punctiliar.”’ 


1 Steinthal, Gesch. d. Sprach., p. 306 f. 

2 Paul, Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., p. 300. 

3. Cf. Gildersleeve, Am. Jour. of Philol., 1883, p. 161; Monro, Hom. Gr., 
pp. 32, 45. 

4 Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 137. 

5 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 397 f. SSProiep. 116. 


832 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


So Giles! uses ‘‘perfective or momentary”’ for the aoristic action, 
but he also (p. 478 note) uses constative. But Moulton? also 
makes a distinction between ‘‘constative’’ and ‘punctiliar,”’ 
using ‘‘punctiliar” for real point-action and “constative” for 
what is merely treated as point-action. That is a true distinction 
for the verb-root, but the growing number of constative aorists 
was in harmony with the simple idea of the tense. Brugmann? 
rests constative, ingressive and effective aorists, all three on the. 
punktuell idea and draws no sharp distinction between ‘ punctil- 
iar’ and ‘‘constative.” Delbriick* divides the punktuell or aorist 
into Anfangspunkt or Ingressive, Mittelpunkt or Constative and 
Schlu8punkt or Effective. The constative accents the ‘‘middle 
point.” The idea of Delbriick and Brugmann is that punktuell 
action is ‘‘action focused in a point.”’> ‘The aorist describes an 
event as a single whole, without the time taken in its accomplish- 
ment.’’® It seems best, therefore, to regard ‘‘constative”’ as 
merely the normal aorist which is not “ingressive” nor ‘“effec- 
tive.” The root-difference between the aorist and the imperfect 
is just this, that the aorist is ‘“constative” while the imperfect 
*““describes.”7 The “‘constative” aorist just treats the act as a 
single whole entirely irrespective of the parts or time involved.® 
If the act is a point in itself, well and good. But the aorist can 
be used also of an act which is not a point. This is the advance 
that the tense makes on the verb-root. All aorists are punctiliar 
in statement (cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 109). The “constative”’ aorist 
treats an act as punctiliar which is not in itself point-action. 
That is the only difference. The distinction is not enough to 
make a separate class like ingressive and effective over against 
the purely punctiliar action. Thumb (Handb., p. 122) passes by 
“‘constative” as merely the regular aorist “to portray simply an 
action or occurrence of the past,’ whether in reality punctiliar 
or not. He finds both ingressive and effective aorists in modern 
Greek. But Thumb uses “terminative” for both “ends”’ (initial 
and final), a somewhat confusing word in this connection. The 
papyri show the same Aktionsart of the aorist. So note constative 


1 Man., p. 481 f. 8 Griech. Gr., pp. 475-477. 

2 Prol., p. 116, but not on p. 109. 4 Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, p. 230. 

5 Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 184. But Cf. K.-G., Bd. I, p. 157, 
“momentan, effektiv, ingressiv.”’ 

6 Moulton, Intr. to the Stu. of N. T. Gk., 1895, p. 190. 

7 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, p. 302. 

8 Moulton, Prol., p. 109, prefers “summary” to “constative.” 


TENSE (XPONOZ) 833 


ὅτι pe ἐπαίδευσας καλῶς, B.G.U. 423 (ii/A.p.). Thus in Jo. 2: 20, 
Τεσσεράκοντα καὶ ἕξ ἔτεσιν οἰκοδομήθη ὁ ναὸς οὗτος, We have a good 
example of the constative aorist. The whole period of forty-six 
years is treated as a point. In Mt. 5:17, ἦλθον, we have a very 
simple constative aorist, just punctiliar and nothing more, describ- 
ing the purpose of Christ’s mission. It is true that the constative 
aorist in this sense is far more frequent than the ingressive and 
the effective uses of the tense. This has always been so from the 
nature of the case. The increasing number of “perfective”? com- 
pounds, as already shown, increased the proportion of constative 
aorists.!_ When the action is in itself momentary or instantaneous 
no difficulty is involved. These examples are very numerous on 
almost any page of the N. T. Cf. in Ac. 10:22 f., ἐχρηματίσθη, 
μεταπέμψασθαι, ἀκοῦσαι, ἐξένισεν, συνῆλθον. See the aorists in Ac. 
10:41 f. Cf. Mt.8:3; Ac.5:5.. This is the normal aorist in all 
the moods. But verbs that are naturally durative may have the 
aorist. In éxaprépnoev (Heb. 11:27) we have a verb naturally 
“durative”’ in idea, but with the “constative” aorist. Cf. also 
ἐκρύβη τρίμηνον (Heb. 11:23), where a period of time is summed 
up by the constative aorist. Cf. ἐβασίλευσεν 6 θάνατος ἀπὸ ’ Addu 
μέχρι M. (Ro. 5:14). A good example is ἔζησαν καὶ ἐβασίλευσαν 
μετὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ χίλια ἔτη (Rev. 20:4). Here ἔζησαν is probably 
ingressive, though ζήσωμεν is constative in 1 Th. 5:10, but ἐβασί- 
λευσαν is clearly constative. The period of a thousand years is 
merely regarded as a point. Cf. also Jo. 7:9 ἔμεινεν ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ, 
10 : 40 ἔμεινεν ἐκεῖ. See also Ac. 11:26 ἐγένετο αὐτοῖς ἐνιαυτὸν ὅλον 
συναχθῆναι ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, 14:3 ἱκανὸν χρόνον διέτριψαν, 18: 11 ἐκάθισεν 
ἐνιαυτὸν καὶ μῆνας ἕξ, 28 : 80 ἐνέμεινεν διετίαν ὅλην. Cf. Eph. 2:4. 
See ἀεὶ ---διετέλεσα in B.G.U. 287 (A.p. 250). Gildersleeve (Syntaz, 
p. 105) calls this ‘“aorist of long duration” (constative). 

For a striking example of the constative (summary) use of the 
aorist, note ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον (Rom. 5:12). Note in particular 
the summary statements in Heb. 11, as ἀπέθανον οὗτοι πάντες (13), 
οὗτοι πάντες — οὐκ ἐκομίσαντο (39). Gildersleeve’s ‘‘aorist of total 
negation” (Syntax, p. 106) is nothing more than this. . Repeated 
or separate? actions are thus grouped together, as in Mt. 22 : 28, 
πάντες ἔσχον αὐτήν. So τρὶς ἐραβδίσθην, τρὶς evavaynoa (2 Cor. 11: 25). 
In Mk. 12: 44, πάντες --- ἔβαλον, αὕτη δὲ --- ἔβαλεν, the two actions 
are contrasted sharply by the aorist. There is no difficulty in εἷς 
ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀπέθανεν" ἄρα οἱ πάντες ἀπέθανον (2 Cor. 5:14). The 
same verb may sometimes be used either as constative (like ἐβασί- 

1 Moulton, Prol., p. 115. 2eBlassn Gr οὗ Ν. PoGlsy polos: 


834 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


λευσαν, ‘reigned,’ Rev. 20:4 above) or ingressive (καὶ ἐβασίλευσας, 
‘assumed rule,’ Rev. 11:17, though true here of God only in a 
dramatic sense). Thus ἐσίγησεν (Ac. 15:12) is ‘kept silence’ 
(constative), but ovyfoa (verse 13) is ingressive as is ἐσίγησαν 
(Lu. 9:36). Cf. Burton, N. 7. Moods and Tenses, p. 21. In 
Gal. 5:16, οὐ μὴ τελέσητε, we have the constative aorist, while 
πληρῶσαι is effective in Mt. 5:17. In line with what has already 
been said, βαλεῖν may mean ‘throw’ (constative), ‘let fly’ Gngres- 
sive) or ‘hit’ (effective). Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 180.  Illustra- 
tions occur in the N. T. in ἔβαλεν αὐτὸν eis φυλακήν (Mt. 18 : 30, 
constative, ‘cast’ or ‘threw’), Bare σεαυτὸν ἐντεῦθεν κάτω (Lu. 4:9, 
ingressive, ‘hurl.’ Note ἐντεῦθεν, as well as “perfective” force of 
κάτω. Cf. Mt. 5:29), ἔβαλεν κατ᾽ αὐτῆς (effective, ‘beat,’ Ac. 27: 
14). ; 

(8) Ingressive Aorist. This is the inceptive or inchoative 
aorist. It is not, however, like the ‘‘constative’’ idea, a tense- 
notion at all. It is purely a matter with the individual verb.! 
Thus ἐπτώχευσεν, 2 Cor. 8:9; is ‘became poor’; ἔζησεν, Ro. 
14:9, is ‘became alive’ (cf. ἀπέθανεν just before).2 Perhaps in 
Jo. 16:3, οὐκ ἔγνωσαν, the meaning is ‘did not recognise.’* But 
this could be constative. But it is clear in Jo. 1:10. So in ὅσοι 
ἔλαβον αὐτόν (Jo. 1 : 12) the ingressive idea occurs, as in οὐ παρέλα- 
Bov in verse 11. Cf. ἔκλαυσεν (Lu. 19 : 41) = ‘burst into tears’ and 
ἔγνως (vs. 42)=‘camest to know.’ So ἐδάκρυσεν (Jo. 11:35). In 
Mt. 22:7 ὠργίσθη = ‘became angry.’ Cf. also μὴ δόξητε (Mt. 
3:9), ἀφύπνωσεν (Lu. 8: 23), ἐθυμώθη (Mt. 2:16). In Lu. 15:32 
ἔζησεν 1S ingressive, as is ἐκοιμήθη (Ac. 7: 60), ἰσχύσαμεν μόλις 
(Ac. 27:16), μισήσωσιν (Lu. 6 : 22), ἠγάπησεν (Mk. 10 : 21), ἐλυπή- 
Onre (2 Cor. 7:9), πλουτήσητε (2 Cor. 8:9). The notion is com- 
mon with verbs expressing state or condition (Goodwin, Moods 
and Tenses, Ὁ. 16). Moulton quotes βασιλεύσας ἀναπαήσεται, ‘having 
come to his throne he shall rest,’ Agraphon, O.P. 654. See also 
ἔλαβα βιατικὸν παρὰ Kaioapos, B.G.U. 423 (i1/A.p.).. Moultoh (Prol., 
p. 248) cites Jo. 4:52, κομψότερον ἔσχεν, ‘got better,’ and com- 
pares it with ἐὰν κομψῶς σχῶ, Th.P. 414 (ii/a.p.). Another in- 
stance is ἤγγισαν Mt. 21:1.4 Cf. ἐκτήσατο (Ac. 1:18). 

(y) Effective Aorist. The name is not particularly good and 
“resultant aorist”’ is suggested by some scholars. Gildersleeve® 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 193. See Gildersl., Synt., p. 105. 

2 Ib. 3 Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 328. 

4 These ingressive aorists are often denominative verbs. Cf. Gildersl., Synt. 
of Att. Gk., p. 104. 5 Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 104. 


TENSE (XPONOS) ° 835 


suggests “upshot aorist.’”’ Giles! calls it aorist of the “ culminat- 
ing point,” following Monro.? But the idea is that emphasis is 
laid on the end of the action as opposed to the beginning (ingres- 
sive). This is done (if done) by the verb itself (Aktionsart). The 
following examples will make the matter clear: ποιήσατε καρπόν 
(Mt. 3:8), κλείσας (6 : 6), ἐτέλεσεν (7: 28), ὡμοιώθη (13 : 24), ἐνέπρη- 
σεν (22:7), ἐκέρδησα (25: 20), ἔπεισαν (27: 20), ἐλύθη (Mk. 7: 35), 
ἐστάθησαν (Lu. 24:17), ἐκρύβη (19:42), ἤγαγεν (Jo. 1:42), ἀπέ- 
στησε (Ac. 5:37), πληρώσαντες (12 : 25), ἔπεσεν (20:9), ἐπαύσαντο 
(21:32), ἐκώλυσεν (27:43), ἔμαθον (Ph. 4:11), ἐνίκησεν (Rev. 
5:5). A good example of the effective aorist in the papyri is 
ἔσωσεν, B.G.U. 423 (ii/A.D.).. So then in the case of each aorist 
the point to note is whether it is merely punctiliar (constative) or 
whether the verb-idea has deflected it to the one side or the other 
(ingressive or effective). It needs to be repeated that there is at 
bottom only one kind of aorist (punctiliar in fact or statement). 
The tense of itself always means point-action. The tense, like 
the mode, has nothing to do with the fact of the action, but only 
with the way it is stated. Sometimes it will not be clear 
from the context what the Aktionsart is. The “perfective” force 
of prepositions applies to all the tenses. It must be said also that 
the Aktionsart in the aorist (ingressive, effective) applies to all 
the modes. Indeed, because of the time-element in the indica- 
tive (expressed by the augment and secondary endings) the real 
character of the aorist tense is best seen in the other modes where 
we do not have notes of time? It is merely a matter of con- 
venience, therefore, to note the aorist in the different modes, not 
because of any essential difference (outside of the indicative). 
One is in constant danger of overrefinement here. Gildersleeve4 
criticises Stahl® for ‘‘characteristic prolixity”’ in his treatment of 
the tenses. A few striking examples are sufficient here. 

(b) Aorist Indicative. The caution must be once more re- 
peated that in these subdivisions of the aorist indicative we have 
only one tense and one root-idea (punctiliar action). The varia- 
tions noted are incidental and do not change at all this funda- 
mental idea, 

(a) The Narrative or Historical Tense.’ It is the tense in which 


1 Man., p. 498. 8 Moulton, Prol., p. 129. 

2 Hom. Gr., p. 48. 4 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 400. 

5 Krit.-hist. Synt., pp. 148-220. 

6 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 19. It is the characteristic idiom in 
the indicative. Cf. Bernhardy, Wiss. Synt., 1829, p. 380. 


836 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


a verb in ordinary narrative is put unless there is reason for 
using some other tense. Hence it is enormously frequent in the 
Greek historians. Writers vary greatly, of course, in the use of 
the tenses as of words, but in the large view the point holds. 
The aorist holds its place in the papyri and in the modern Greek 
as the usual tense in narrative (Thumb, Handb., p. 122). Almost 
any page in the Gospels and Acts will show an abundance of 
aorist indicatives that illustrate this point. Cf., for instance, 
the eight aorists in Ac. 13:13 f. (no other tense), the eight 
aorists in 21:1f. (no other tense), the three aorists in 25:1 f. 
(no other tense). In these instances the tenses are not all in 
indicative mood, though predominantly so. See again the fifteen 
aorists in Ac. 28: 11-15 (one perfect). The aorist was used in 
narrative as a matter of course. Note the many aorists in 
Heb. 11. 

The redundant use of the verb as in λαβὼν ἔσπειρεν (Mt. 13 : 31) 
=‘took and sowed’ is not a peculiarity of the aorist tense. Cf. 
ἀπῆλθεν καὶ εἶπεν (Jo. 5:15)=‘ went and told.’ Nor is it a peculi- 
arity of Greek. It belongs to the vernacular of most languages. 
But we no longer find the iterative use of ἄν with the aorist ac- 
cording to the classic idiom (Moulton, Prol., p. 167). 

(8) The Gnomic Aorist. Jannaris! calls this also ‘empiric 
aorist,’’ while Gildersleeve? uses ‘‘empirical”’ for the aorist with 
a negative or temporal adverb, a rather needless distinction. The 
real “‘gnomic”’ aorist is a universal or timeless aorist and prob- 
ably represents the original timelessness of the aorist indicative.’ 
This aorist is common in Homer‘ in comparisons and general 
sayings. The difference between the gnomic aorist and the 
present is that the present may be durative.® But general truths 
may be expressed by the aoristic present. Gildersleeve (Syntaz, 
p. 109) compares this use of the aorist to the generic article. 
Winer® denies that this idiom occurs in the N. T., but on insuf- 
ficient grounds. Abbott’ rather needlessly appeals to the ‘‘ Hebrew 
influence on Johannine tense-construction”’ to explain ἐβλήθη καὶ 
ἐξηράνθη (Jo. 15:6) after ἐὰν μή τις μένῃ ἐν ἐμοί. It is a general 
construction here and is followed by three presents (aoristic). 
This is a mixed condition certainly, the protasis being future 


1 Hist. Gk. Grit Ρ. 486. 2 Synt., p..112. 

3 J. Schmid, Uber den gnomischen Aorist der Griech., 1894, p. 15. Cf. 
Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, p. 278. 

4 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 48 f. CW ΡΣ: 

5 Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, p. 54. t Joh: Gr., ps 327. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 837 


(third class, undetermined with some likelihood of determination). 
But ἐδοξάσθη (Jo. 15 : 8) is possibly also gnomic. Cf. πάντες ἥμαρ- 
τον καὶ ὑστεροῦνται (Ro. 8 : 23). But in Jo. 15:6, 8, we may have 
merely the “timeless” aorist, like ὅταν θέλῃς, ἐξῆλθες, in Kpic- 
tetus, IV, 10, 27. Radermacher (N. T.. Gr., p. 124) so thinks and 
adds, what I do not admit: “The genuine gnomic aorist appears 
to be foreign to the Hellenistic vernacular.’’ It survives in mod- 
ern Greek, according to Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 486. Moulton 
(Prol., pp. 135, 189) admits it in N. T., but (p. 134) considers Jo. 
15 : 6 the “timeless” aorist, like ἀπωλόμην εἴ με λείψεις in Kur., Alc., 
386. There are other examples, like ἔκρυψεν (Mt. 13 : 44) which is 
followed by presents ὑπάγει, πωλεῖ, ἠγόρασεν (13 : 46), συνέλεξαν --- 
ἔβαλον (18 : 48), ὡμοιώθη (18 : 23), ἐκάθισαν (23:2), εὐδόκησα (Lu. 
3:22), ἐδικαιώθη (7:35), ἐδίδαξεν (Jo. 8:28), ἀνέτειλεν and the 
other aorists in Jas. 1:11, ἐκάλεσε---ἐδόξασε (Ro. 8 : 30), ἐξηράνθη --- 
ἐξέπεσεν (1 Pet. 1:24; LXX, Is. 40:7). It is true that the time- 
less Hebrew perfect is much like this gnomic aorist, but it 
is a common enough Greek idiom also. Cf. further Lu. 1 : 51- 
53. It is not certain that εὐδόκησα (Mt. 3:17; 17:5; Mk. 1:11; 
Lu. 8 : 22) belongs here. It may be merely an example of the 
timeless aorist used in the present, but not gnomic. See under 
(ec). Burton (NV. 7. Moods and Tenses, Ὁ. 29) finds it difficult and 
thinks it originally “inceptive” (ingressive). 

(y) Relation to the Imperfect. The aorist is not used “instead 
of” the imperfect.!. But the aorist is often used in the midst of 
imperfects. The Old Bulgarian does not distinguish between 
the aorist and the imperfect. In modern Greek, aorists and 
imperfects have the same endings (Thumb, Handb., p. 119), 
but the two tenses are distinct in meaning. Radermacher 
(VN. T. Gr., p. 122) thinks that in the κοινή he finds the im- 
perfect used as aorist, as in ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων ἐπύει (ἐποίει) τὸν βωμόν 
(Inser. de la Syrie 24135), and διεσάφεις for διεσάφησας (P. Lond., 
XLII, Kenyon 30). But I venture to be sceptical. In both pas- 
sages the imperfects make perfectly good sense. Radermacher 
urges the common use of ἐτελεύτα, but that may be merely de- 
scriptive imperfect. I grant that it is “willkirlich” in Herodotus 
(in 1214) to say διεφθάρη καὶ τελευτᾷ, as in Strabo (C 828) to have 
ἐτελεύτα --- διαδέδεκται. It is “rein stilistisch,’? but each writer 
exercises his own whim. Winer? properly remarks that it “often 

1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 46; Leo Meyer, Griech. Aoriste, p. 97; Gildersl., Am. 


Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 243; Moulton, Prol., p. 128. Ἦν may be either aorist 
or imperfect. 2 W.-Th., p. 276. 


838 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


depends on the writer”? which tense he will use. Why ‘often’? 
Why not ‘‘always’’? The presence of aorist, imperfect and past 
perfect side by side show how keen the distinction was felt to be.! 
Blass? seeks to distinguish sharply between ἔλεγον and εἶπον, but 
with little success. The trouble, as already stated, is probably 
that ἔλεγον may be either aorist (like ἔλιπον) or imperfect. He 
admits that Thucydides introduces his speeches either with ἔλεγε 
or ἔλεξε. Gildersleeve,’ like Stahl, denies “an actual interchange 
of tenses.”’ In any given incident the speaker or writer may have 
the choice of representing it in narrative by the aorist (punctiliar) 
or the imperfect (durative). An interesting example is found in 
Mk. 12:41-44.4. The general scene is presented by the descrip- 
tive durative imperfect ἐθεώρει and the durative present βάλλει. 
It is visualized by πολλοί---ἔβαλλον. But the figure of the widow 
woman is singled out by the aorist ἔβαλεν. The closing reference 
by Jesus to the rest is by the constative aorist πάντες ἔβαλον. 
Note also the precise distinction between εἶχεν and ἔβαλεν at the 
end. Where the aorist and the imperfect occur side by side, it is to 
be assumed that the change is made on purpose and the difference 
in idea to be sought. In juxtaposition the aorist lifts the cur- 
tain and the imperfect continues the play. Cf. ἐνύσταξαν (ingres- 
sive, ‘fell to nodding’) and ἐκάθευδον (‘went on sleeping’) in Mt. 
25:5. So Tis μου ἥψατο; καὶ περιεβλέπετο (Mk. 5: 82), ‘He began 
to look around because of the touch.’ See also ἐλύθη ὁ δεσμὸς τῆς 
γλώσσης αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐλάλει ὀρθῶς (7:35). A similar distinction ap- 
pears in ἄγγελοι προσῆλθον καὶ διηκόνουν αὐτῷ (Mt. 4:11); ἔπεσεν καὶ 
ἐδίδου (13 : 8); κατέβη λαῖλαψ --- καὶ συνεπληροῦντο (Lu. 8 : 23); ἦρε τὸν 
κράβαττον αὐτοῦ καὶ περιεπάτει (JO. ὅ : 9); ἀνέβη --- καὶ ἐδίδασκεν (7: 14); 
ἐξῆλθον καὶ ἐκραύγαζον (12 : 185). In Lu. 8:53 note κατεγέλων and 
ἀπέθανεν. Once again note εἴδαμεν --- καὶ ἐκωλύομεν in 9:49 and 
κατενόουν καὶ εἶδον (Ac. 11:6). Cf. further Ac. 14:10; 1 Cor. 3 :6; 
Mt. 21:8; Mk. 11:18; Jo. 20:3f. In 1 Cor. 10:4 note émop 
- ἔπινον; in 11:28, παρέδωκα, rapedidero. The same sort of event 
will be recorded now with the aorist, as πολὺ πλῆθος ἠκολούθησεν 
(Mk. 3:7), now with the imperfect, as ἠκολούθει ὄχλος πολύς (5: 
24). Cf. Lu. 2:18 and 4:22.5 But the changing mood of the 
writer does not mean that the tenses are equivalent to each 
other. A word further is necessary concerning the relative fre- 
quency of aorists and imperfects. Statistical syntax is interesting, 
1 Gildersl., Synt., p. 114. 2 Gr. of N. T. Gk.,:p.' 192. 


3 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 398. 
4 Burton, Ν. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 30. δ ΤΡ. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 839 


laborious and not always conclusive. Schlachter! has applied 
statistics to Homer. In both Iliad and Odyssey the aorists in 
the indicative are more numerous than the imperfects. Gilder- 
sleeve? found a similar result in Pindar. Jacobsthal (Der Ge- 
brauch der Tempora und Modi in den kretischen Dialektinschriften) 
finds the aorist surpassing the imperfect. But Hultsch*® found 
the imperfect very abundant in Polybius, and Prof. Miller 
has added statistics for other writers. ‘The imperfect divides 
the crown with the aorist in different proportions at different 
times and in different spheres.’”’® A further extended quotation 
from Gildersleeve® is pertinent: “Not the least interesting is the 
table in which Schlachter has combined his results with Pro- 
fessor Miller’s and from which it appears that the use of the aorist 
indicative gradually diminishes until it finds its low-water-mark 
in Xenophon. Then the aorist thrusts itself more and more to 
the front until it culminates in the N. T. The pseudo-naiveté of 
Xenophon suggests an answer to one problem. The Hellenica 
has the lowest percentage of imperfects, but it mounts up in the 
novelistic Kyropaideia. The other problem, the very low per- 
centage of the imperfect in the N. T.—e.g. Matthew 13 per 
cent., Apocalypse 7—Schlachter approaches gingerly, and well 
he may. It stands in marked contrast to Josephus whose 46 per 
cent. of imperfects shows the artificiality of his style, somewhat 
as does his use of the participles (A. J. P., LX 154), which, accord- 
ing to Schlachter, he uses more than thrice as often as St. John’s 
Gospel (41:12). This predominance of the aorist indicative can 
hardly be dissociated from the predominance of the aorist im- 
perative in the N. T. (Justin Martyr, A pol. I, 16. 6), although the 
predominance of the aorist imperative has a psychological basis 
which cannot be made out so readily for the aorist indicative. 
Besides, we have to take into consideration the growth of the 
perfect and the familiar use of the historical present, which is 
kept down in St. Luke alone (A. J. P., XX 109, XX VII 328).” 
The personal equation, style, character of the book, vernacular 
or literary form, all come into play. It largely depends on what 


1 Stat. Unters. ρου den Gebr. der Temp. und Modi bei einzelnen griech. 
Schriftst., 1908. 

2 Am. Jour. of. Philol., 1876, pp. 158-165. 

3 Der Gebr. der erzihlenden Zeitf. bei Polyb. (1898). 

4 Am. Jour. of Philol., XVI, pp. 139 ff. Cf. also L. Lange, Andeut. itiber 
Ziel und Meth. der synt. Forsch., 1853. 

5 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 242. 6 Ib., p. 244. 


840 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the writer is after. If he is aiming to describe a scene with vivid- 
ness, the imperfect predominates. Otherwise he uses the aorist, 
on the whole the narrative tense par eaxcellence.1 “Hence the 
aorist is the truly narrative tense, the imperfect the truly descrip- 
tive one; and both may be used of the same transaction.’’? 

(5) Relation to the Past Perfect. It is rather shocking, after 
Winer’s protest that the tenses are not interchanged, to find him 
saying bluntly: “In narration the aorist is used for the pluper- 
fect.”’> Burton‘ helps the matter by inserting the word “ Eng- 
lish” before ‘pluperfect.’? Winer meant “‘German pluperfect.” 
Gildersleeve> does much better by using “translated.” ‘“‘We 
often translate the aorist by a pluperfect for the sake of clear- 
ness.” Goodwin® adds more exactly that the aorist indicative 
merely refers the action to the past “without the more exact 
specification’? which the past perfect would give. That is the 
case. The speaker or writer did not always care to make this 
more precise specification. He was content with the mere narra- 
tive of the events without the precision that we moderns like. 
We are therefore in constant peril of reading back into the Greek 
aorist our English or German translation. All that one is entitled 
to say is that the aorist sometimes occurs where the context ‘‘im- 
plies completion before the main action,’’’ where in English we 
prefer the past perfect. This use of the aorist is particularly com- 
mon in subordinate clauses (relative and temporal and indirect 
discourse). It must be emphasized that in this construction the 
antecedence of the action is not stressed in the Greek. ‘‘The 
Greeks neglected to mark the priority of one event to another, 
leaving that to be gathered from the context.’’? Strictly therefore 
the aorist is not used for the past perfect. The Greeks cared 
not for relative time. In Mt. 14:3 it is plain that ἔδησεν and 
ἀπέθετο are antecedent in time to ἤκουσεν, verse 1, and εἶπεν in 
verse 2, but the story of the previous imprisonment and death 
of John is introduced by yap in a reminiscential manner. In 
Mt. 2:9 ὃν εἶδον points back to verse 2. Cf. also ὅτι ἐφίμωσεν 
(Mt. 22:34); dre ἐνέπαιξαν αὐτῷ, ἐξέδυσαν αὐτόν (27:31). So in 28: 2 


1 Stahl, Krit.-hist. Synt., p. 158. 

2 Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 77. 4 N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 22. 
3 W.-M., p. 343. 5 Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 109. 

6 Gk. Moods and Tenses, p. 18. Cf. Gildersl., Synt., p. 109. 

7 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 47. 

8 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 437. 

9 Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 76. Cf. K.-G., Bd. I, p. 169. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 841 


éyevero is antecedent to ἦλθεν in verse 1. In 27:18 note in par- 
ticular ἤδει ὅτι παρέδωκαν and compare with ἐγίνωσκεν ὅτι παραδε- 
δώκεισαν in ΜΚ. 15:10 (cf. οἵτινες πεποιήκεισαν in verse 7). Here 
Mark did draw the distinction which Matthew did not care to 
make. In Lu. 19 : 15 we have ois δεδώκει, but τί διεπραγματεύσαντο. 
Other examples where the antecedence is not expressed, though 
true, and the aorist is used, are ἐπελάθοντο (Mk. 8 : 14), ἐπειδήπερ 
ἐπεχείρησαν (Lu. 1:1), ὡς ἐτέλεσαν (2 : 39), ἐπειδὴ ἐπλήρωσεν (7: 1), 
ἐνεδύσατο (ὃ : 27), ἃ ἡτοίμασαν (Lu. 24:1), ὡς ἐγεύσατο (Jo. 2:9), 
ὅτι ἤκουσαν (4:1), ὃν εἶπεν (4:50), ἐξένευσεν (5:18), ὡς ἐγένετο 
(6 : 10), ὅτι ἀνέβλεψεν (9:18), ὅτι ἐξέβαλον (9 : 55), ὅπου ὑπήντησεν 
(11 : 30 and note ἐληλύθει), ὅτε ἔνιψεν (18 : 12), ὡς ἀπέβησαν (21 : 9), 
οὺς ἐξελέξατο (Ac. 1 : 2), ods προέγνω (Ro. ὃ : 29. Cf. 80 8150). In 
Jo. 18 : 24, ἀπέστειλεν οὖν, the presence of οὖν makes the matter 
less certain. If oty is transitional, there would be no antecedence. 
But if οὖν is inferential, that may be true, though Abbott con- 
siders it “impossible.”! Clyde? calls the aorist ‘‘an aggressive 
tense, particularly in the active voice, where it encroached on the 
domain of the perfect, and all but supplanted the pluperfect.”’ 
That is true, and yet it must not be forgotten that the aorist 
was one of the original tenses, much older than the perfects or 
the future. In wishes about the past (unattainable wishes) the 
N. T. uses ὄφελον (shortened form of ὥφελον) with the aorist indi- 
cative (1 Cor. 4:8) ὄφελόν γε ἐβασιλεύσατε. A similar remark ap- 
plies to use of the aorist indicative in conditions of the second 
class (past time), without ἄν in apodosis (Gal. 4:15) or with ἄν 
(Jo. 11:21). In both cases in English we translate this aorist by 
a past perfect. 

(e) Relation to the Present. The so-called Dramatic Aorist is 
possibly the oldest use of the tense. In Sanskrit this is the com- 
mon use of the tense to express what has just taken place.*? One 
wonders if the gnomic or timeless aorist indicative is not still 
older. The absence of a specific tense for punctiliar action in the 
present made this idiom more natural.4 This primitive use of 
the aorist survives also in the Slavonic.’ Giles suggests that “‘the 
Latin perfect meaning, like the Sanskrit, may have developed 
directly from this usage.’”?’ The idiom appears in Homer® and is 


1 Joh. Gr., p. 336. Cf. Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 23. 

2 Gk. Synt., p. 76. 

8 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 329. 4 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 129. 

5 Giles, Man., etc., p. 498. “The aorist is used not uncommonly of present 
time.” Ib., p. 497. 6 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 48. 


842 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


found chiefly in the dramatic poets where a sudden change comes,! 
or in colloquial speech or passionate questions.? It is a regular 
idiom in modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 123) as πείνασα, ‘I 
grew hungry,’ ‘am hungry still.’ This aorist is used of actions 
which have just happened. The effect reaches into the present. 
Moulton (Prol., p. 247) quotes a traveller in Cos who “had a 
pleasant shock, on calling for a cup of coffee, to have the waiter 
cry "Ed@aca.”” The Greek can still use a past tense in passion- 
ate questions affecting the present. Moulton’ speaks of “cases 
where an aorist indicative denotes present time,’ though he 
adds: ‘‘None of these examples are really in present time, for 
they only seem to be so through a difference in idiom between 
Greek and English.” This latter statement is the truth. The 
aorist in Greek, particularly in dialogue, may be used for what 
has just happened. It seems awkward in English to refer this 
to past time, but it is perfectly natural in Greek. So we trans- 
late it by the present indicative. From the Greek point of view 
the peculiarity lies in the English, not in the Greek. The examples 
in the N. T. are numerous enough in spite of Winer® to be worth 
noting. Moulton® has made a special study of Matthew con- 
cerning the translation of the aorist. ‘Under the head of ‘things 
just happened’ come 9:18 ἐτελεύτησεν (with ἄρτι), 5:28 ἐμοί- 
xevoev, and 14:15 παρῆλθεν and 17:12 ἦλθε (with ἤδη); 6:12 
ἀφήκαμεν, 12:28 ἔφθασεν, 14: 2, etc., ἠγέρθη, 16:17 ἀπεκάλυψε, 
18:15 éxépdnoas, 20:12 ἐποίησαν —as, 26:10 ἠργάσατο, 26: 13 
ἐποίησε, 26:65 ἐβλασφήμησεν, ἠκούσατε, 26:25, 64 εἶπας, 27:19 
ἔπαθον, 27:46 ἐγκατέλιπες, 28:7 εἶπον, 28:18 ἐδόθη (unless 11: 
27 forbids) and perhaps ἐγενήθη." Certainly this is a respectable 
list for Matthew. Add ἐμερίσθη (Mt. 12:26). These all can be 
translated by the English ‘have.’ Ἐὐδόκησα (Mt. 3:17 and par- 
allels) is a possible example also. Cf. ὃν εὐδόκησεν ἡ ψυχή μου 
(12:18, LXX). It is a “‘timeless” aorist’ and may be gnomic, 
as already pointed out. Cf. 2 Pet. 1:17; Mk. 10:20, ἐφυλα- 
ξάμην ἐκ τῆς νεότητος; ἐξέστη In Mk. 8 : 21; ἀπέχει, ἦλθεν --- παραδίδοται 
(14 : 41). Other examples of the aorist for what has just happened 
are ἠγέρθη, οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε (Mk. 16: 6); ἠγέρθη --- ἐπεσκέψατο (Lu. 
7:16); ἠγόρασα, ἔγημα (14 : 18-20); ἔζησεν, εὑρέθη (15 : 82); ἔγνων 
(10 : 4); ἐκρύβη (19 : 42); ὄντως ἠγέρθη (24 : 84); προσεκύνησαν (Jo. 


1 Goodwin, Gk. Moods and Tenses, p. 18. 5 W.-Th., p. 278. 

2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 487. 6 Prol., p, 140. 

8 Gildersl., Synt., p. 118. 7 Moulton, Prol., p. 134 f. 
4 Prol., p. 134. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 843 


4 : 20); ἤκουσας (11 : 42); ἀπῆλθεν (12 :19); ἦλθον εἰς τὴν ὥραν ταύτην 
(12 : 27); ἦλθεν (18 : 1); νῦν ἐδοξάσθη (13:31), but ἐδόξασα (17: 4) 
points backward, ‘I did glorify thee,’ while ἐδοξάσθη in 18 : ὃ is 
possibly gnomic; ἐπιάσατε viv (21:10); ἐδούλωσα, ἔγενόμην (1 Cor. 
9:19, 20, 22. Cf. ποιῶ in verse 23); ἔπεσεν, ἔπεσεν (Rev. 14:8; 
18 :2).! With this use of the aorist adverbs of time are common 
to make clear the present relation of time. Cf. τοῦτο ἤδη τρίτον 
ἐφανερώθη (Jo. 21:14) where τοῦτο has the effect of bringing the 
action forward. For a sharp contrast between the aorist and 
present see ἔσχες, καὶ νῦν ὃν ἔχεις (JO. 4:18). So ἔθυσα καὶ ἀξι[ῶ], 
B.G.U. 287 (a.p. 250). Cf. also Lu. 10.:24. See in particular 
ἔγνω, ἔγνων and ἔγνωσαν in Jo. 17:25. The timeless aorist is well 
illustrated in the participle in Lu. 10:18, ἐθεώρουν τὸν Σατανᾶν 
πεσόντα. 

(¢) Relation to Present Perfect. The problem just here is not 
whether the present perfect is ever used as an aorist. That will 
be discussed under the present perfect. If the distinction be- 
tween the two tenses was finally? obliterated, as early happened 
in Latin,? there would be some necessary confusion. But that 
has not happened in the N. T. period. Jannaris‘ notes it regu- 
larly about 1000 a.p. It is undeniable that the early Sanskrit 
used the aorist chiefly for ‘something past which is viewed with 
reference to the present’’ and it disappeared before the growth 
of the other more exact tenses.’ The perfect may be said to be a 
development from the aorist, a more exact expression of com- 
pleted action than mere ‘punctiliar”’ (aorist), viz. state of com- 
pletion. But in the Greek the aorist not only held its own with 
the other tenses, but ‘‘has extended its province at the expense 
of the perfect,” particularly in the N. T. period, though different 
writers vary greatly here. But was the aorist used “for” the 
perfect? Clyde’ says: ‘The aorist was largely used for the per- 
βού." Winer® replies: “There is no passage in which it can be 
certainly proved that the aorist stands for the perfect.’’ Gilder- 
sleeve® more correctly says: ‘‘The aorist is very often used where 
we should expect the perfect,” i.e. in English. But the trans- 


1 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 135. 2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 440. 

3. Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 78. Still, in Lat. the aorist must be noted for sequence 
of tenses. Cf. Meillet, L’Aoriste en Lat., Revue de Phil., 1897, p. 81 f. 

4 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 487. Cf. Hatz., Ein. , p. 204 f. 

ὅ Whitney, Sans. Gr., pp. 298, 329, 

6 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 199. 8 W.-M., p. 344. 

7 Gk. Synt., p. 78. 9 Synt.; p. 107. 


844 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


lation of the aorist into English will call for special discussion a 
little later. What is true is that the action in such cases “‘is re- 
garded as subordinate to present time,’’! in other words, the 
precise specification of relative time which we draw in our English 
perfect is not drawn in the Greek. The Greek states the simple 
undefined punctiliar action in a connection that suggests present 
time and so we render it in English by our “have.”? But Farrar? 
is right in insisting that we do not explain the Greek tense by the 
English rendering. In truth, the examples given under the head 
of “Relation to the Present’’ (ε) may often be rendered by the 
English ‘‘have”’ with tolerable accuracy.t| Sometimes the use 
of an adverb or particle helps the English. The examples are 
rather numerous in the N. T., as in the papyri,°® where the aorist 
and the present perfect occur side by side. Thus χωρὶς ὧν ἀπεγρα- 
ψάμην καὶ πέπρακα, O.P. 482 (i1/A.D.); τῆς γενομένης Kal ἀποπεπεμμένης 
γυναικός, N.P. 19 (ii/A.p.).. Moulton adds: “The distinction is 
very clearly seen in papyri for some centuries.” In most in- 
stances in the N. T. the distinction is very sharply drawn in the 
context, as in ὅτι ἐτάφη, καὶ ὅτι ἔγήγερται (1 Cor. 15:4). So ἐκτίσθη, 
ἔκτισται (Col. 1:16). Cf. Ac. 21:28. In most instances where 
we have trouble from the English standpoint it is the perfect, 
not the aorist that occasions it, as in πέπρακεν καὶ ἠγόρασεν (Mt. 
13:46). We shall come back to this point under the present 
perfect. Asa rule all that is needed is a little imagination on the 
part of the English reader to sympathize with the mental alertness 
expressed in the changing tenses, a sort of ‘moving picture” 
arrangement. Cf. κατενόησεν yap ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀπελήλυθεν Kal εὐθέως 
ἐπελάθετο ὁποῖος nv (Jas. 1:24). The single point to note con- 
cerning the aorist in those examples where we use ‘‘have”’ is that 
the Greeks did not care to use the perfect. Cf. οὐκ ἐλήλυθα xa- 
λέσαι δικαίους (Lu. 5: 82) with ob yap ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους (Mt. 
9:13), just two ways of regarding the same act. That is the 
whole story and it is a different thing from saying that the 
aorist is used “for” the present perfect. Here are some of 
the most interesting examples in the N. T. where ‘we’ in 
English prefer “have’’: ἠκούσατε (Mt. 5: 21); εὗρον (8 : 10); ἀνέγνωτε 
(12 : 3); ἐπαχύνθη καὶ ἤκουσαν καὶ ἐκάμμυσαν (13 : 15, LXX, Is. 6:10. 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 48. 


* Goodwin, Gk. Moods and Tenses, p. 18; P. Thomson, The Gk. Tenses in 
the N. T., p. 24. 


3 Gk. Synt., p. 125. 
4 Moulton, Prol., p. 140. 5 Ib., p. 142f. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 845 


Likely enough the timelessness of the Hebrew perfect may have 
caused this translation into the aorist so common in the LXX), 
ἠκυρώσατε (15:6); συνέζευξεν (19 : 0); ἀνέγνωτε ὅτι κατηρτίσω (21: 
16); ἀφήκατε (23 : 23); κατέστησεν (24 : 45); ἐποίησεν (27: 23)!; ἠγέρθη 
(28 :6); ἐξέστη (Mk. 3: 21); ἀπέθανεν (5 : 35; οἵ. τί ἔτι σκύλλεις; 5: 
36. Cf. ἀλλὰ καθεύδει); εἴδαμεν (Lu. 5 : 26); παρεδόθη (10 : 22); ἥμαρτον 
(15 : 21); ἔγνωσαν (Jo. 7 : 26); ἀφῆκεν (ὃ : 29); ἔλαβον (10 : 18); ἔδειξα 
(10 : 382); ἐδόξασα (12:28. Cf. δοξάσω); ἔνιψα (18 : 14); ἐξελεξάμην 
(18 : 18); ἠγάπησα (13 : 84); ἔγνώρισα (15 : 15); οὐκ ἔγνωσαν (16 : 3); 
ἦραν --- ἔθηκαν (20 : 2); ἐπιάσατε (21 : 10).2 Cf. ΜΚ. 14:8. Abbott 
remarks, that the Greek perfect does not lay the same stress on 
what is recently completed as does the English “have.” Cf. also οὐκ 
ἔγνω (1 Jo.4:8. Cf. 1 Cor. 8:3); ἐφανερώθη (1 Jo. 4:9. Contrast 
ἀπέσταλκεν in verse 9 and ἠγαπήκαμεν, ἠγαπήσαμεν ἴῃ Margin, in 
verse 10 with ἠγάπησεν and ἀπέστειλεν in verse 10); ἔλαβον (Ph. 
3:12); ἔμαθον (4:11); ἐκάθισεν (Heb. 1:3); ἐξέστημεν (2 Cor. 5: 18). 
The same event in Mk. 15:44 is first mentioned by ἤδη τέθνηκεν 
and is then referred to by ἤδη (or πάλαι) ἀπέθανεν. The distinction 
is not here very great, but each tense is pertinent. However, 
τέθνηκεν Means practically ‘to be dead,’ while ἀπέθανεν = ‘died,’ 
‘has died.’ Cf. Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 108. 

(n) Epistolary Aorist. This idiom is merely a matter of stand- 
point. The writer looks at his letter as the recipient will. It is 
probably due to delicate courtesy and is common in Latin as 
well as in the older Greek, though less so in the later Greek.’ 
The most frequent word so used was ἔγραψα, though ἔπεμψα was 
also common. The aorist has its normal meaning. One has 
merely to change his point of view and look back at the writer. 
In 1 Jo. 2: 12-14 we have the rhetorical repetition of γράφω, 
ἔγραψα (note the perfects after ὅτι). But in 1 Jo. 2:21 ἔγραψα 
may be the epistolary use, though Winer* protests against it. 
Here as in 2: 26, ταῦτα ἔγραψα, the reference may be not to the 
whole epistle, but to the portion in hand, though even so the 
standpoint is that of the reader. Cf. also 5:13. In 1 Cor. 9: 
15 also the reference is to the verses in hand. In Eph. 3 : 8, καθὼς 
προέγραψα ἐν ὀλίγῳ, the allusion may be to what Paul has just 
written or to the whole epistle, as is true of ἐπέστειλα (Heb. 13 : 
22). Certainly γράφω is the usual construction in the N. T. (1 
Cor. 4:14; 14:37; 2 Cor. 18:10, ete.). "“Eypaya usually refers 


1 Most of these exx. from Mt. come from Moulton, Prol., p. 140. 
2 Cf. Abbott, Joh..Gr., p. 324. 
3 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 487. 4 W.-Th., p. 278. 


846 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


to an epistle just finished (Phil. 19; 1 Pet. 5:12; 1 Jo. 5: 18), 
but even so the standpoint veers naturally to that of the reader. 
This is particularly so in Gal. 6:11 which probably refers to the 
concluding verses 11-18 and, if so, a true epistolary aorist. In 
Ro. 15:15 the reference may be! to another portion of the 
same epistle or to the epistle as a whole. In 1 Cor. 5:9, 11, 
ἔγραψα refers to a previous letter, as seems to be true also in 2 
Cor. 2:3, 4, 9; 7:12; 3 Jo. 9. But ἔπεμψα is found in undoubted 
instances as in Ac. 23:30; Eph. 6:22; Ph. 2:28; Col. 4:8. 
So ἀνέπεμψα in Phil. 11 and ἠβουλήθην in Text. Rec. 2 Jo. 12. 
Curiously enough Gildersleeve? says: “‘The aorist in the N. T. 
[Ep. aor.] is clearly due to Roman mfluence, and is not to be 
cited.” The epistolary aorist is more common in Latin (cf. 
Cicero’s Letters), probably because of our having more epistolary 
material. The idiom occurs often enough in the papyri. Cf. 
ἔπεμψα, B.G.U. 423 (ii/A.D.), ἔγραψα ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ μὴ ἰδότος ypauparta, 
P.Oxy. 278 (4.0. 66). There is therefore no adequate reason for 
denying its presence in the N. T. examples above. 

(0) Relation to the Future. The future was probably (cf. Brug- 
mann, Griech. Gr., p. 480) a late development in the language, 
and other devices were at first used, like the present indicative, 
the perfect indicative, the aorist subjunctive. The aorist indica- 
tive was also one of the expedients that never quite disappeared. 
It is not exactly, like the epistolary aorist, a change of stand- 
point. It is a vivid transference of the action to the future (like 
the present ἔρχομαι, Jo. 14:3) by the timeless aorist. The aug- 
mented form is still used, but the time is hardly felt to be past. 
-This idiom survives in the Slavonic also.2 It is a vivid idiom 
and is still found in modern Greek. Thumb (Handb., p. 123) cites 
κι. ἂν μὲ σουβλίσετε, ἕνας Τ᾽ραικὸς ἐχάθη, ‘even if you impale me only 
one Greek perishes.’ Radermacher (NV. T. Gr., p. 124) cites from 
Epictetus, ὅταν θέλῃς, ἐξῆλθες. Gildersleeve® calls it “fa vision of 
the future.”” Burton® considers it “rather a rhetorical figure than 
a grammatical idiom,’”’? but the idiom is not so strange after all. 
Cf. Eur., Alc., 386, ἀπωλόμην εἴ με λείψεις Ξε 1 perish if you leave 
me.’ The examples are not numerous in the N. T. and some 
of them may be gnomic. Cf. ἐάν σου ἀκούσῃ, ἐκέρδησας τὸν ἀδελφόν 
cov (Mt. 18:15. Cf. παράλαβε as the next apodosis in verse 16 
and ἔστω in verse 17); ἐὰν καὶ yaunons, οὐχ ἥμαρτες (1 Cor. 7: 

1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 194. 4 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 437. 


2 Synt., p. 128. 5 Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 114. 
3 Giles, Manual, p. 499. ®& N. 'T. Moods and Tenses, p. 23. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 847 


28); ὅταν μέλλῃ σαλπίζειν, Kal ἐτελέσθη (Rev. 10: 7), probably also 
ἐὰν μή Tis μένῃ ἐν ἐμοί, ἐβλήθη --- καὶ ἐξηράνθη (Jo. 15: 6), though 
this may be merely gnomic, as already stated. Cf. the use of 
ἐμερίσθη and ἔφθασεν in Mt. 12: 26, 28 in a condition of the 
present time. In Jo. 13:31 ἐδοξάσθη (twice) is explained (verse 
32) by δοξάσει καὶ εὐθὺς δοξάσει. Cf. p. 1020 (standpoint). 

(Ὁ). Aorist in Wishes. The special use of the aorist indicative 
in wishes about the past and conditions determined as unfulfilled 
will be discussed in chapter XIX, Modes. 

(x) Variations in the Use of Tenses. Where so much variety is 
possible, great freedom is to be expected. In modern English we 
make a point of uniformity of tense in narrative. The Greeks 
almost made a point of the opposite. It is jejune, to say no 
more, to plane down into a dead level the Greek spontaneous 
variety. Cf. ἥμαρτον καὶ ὑστεροῦνται (Ro. 3:23). In Matt. 4:11, 
for instance, we have ἀφίησιν (historical pres.), προσῆλθον (aor.), 
διηκόνουν (imperfect). In Mt. 13:45 f. note ἐστίν, ζητοῦντι, εὑρών, 
ἀπελθών, πέπρακεν, εἶχεν, ἠγόρασεν. “‘ When they wished to narrate 
a fact, or to convey a meaning, there is good ground for holding 
that they employed the tense appropriate for the purpose, and 
that they employed it just because of such appropriateness.’’! 
That is well said. The explanation is chiefly psychological, not 
mere analogy, which is true of only a few tenses, especially in 
late Greek (Middleton, Analogy in Syntax, 1892, p. 6). Jan- 
naris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 487, lays probably too much stress on 
“the terminal homophony of the two tenses”’ (aor. and perf.). 

(\) Translation of the Aorist into English. The Greek aorist 
ind., as can be readily seen, is not the exact equivalent of any 
tense in any other language. It has nuances all its own, many 
of them difficult or well-nigh impossible to reproduce in English. 
Here, as everywhere, one needs to keep a sharp line between the 
Greek idiom and its translation into English. We merely do the 
best that we can in English to translate in one way or another 
the total result of word (Aktionsart), context and tense.2 Cer- 
tainly one cannot say that the English translations have been 
successful with the Greek aorist.2 Weymouth in his New Testa- 
ment in Modern Speech has attempted to carry out .a consistent 
principle with some success. Moulton‘ has thought the matter 


ΤΡ, Thomson, The Gk. Tenses in the N. T., p. 17. 

2 Weymouth, On the Rendering into Eng. of the Gk. Aorist and Perfect, 
1894, p. 151. 8 ‘Thomson, The Gk. Tenses in the N. T., p. 23. 

4 Prol., pp: 135-140. 


848 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


important enough for an extended discussion. He makes clear 
that the Greek aorist is true to itself, however it is rendered into 
English. Take τινὲς ἐκοιμήθησαν (1 Cor. 15:6), for instance, ‘fell 
asleep (at various times),’ Moulton explains, “and so have fallen 
asleep.” In Mt. 3 : 7 ὑπέδειξεν may be translated by ‘has warned,’ 
but ‘warned’ will answer. The English past will translate the 
Greek aorist in many cases where we prefer ‘“‘have.”’ Burton! 
puts it clearly thus: ‘The Greek employs the aorist, leaving the 
context to suggest the order; the English usually suggests the 
order by the use of the pluperfect.”’ The Greek aorist takes no 
note of any interval between itself and the moment of speaking, 
while the English past takes note of the interval. The Greek 
aorist and the English past do not exactly correspond, nor do the 
Greek perfect and the English perfect.2, The Greek aorist covers 
‘much more ground than the English past. Cf. διὸ ἐκλήθη ὁ ἀγρὸς 
ἐκεῖνος ᾿Αγρὸς Αἵματος ἕως τῆς σήμερον (Mt. 27:8), where the Greek 
aorist is connected with the present in a way that only the 
English perfect can render. See also ἕως ἄρτι οὐκ ἠτήσατε (Jo. 
16:24). From the Greek point of view the aorist is true to its 
own genius. The aorist in Greek is so rich in meaning that the 
English labours and groans to express it. As a matter of fact 
the Greek aorist is translatable into almost every English tense 
except the imperfect, but that fact indicates no confusion in the 
Greek.® 

(c) The Aorist Subjunctive and Optative. The aorist of these 
two ‘‘side-moods’’* may very well be discussed together. The 
two moods are not radically different as we shall see. 

(a) No Time Element in the Subjunctive and Optative There 
is only relative time (future), and that is not due to the tense at 
all.6 The subjunctive is future in relation to the speaker, as is 
often true of the optative, though the optative standpoint is then 
more remote, a sort of future from the standpoint of the past. 

(8) Frequency of Aorist Subjunctive. As between the aorist and 
present in subjunctive and optative, the aorist is far more common. 
For practical purposes the perfect may be almost left out of view; 
it isso rare. Asa rule in these moods the action is either punctil- 
iar (aorist) or durative (present). The contrast between point and 
linear action comes out simply and clearly here. It is just that 


1 N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 27. 

2. Ib., Ρ 24f. 3 Thompson, Gk. Synt., 1883, p. xix. 
4 Gildersleeve, Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 401. 

5 K.-G., Bd. I, p. 182. 6 Stahl, Hist.-krit. Synt., p. 171. 


TENSE (XPONOZ) 849 


seen between the aorist and the imperfect indicative... In the 
classical Sanskrit the subjunctive exists only in a remnant of the 
first person, which is treated as an imperative, but it is common 
enough in the early language.?_ In Homer (both Jliad and Odyssey) 
the aorist is in great preponderance over the present (65 to 35 
for the average between subjunctive and optative, about the same 
for each). Gildersleeve‘* considers the difference due to the nature 
of the constructions, not to mere lack of differentiation in the 
early stage of the language. The subj. is more common in Homer 
than in the later Greek and the aorist subj. is correspondingly 
abundant. There is no doubt that the aorist is gaining in the 
κοινή over the present in the subj., opt., imper. (Radermacher, 
N.T. Gr., p. 123). The distinction is understood. Cf. μέχρις ἂν 
ἥλιος δύῃ (aim) and ἄχρις ἂν ἐπίκαιρον δοκῇ (duration), I. G., XII, 
5, 647. Radermacher cites also ὅπως λαμβάνωσιν and ὅπως λάβωσιν, 
ὅπως ὑπάρχῃ and ἵνα δοθῇ from a Pergamum inscr., N.13 (B.c. 300). 
He fears that this proves confusion between the tenses, and 
appeals also to the papyrus example iva γράφω καὶ φλυαρήσω (Deiss- 
mann, Licht, p. 153). But there is no necessary confusion here. 
The modern Greek preserves clearly the distinction between 
punctiliar’and linear action in the subj. and uses the aorist and 
present side by side to show it (Thumb, Handb., p. 124). The 
situation in the N. T. is even more striking. Mr. H. Scott, 
Birkenhead, England, writes me that he finds only five present 
subjs. in Acts and one (13:41) is a quotation. In the Pauline 
Epistles (13) he notes 292 dependent aorist subjs. and only 30 
dependent pres. subjs. Gildersleeve® complains of Stahl’s weari- 
someness in proving what ‘‘no one will dispute.’”? The point is 
that the aorist subj. or opt. is used as a matter of course unless 
durative (linear) action is to be emphasized or (as rarely) the com- 
pleted state is to be stressed (perfect). But variations occur even 
here. Thus Abbott® notes only two instances of the pres. subj. 


1 Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 82; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 194. 

2 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 298. 

3 Schlachter, Statist. Unters., pp. 236-238. 

4 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 245. 5 Tb., p. 400. 

6 Joh. Gr., p. 370f. But there is little point in these exceptions. Abbott 
rightly notes the variations in the major uncials between -ἰσῃ and -ἰζῃ in 
Mk. 9: 48-47. Mr. H. Scott finds ἐάν with pres. subj. also (W. H.) in Mk. 
1:40; 9:47 (4im all). In Lu. he adds 5:12 (=Mk. 1:40); 10:6,-8, 10 
(ἐάν to be supplied); 18:3; 20:28 (8 in all). In Mt. he notes 5:23; 6:22, 
23; 8:4 (= Mk. 1:40); 10:13 bis; 15:14; 17: 20; 21:21; 24:49 bis; 26:35 
(12 in all). But he makes 78 aor. subjs. with ἐάν in the Synoptics. 


850 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


with é in Mk. (9:45; 14:31) and two in Lu. (6 : 38; 19:31), 
apart from μή and except changes with ἔχω and θέλω. The 
aorist subj. in the Synoptics is well-nigh universal with ἐάν. 
But in John there is more diversity between the two tenses. 
“Most Greek writers observe the distinction between the aorist 
and present subjunctive, as Englishmen observe that between 
‘shall’ and ‘will,’ unconsciously and without any appearance of 
deliberately emphasizing the difference. But we have seen above 
(2511) that John employs the two forms with great deliberate- 
ness, even in the same sentence, to distinguish between the begin- 
ning of ‘knowing’ and the development of it.’’! Cf. ἵνα γνῶτε καὶ 
γινώσκητε (10 : 38) and εἰ ταῦτα οἴδατε, μακάριοί ἐστε ἐὰν ποιῆτε αὐτά 
(13 : 17), where the pres. is again used purposely. Note also John’s 
τί ποιῶμεν (6 : 28) and Luke’s τί ποιήσωμεν (3 : 10). We need not fol- 
low all the details of Abbott,” but he has made it perfectly clear 
that John makes the sharp distinction between the aor. and pres. 
subj. that is common between the aor. and imperf. ind. Cf. ἐάν τις 
τηρήσῃ (Jo. 8: 51) and ἐὰν τηρῶμεν (1 Jo. 2 : 3); ὅτι ἂν αἰτήσητε (Jo. 
14: 13) and ὃ ἂν αἰτῶμεν (1 Jo. 8 : 22). But Paul also knows the 
punctiliar force of the aor. subj. Cf. ἁμαρτήσωμεν (Ro. 6 : 15) with 
ἐπιμένωμεν (6:1), where the point lies chiefly in the difference of 
tense. See also 2 Tim. 2:5, ἐὰν δὲ καὶ ἀθλῇ τις, οὐ στεφανοῦται ἐὰν 
μὴ νομίμως ἀθλήσῃ. Cf. ποιῆτε in Gal. 5:17. In deliberative ques- 
tions the aorist sub]. is particularly common, as in δῶμεν ἣ μὴ δῶμεν 
(Mk. 12:14). In εἰρήνην ἔχωμεν (Ro. 5:1) the durative present 
occurs designedly =‘keep on enjoying peace with God,’ the 
peace already made (δικαιωθέντε). Moulton (Prol., p. 186) thinks 
that the aorist subj. in relative clauses like ὃς ἂν φονεύσῃ (Mt. 
5:21), or ὅπου ἐὰν καταλάβῃ (Mk. 9: 18), or conditional sentences 
like ἐὰν ἀσπάσησθε (Mt. 5: 47) “gets a future-perfect sense.” But 
one doubts if after all this is not reading English or Latin 
into the Greek. Cf. Mt. 5:31. The special construction of the 
aorist subj. with od μή (Jo. 6: 35; 18:11) comes up for discussion 
elsewhere. 

(y) Aktionsart. The three kinds of point-action occur, of 
course, in the aorist subj. Thus in ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ (Jo. 1:7) the 
aorist is merely constative, as is ἐὰν μείνητε ἐν ἐμοί (Jo. 15:7). Cf. 
ἐὰν μή τις μένῃ ἐν ἐμοί (15:6). In Jo. 6:30, ἵνα ἴδωμεν καὶ πιστεύσω- 
μέν σοι, the ingressive use is evident in πιστεύσωμεν =‘come to be- 
lieve’ (cf. iva πιστεύητε in verse 29). Cf. also ἵνα πιστεύσωμεν καὶ 
ἀγαπῶμεν (1 Jo. 3:23); περιπατήσωμεν (Ro. 6:4; 18:18). The 

1 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 381. 2 Ib., pp. 369-388. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 851 


effective aorist is seen in πῶς πληρωθῶσιν (Mt. 26:54). Cf. ὅταν 
καταργήσῃ (1 Cor. 15 : 24) for the “perfective” use of the prepo- 
sition also. In the modern Greek the aorist subj. preserves 
Aktionsart (Thumb, Handb., p. 124). 

(6) Aorist Subjunctive in Prohibitions. It seems clear! that orig- 
inally both in Sanskrit and Greek prohibition was expressed only 
by the subj. Hence the growth of the imperative never finally 
displaced it. In particular the aorist sub]. held its place in pro- 
hibitions as against the aorist imper. (a late form anyhow). This 
distinction has held in the main right on through. In the N. T. 
examples of the aor. imper. in prohibitions do occur in the third 
person, but the aor. subj. survives. In the second person the 
rule is still absolute. Moulton? has given a very interesting dis- 
cussion of the development of the discovery of the distinction 
between the two constructions. The aorist subj. is of course 
punctiliar, and the present imper. linear. Inasmuch as the pro- 
hibition is future, the aorist subj. would naturally be ingressive. 
Gottfried Hermann long ago made the distinction, but a few 
years ago Dr. Henry Jackson tells how one day he got the idea 
from a friend (quoted by Moulton?): ‘Davidson told me that, 
when he was learning modern Greek, he had been puzzled about 
the distinction, until he heard a Greek friend use the present 
imperative to a dog which was barking. This gave him the 
clue. He turned to Plato’s Apology, and immediately stumbled 
upon the excellent instance, 20 EK, μὴ θορυβήσητε, ‘before clamour 
begins,’ and 21 A, μὴ θορυβεῖτε, ‘when it has begun.’ ’”’ This dis- 
tinction is clearly in harmony with the punctiliar aorist subj. and 
the durative present imper. , It is maintained in ancient Greek 
and in modern Greek, and Moulton* shows how the papyri abun- 
dantly illustrate it. Unfortunately the present imperative is rare 
in the papyri from the nature of the subject-matter, but the few 
examples agree to the distinction drawn. The aorist subjunctive 
is abundant enough. Moulton (Prol., p. 123) finds in O.P. (all 
ii/A.D.) six aorist subjs. with μή. Thus μὴ ἀμελήσῃς refers to a re- 
quest in a letter. Cf. also μὴ ἄλλως ποιήσῃς, ὅρα undevl — προσκρούσῃς. 
But τοῦτο μὴ λέγε, O.P. 744 (i/B.c.), is in a letter in reference to 
what had already been said. So μὴ ἀγωνία, ‘don’t go on worrying.’ 
Another good example is in Hb.P. 56 (iii/B.c.), od οὖν μὴ ἐνόχλει 
αὐτόν. Moulton clinches it by the modern Greek μὴ γράφῃς (to 
one already writing) and μὴ γράψῃς (to one who has not begun). 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 240. 
2 Prol., p. 122. ‘Ibe poles t. 


852 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


The distinction is not admitted by all modern scholars.!. But the 
difficulty lies mainly in the use of the present imperative, not in 
the aorist subj. Examples like μὴ θαυμάσῃς (Jo. 3:7) do occur, 
where the thing prohibited has begun. Here it is the constative 
aorist rather than the ingressive which is more usual in this 
construction. Moulton? quotes Dr. Henry Jackson again: “Μὴ 
δράσῃς always, I believe, means, ‘I warn you against doing this,’ 
‘I beseech you will not’; though this is sometimes used when 
the thing is being done; notably in certain cases which may be 
called colloquial or idiomatic, with an effect of impatience, μὴ 
φροντίσῃς, ‘Oh, never mind!’ μὴ deions, ‘Never fear!’ μὴ θαυμάσῃς, 
‘You mustn’t be surprised!’ ’’ Add also μὴ φοβηθῇς (Mt. 1: 20). 
But, as a rule, it is the ingressive aorist subj. used in prohibitions 
to forbid a thing not yet done or the durative present imper. to 
forbid the continuance of an act. The N. T. is very rich in ex- 
amples of both of these idioms because of the hortatory nature of 
the books. Moulton‘ finds 134 examples of μή with the pres. 
imper. and 84 of μή with the aorist subj. In Matthew there are 
12 examples of μή with the pres. imper. and 29 of μή with the 
aorist subj. But these figures are completely reversed in the 
Gospel of Luke (27 to 19), in James (7 to 2), in Paul’s Epistles 
(47 to 8) and John’s writings (19 to 1). The case in Jo. 3:7 has 
already been noticed. It may be said at once that the excess 
of examples of pres. imper. over aorist imper. is the old situation 
in Homer.’ In the Attic orators, Miller (A. J. P., xiii, 423) finds 
the proportion of μὴ ποίει type to μὴ ποιήσῃς type 56 to 44, about 
the same as that in the N. T., 134 to 84. In the N. T. this pre- 
dominance holds except in Matthew, 1 Peter and Rev. (Moul- 
ton, Prol., p.124). The aorist imper. was an after-growth, and yet 
is very common in the N. T. (and LXX) as compared with the 
older Greek.6 In the Lord’s Prayer, for instance, every tense is 
aorist (Mt. 6: 9-18). Gildersleeve remarks that the aorist suits 
“imstant prayer.” But cf. Lu. 11: 2-4. However, the point is 


1 Cf. R. C. Seaton, Cl. Rev., Dec., 1906, p. 438. 2 Broke paleo: 

3 Ib., p. 123. Mr. H. Scott properly observes that ‘‘the correctness of these 
figures will depend upon how a repeated μή or μηδὲ without a verb is to be 
counted. E.g. is Mt. 10:9 f. to be counted as one or as seven? The same 
question arises with a verb without a repeated ἐάν or ἵνα, etc. It seems to 
me that these are merely abbreviated or condensed sentences and should be 
counted as if printed in extenso— as separate sentences. In that case Mt. 
10:9f. would count seven instances of μή with subj. aor.” 

4 Tb. 5 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 244. 

6 Gildersl., Justin Martyr, p. 137. 





TENSE (XPONOS) 853 


here that-in the N. T., as a rule, the idiom gives little difficulty. 
Cf. μὴ νομίσητε (Mt. 5:17); μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς (Mt. 6:13; Lu. 
11:4); μὴ εἰσελθεῖν eis τὸν πειρασμόν (Lu. 22:40). Cf. μὴ σαλπίσῃς 
(Mt. 6:2), ‘don’t begin to sound,’ and μὴ θησαυρίζετε (6 : 19), 
‘they were already doing it.’ Note again μὴ δῶτε μηδὲ βάλητε (Mt. 
7:6) and μὴ κρίνετε (7:1). With Mt. 3:9 μὴ δόξητε λέγειν com- 
pare Lu. 3:8 μὴ ἄρξησθε λέγειν. But:in Lu. 3:14, μηδένα διασείσητε 
μηδὲ συκοφαντήσητε, We have the constative aorist rather than the= 
pres. imper. (the soldiers were present, if John spoke in Greek 
to them, more restrained at any rate). In Lu. 11:7, μή μοι κόπους 
mapexe= ‘quit troubling me,’ while in Rev. 10 : 4, μὴ αὐτὰ γράψῃς ΞΞ: 
‘do not begin to write.’ (Cf. ἤμελλον γράφειν in same verse.) It is 
not necessary to labour the point. But in Mt. 6:25 we have μὴ 
μεριμνᾶτε, implying that they were anxious; in 6: 34, μὴ οὖν pepi- © 
μνήσητε, & general warning in conclusion. Once more, in Mt. 
10: 26, note μὴ οὖν φοβηθῆτε αὐτούς, the warning against fearing 
evil men; in 10:31, μὴ οὖν doGetoOe= ‘quit being afraid.’ In Jo. 
5:45, μὴ δοκεῖτε, it is implied that ‘they had been thinking that’; 
in 2 Cor. 11:16, μή τίς we δόξῃ, ‘no one did, of course.’! In Jo. 
6:43 μὴ γογγύζετε 15 interpreted by ἔγόγγυζον in verse 41. Cf. vA 
μὴ κλαίετε (Lu. 8 : 52), ‘they were weeping.’ In μὴ δόξῃ (2 Cor. 
11:16) and μὴ ἐξουθενήσῃ (1 Cor. 16:11) the normal use of μή 
with the aorist subj. occurs with the third person. A good 
double example occurs in Lu. 10:4, μὴ βαστάζετε βαλλάντιον 
(‘don’t keep carrying’), and in μηδένα ἀσπάσησθε (‘don’t stop to 
salute’). In Col. 2:21 μὴ ἅψῃ is a warning to the Colossian 
Christians not to be led astray by the gnostic asceticism. In 
2 Cor. 6:17, ἀκαθάρτου μὴ ἅπτεσθε, the prophet (Is. 52 : 11) assumes 
that the people were guilty, if NAQ be followed as by Paul, but 
B has ἅψησθε. In Jo. 20:17, μή μου ἅπτου, Jesus indicates that 
Mary must cease clinging to him. Cf. μήτε ὀμόσῃς (Mt. 5 : 36) 
and μὴ ὀμνύετε (Jas. 5:12). As to the present imperative fur- 
ther discussion belongs elsewhere, but a word is necessary here. 
Moulton? thinks that “rather strong external pressure is needed 
to force the rule upon Paul.’”’ John has only one case of μή with 
the aorist subj., and yet Moulton holds that all his uses of the 
present imper. fit the canon completely. Gildersleeve (Syntaz, 
p. 164) says: “μή with the present imperative has to do with a» 
course of action and means sometimes ‘keep from’ (resist), some- 
times ‘cease to’ (desist).”” So ‘continue not doing,’ or ‘do not 
continue doing.’ One of the imper. presents is merely exclama- 
1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 196. aeProk yp. ἴ2 5: 


854 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


tory (οἴ. ἄγε, Jas. 5:1). Another, like ὅρα with μηδενὶ εἴπῃς (Mt. 
8:4), is almost like a ‘‘sort of particle adding emphasis.”! If “a 
negative course of action” (Gildersleeve) is enjoined, it is not 
necessarily implied that one is doing the thing. Moulton’s diffi- 
culty about Paul is thus obviated. Hence the answer? to μὴ 
ποίει, Which usually=‘Stop doing,’ may be in a given case=‘ Do 
not from time to time,’ ‘Do not as you are in danger of doing,’ 
‘Do not attempt to do’ or simply ‘Continue not doing.’ In Eph. 
5:18 μὴ μεθύσκεσθε may mean that some of them were getting 
drunk (cf. even at the Lord’s Table, 1 Cor. 11:21), or a course of 
action (the habit) may be prohibited. In μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε (Eph. 
4:25) the imminent peril of sin may be implied (cf. ὀργίζεσθε). 
So in μὴ ψεύδεσθε (Col. 3:9) we may have the course of action, 
though the usual linear notion is pertinent. But cf. μὴ ἀμέλει 
(1 Tim. 4:14), μηδενὶ ἐπιτίθει and μηδὲ κοινώνει (5:22),3 and μὴ γίνε- 
σθε ὡς οἱ ὑποκριταί (Mt. 6:16), as illustrations of the point in dis- 
pute. In the modern Greek ‘‘as a prohibitive the aorzst subj. is 
on the whole less commonly used than the present’? (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 127). Μή with the present imper. survives in a few 
instances, but the subj. in modern Greek does practically all the 
work of prohibiting. ; 

(ce) Aorist Subjunctive with οὐ μή. It is merely the tense that calls 
for comment here, not the mode nor the negative. The present 
sub]. was sometimes used with οὐ μή in the ancient Greek, but no 
examples occur in the N. T. The aorist is very natural as the 
action is distinctly punctiliar. Of the 100 examples of οὐ μή in 
the W. H. text, 86 are with the aorist subj., 14 are future inds.* 
Cf. od μὴ εἰσἔλθητε (Mt. 5:20); οὐκέτι ob μὴ πίω (Mk. 14: 25). 
The other aspects of the subject will be discussed elsewhere 
(chapters on Modes and Particles). 

(¢) Aorist Optative. It is more frequent than the present in 
the N. T. This is partly due to the relative frequency of μὴ 
γένοιτο (cf. Gal. 6: 14) and the rarity of the optative itself. The 
distinction of tense is preserved. Cf. μηδεὶς φάγοι (ingressive, Mk. 
11:14); πληθυνθείη (effective, 1 Pet. 1:2); κατευθύναι --- πλεονάσαι 
καὶ περισσεύσαι (constative, 1 Th. 3:11f.). Cf. δῴη (2 Tim. 1: 16, 
18). Cf. 2 Tim. 4:16. These are wishes. The aorist occurs 
also with the potential opt. as in ri ἂν ποιήσαιεν (Lu. 6:11). CE. 
Ac. 26:29. In the N. T. certainly the optative usually refers to 
the future (relatively), though Gildersleeve® is willing to admit 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 124. 2 Ib., p. 125 f. 8. ΤΌ. 
4 ΤΌ, 190. 5 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 403. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 855 


that Homer uses the potential opt. with av a few times of the 
past. The opt. in indirect questions has to be noted. 

(d) The Aorist Imperative. In Homer the aorist imperative, 
as already stated, is not so common as the present, while in the 
N. T. it is remarkably frequent.1. This frequency of the imper. 
is characteristic of the κοινή generally,? though in the end the 
subj. came to be used in positive commands like the Latin.’ 
There is no complication in the positive command, like the ban 
put upon μὴ ποίησον from the beginning of our knowledge of the 
Greek language.’ (Hence in the positive imperative we are free 
to consider the significance of the aorist (and present) tense 
in the essential meaning. | Here the distinction between the punc- 
tiliar (aorist) and the durative (present) is quite marked.® In- 
deed Moulton (Prol., p. 129) holds that to get at “the essential 
character of aorist action, therefore, we must start with the other 
moods” than ind. It is easier, for the time element is absent. 
Cf. περιβαλοῦ τὸ ἱμάτιόν σου καὶ ἀκολούθει μοι (Ac. 12:8). It is ex- 
actly the distinction between the aorist and imperf. ind. (cf. 
ἐξελθὼν ἠκολούθει in verse 9). The constative aorist, περιβαλοῦ, is 
like the preceding, ζῶσαι καὶ ὑπόδησαι τὰ σανδάλιά σου. In Jo.5:8 
note ἄρον τὸν κράβαττόν σου καὶ περιπάτει (the ingressive aorist and 
the durative, ‘walking,’ ‘went on walking’), and the same tense- 
distinction is preserved in verse 9, ἦρε --- καὶ περιεπάτει (cf. further 
5:11). In ὕπαγε νίψαι (Jo. 9 : 7) the present ὕπαγε is exclamatory 
(cf. ἔγειρε ἄρον in 5:8). Cf. Mk. 2:9, 11. In the midst of the 
aorists in Jo. 2 : 5-8 (the effective ποιήσατε, γεμίσατε, ἀντλήσατε νῦν) 
the present φέρετε stands out. It is probably a polite conative 
offer to the master of the feast. In the Lord’s Prayer in Mt. (6 : 9- 
11) note ἁγιασθήτω, γενηθήτω, δός, ἄφες and εἴσελθε --- πρόσευξαι in 
6:6. In opposition to δὸς σήμερον in Matthew we have δίδου τὸ 
καθ᾽ ἡμέραν in Lu. 11:3, a fine contrast between the punctiliar 
and the linear action.’ So τῷ αἰτοῦντι δός (Mt. 5:42) and παντὲ 
αἰτοῦντι δίδου (Lu. 6:30); χάρητε ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ (Lu. ὁ : 23) and 
χαίρετε (Mt. 5:12); ἄρατε ταῦτα ἐντεῦθεν, μὴ ποιεῖτε (Jo. 2:16, a 
very fine illustration). In Ro. 6:13 a pointed distinction in 
the tenses is drawn, μηδὲ παριστάνετε τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν ὅπλα ἀδικίας TH 
ἁμαρτίᾳ, ἀλλὰ παραστήσατε ἑαυτούς (one the habit of sin forbidden, 
the other the instant surrender to God enjoined). Cf. also νῦν 


1 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 244 f.; Apr., 1909, p. 235. 

2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 451. 

8 Ib., p. 449. 5 Thomson, The Gk. Tenses in the N. T., p. 29. 
4 Moulton, Prol., p. 173. ® Moulton, Prol., p. 129. 


856 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


παραστήσατε in verse 19. In Lu. 7:8, πορεύθητι --- πορεύεται, ποίη- 
cov—rovet, the presents are also aoristic. As with the ind. the 
aorist (constative) may be used with a durative word. So μείνατε 
ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ TH ἐμῇ (Jo. 15:9). The action, durative in itself, is 
treated as punctiliar. Cf. Mt. 26:38, μείνατε ὧδε καὶ γρηγορεῖτε 
per’ ἐμοῦ (Mk. 14:34). So with μακροθυμήσατε ἕως τῆς παρουσίας 
τοῦ κυρίου (Jas. 5:7); τὴν παραθήκην φύλαξον (1 Tim. 6:20. Cf. 
2 Tim. 1:14; 1 Jo. 5:21); ταῦτα παράθου (2 Tim. 2 : 2); συνκακο- 
πάθησον (2 : 8); σπούδασον (2:15). Cf. the aorists in Jas. 4:9. 
Most of them call for little comment. Cf. Jo. 4:16, 35. Ab- 
bott! notes the avoidance of the aorist imper. of πιστεύω, possibly 
because mere belief (aorist) had come to be misunderstood. The 
pres. imper. presses the continuance of faith (ef. Jo. 14:11). 
The.real force of the effective aorist is seen in λύσατε τὸν ναὸν τοῦ- 
τον (Jo. 2:19). In Mk. 15:32, καταβάτω νῦν, the “perfective” 
force of the preposition is added. Moulton? notes that 1 Peter 
shows a marked liking for the aorist (20 aorists to 5 presents in 
commands, H. Scott), while Paul’s habit, as already noted, is just 
the opposite. Moulton* has an interesting comment on the fact 
that “in seven instances only do the two evangelists [Mt. 5-7 
and Luke’s corresponding passage] use different tenses, and in all 
of them the accompanying variation of phraseology accounts for 
the differences in a way which shows how delicately the distinc- 
tion of tenses was observed.’ There may be variations in the 
translation of the Aramaic original (if the Sermon on the Mount 
was spoken in Aramaic?), ‘‘but we see no trace of indifference to 
the force of the tenses.’”’? In the imperative also different writers 
will prefer a different tense. One writer is more fond of the aorist, 
another of the present. Note the impressive aorists, ἄρατε τὸν 
λίθον, λύσατε αὐτὸν καὶ ἄφετε αὐτὸν ὑπάγειν (Jo. 11:39, 44). Abbott4 
rightly calls the aorist here more authoritative and solemn than 
the present would have been. The aorist here accords with the 
consciousness of Jesus (11:41, ἤκουσας). The aorist imper. oc- 
curs in prohibitions of the third person, like μὴ γνώτω (Mt. 6 : 3); 
μὴ καταβάτω (24:17); μὴ ἐπιστρεψάτω (24:18). This construction 
occurs in ancient Greek, as μηδὲ σε κινησάτω τις, Soph. Ai. 1180. 
But μή and the aorist subj. was preferred. In the N. T. this is 
rarely found (1 Cor. 16:11; 2 Th. 2:3). 

(ὁ) The Aorist Infinitive. In Homer the durative (present) idea 
is more common than the punctiliar (aorist) with the infini- 


1 Joh. Gr., p. 319 f. 3 ΤΌ. 
2"Prol.,; p. 174; 4 Joh. Gr., p. 318 f. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 857 


tive, as with the imperative.! There is, of course, no time in the 
inf. except relative time in indirect discourse. | The history of the 
inf. belongs elsewhere, but here we have only to do with the ex- 
cellent illustration of punctiliar action afforded by the aorist 
inf. Radermacher finds the aorist and the pres. inf. together in 
the Carthaginian inser. (Audollent, 238, 29, i1i/A.D.), μηδὲ τρέ- 
χειν μηδὲ περιπατεῖν μηδὲ νικῆσαι μηδὲ ἐξελθεῖν. So in the papyri 
B.G.U., I, 188, 25. The features of the tenses in the inf., once 
they are fully established, correspond closely to the use in the 
moods.2. As a matter of fact originally the inf., because of its 
substantival origin, was devoid of real tense-idea (Moulton, Prol., 
p. 204), and it was only by analogy that tense-ideas were asso- 
ciated with the inf. But still the aorist inf. deserves a passing 
word. Take Ac. 15:37 f., for instance,? Βαρνάβας δὲ ἐβούλετο συν- 
παραλαβεῖν καὶ τὸν Ἴ. τὸν kad. Μάρκον. Here the constative aorist is 
perfectly natural for the proposed journey. But see the outcome, 
Παῦλος δὲ ἠξίου --- μὴ συνπαραλαμβάνειν τοῦτον. Paul was keenly 
conscious of the discomfort of Mark’s previous desertion. He 
was not going to subject himself again to that continual peril 
(durative). Cf. also Mt.14:22, ἠνάγκασε τοὺς μαθητὰς ἐμβῆναι (con- 
stative aorist), καὶ προάγειν αὐτόν (durative, ‘go on ahead of him’). 
An interesting example occurs in Jo. 13:36 f., οὐ δύνασαί μοι νῦν 
ἀκολουθῆσαι (constative aorist most likely); διὰ τί οὐ δύναμαί σοι 
ἀκολουθεῖν ἄρτι (durative, ‘keep on following,’ is Peter’s idea).4 
The aorist inf. is the predominant construction with δύναμαι, δυ- 
νατός, θέλω, κελεύω, etc.’ The distinction in tenses is well observed. 
For δύναμαι see further λαμβάνειν (Jo. 3:27) and λαβεῖν (14 : 17); 
βαστάζειν (16:12) and βαστάσαι (Rev. 2:2); πιστεῦσαι (Jo. 5:44) 
and πιστεύειν (12:39). Abbott notes also that ποιῆσαι occurs in 
John with δύναμαι only in Jo. 11:37, whereas ἰδεῖν, εἰσελθεῖν, γεννη- 
θῆναι are natural (3:3 ff.). So with θέλω note λαβεῖν (Jo. 6 : 21); 
πιάσαι (7:44), but ἐρωτᾶν (16:19). In Mt. 5:17f. καταλῦσαι and 
πληρῶσαι are effective, but σιγῆσαι (Ac. 15:18) is ingressive, while 
αἰτῆσαι (Mt. 6:8) is constative. Cf. Lu. 7:24f. The aorist inf. 
is rare with μέλλω (ἀποκαλυφθῆναι, Ro. 8:18; Gal. 3 : 23, though 
ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι in 1 Pet. 5:1). So ἔμελλον ἀποθανεῖν (Rev. 3 : 2). 
Cf. Rev. 3:16; 12:4. A good example of the constative aorist 


1 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., p. 244. In Sans. the inf. has no tenses at all. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 204. Cf. Gildersl., Synt., p. 133 f.; Goodwin, Moods 
and Tenses, p. 30. Plato, Theat., 155 Οὐ, ἄνευ τοῦ γίγνεσθαι γενέσθαι ἀδύνατον. 

3 Moulton, ib., p. 130. >» Blass wGr. of (Nw ΠΣ Gk., p.. 1001: 

4 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 361. 6 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 360 f. 


858 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


inf. occurs in Ro. 14: 21.: The aorist inf. is used with an aorist 
as the ind., οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι (Mt. 5: 17), the subj., εἴπωμεν πῦρ 
καταβῆναι (Lu. 9:54), the imper., ἄφες θάψαι (Mt. 8:22). But 
the aorist inf. is common also with durative tenses like ἐζήτουν 
κρατῆσαι (Mk. 12:12); οὐκ ἤθελεν --- ἐπᾶραι (Lu. 18:13). There 
is apparently no instance in the N. T. of an aorist inf. used to 
represent an aorist ind. in indirect discourse.? In Lu. 24 : 46, 
ὅτι οὕτως γέγραπται παθεῖν καὶ ἀναστῆναι ἐκ νεκρῶν, we have the 
usual timeless aorist, the subject of γέγραπται. So μὴ ἰδεῖν (2 : 26). 
In Ac. 3:18 παθεῖν is the object of προκατήγγειλεν. The aorist 
and pres. inf. with prepositions vary a good deal. The aorist 
occurs with μετά (Mt. 26:32; Lu. 12:5, etc.), with πρό (Lu. 2:21; 
Jo. 1:48); πρός (Mt. 6:1); εἰς (Ph. 1:23); and even with & 
sometimes (Lu. 2 : 27), but only once with διά (Mt. 24:12). Cf. 
Burton, N. 7. Moods and Tenses, p.49f. The following are Mr. 
H. Scott’s figures for the Synoptics: 


ARTICULAR INFINITIVE 


τὸ | τοῦ | διὰ τό] εἰς τό | ἐν τῷ [μετὰ τό πρὸ TOD πρὸς τό] Total 


PV AWPVPAT P PAY Pol AP ATP VA ER  ΡΑΓΑΝ ΣΕ ΕΔ ΠΕΡΙ 


ig | | | es | | | | | | | | ace 











2) 49122112 del 1S G6 AST τειν ΟΞ ΞΡ a Dae 
6 31 13 Ἶ 39 {i 116 
Perf. 4 
17 


There are more articular presents than aorists in N. T. 

(f) The Aorist Participle. The tenses got started with the parti- 
ciple sooner than with the inf. (cf. Sanskrit), but in neither 
is there time except indirectly. The Sanskrit had tenses in the 
participles. The aorist part. is not so frequent in Homer as is 
the present. But ‘the fondness of the Greeks for aorist parti- 
ciples in narrative is very remarkable.’’4 

(a) Aktionsart. That is present here also. Thus we find the 
ingressive aorist, μεταμεληθείς (Mt. 27:3); φοβηθεῖσα (Mk. 5: 33); 
ἀγνοήσαντες (Ac. 18 : 27); ἀγαπήσας (2 Tim. 4:10). The effective 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. ΤῈ Gk., p. 197. 

2 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 53. 

8 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 244. 
4 Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gr., p. 213. 


TENSE (XPONOZ) 859 


aorist appears in πληρώσαντες (Ac. 12 : 25), the constative in συν- 
παραλαβόντες (2b.). Further examples of the effective aorist are 
πείσαντες τοὺς ὄχλους Kal λιθάσαντες τὸν Παῦλον (Ac. 14 : 19); δικαιω- 
θέντες (Ro. 5:1). The constative is seen again in παραδούς (Mt. 
27:4); πιστεύσαντες (Jo. 7:39). The aorist participle in itself is, 
of course, merely punctiliar action. 

(8) Ὃ and the Aorist Participle. The punctiliar force of the 
aorist part. is well illustrated in this idiom. It differs from the 
relative (és-+ verb) in being a more general expression. In Mt. 
23 :20f., ὁ ὀμόσας ὀμνύει, we have identical action, not ante- 


cedent. The aorist is, strictly speaking, timeless (Burton, Moods —~ 


and Tenses, Ὁ. 69). ‘O dudcas=‘the swearer,’ 6 λαβώντε “Πα re- 
ceiver,’ etc. Cf. Seymour, ‘On the Use of the Aorist Part. in 
Greek,” Transactions of the Am. Philol. Ass., 1881, p. 89. In John 
the examples, however, are usually definite.! Contrast ὁ AaBav | 
(Jo. 3:33) probably=‘the Baptist’ with πᾶς ὁ ἀκούσας --- μαθών (6: 
45) and of ἀκούσαντες, of ποιήσαντες (5: 25, 29). ‘O-+ aorist part. 
may be used with any tense of the ind. Thus ὁ λαβών in Jo. 3: 
32 occurs with ἐσφράγισεν, πᾶς ὁ ἀκούσας (6:45) with ἔρχεται, 
of ποιήσαντες (5 : 28 f.) with ἐκπορεύσονται. Cf. Mt. 26 : 52, πάντες 
of λαβόντες μάχαιραν ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀπολοῦνται. In simple truth the) 
aorist in each instance is timeless. It is not necessary to take it/ 
as=future perf.2 in an example like ὁ ὑπομείνας εἰς τέλος οὗτος 
σωθήσεται (Mk. 13:13). So Mt. 10:39. Note the resumptive 
οὗτος. Cf. ὁ γνούς --- καὶ μὴ ἑτοιμάσας ἢ ποιήσας δαρήσεται (Lu. 12: 
47). Cf. Jo. 7:39; 16:2; 20:29, in all of which examples the 
simple punctiliar action is alone presented in a timeless manner. 
But in Jo. ὃ : 19, οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν eis τὸν οὐρανὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ TOD οὐ- 
ρανοῦ καταβάς, the content suggests antecedent action. Cf. also 
6:41, ἔγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος ὁ καταβάς: τὸν ἀποστείλαντα in Mt. 10: 
40; Jo. 5:15, ὁ ποιήσας; Heb. 10:29: Ὃ and the aorist part. 
is sometimes used of an act past with reference to the time 
of writing, though future with reference to the action of the 
principal verb.’ This classic idiom occurs in the N. T. also. Cf. 
᾿Ιούδας ὁ ᾿Ισκαριώτης 6 καὶ παραδοὺς αὐτόν (Mt. 10:4; cf. also 27:3); 
usually the phrase is ὁ παραδιδούς (26:25; Jo. 18:2, 5). So in 
Ac, 1:16 both γενομένου and συλλαβοῦσιν are future to προεῖπε. 
In Col. 1:8 ὁ καὶ δηλώσας is future to ἐμάθετε. So Jo. 11: 2 (ef. 
12:3) ἦν δὲ Μαριὰμ ἡ ἀλείψασα τὸν κύριον μύρῳ Kal ἐκμάξασα τοὺς 
1 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 363. 


2 As Abbott does, Joh. Gr., p. 362. 3 Ib., p. 364 f. 
4 Goodwin, Gk. Moods and Tenses, p. 52 f.; Humphreys, Cl. Rev., Feb., ’91. 


860 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


πόδας αὐτοῦ. Cf. Ac. 7:35 τοῦ ὀφθέντος, 9:21 ὁ πορθήσας. This 
development, though apparently complex, is due to the very 
indefiniteness (and timelessness) of the aorist participle and the 
adjectival force of the attributive participle. 

(y) Antecedent Action. This is the usual idiom with the cir- 
cumstantial participle. This is indeed the most common use of 
the aorist participle. But it must not be forgotten that the aorist 
part. does not in itself mean antecedent action, either relative or 
absolute.! That is suggested by the context, the natural sequence 
of events. As examples of the antecedent aorist part. (ante- 
cedent from context, not per se) take vnoreboas — ἐπείνασεν (Mt. 
4:2); ἰδὼν --- μεταμεληθεὶς ἔστρεψεν (27:3); ῥίψας --- ἀνεχώρησεν, 
ἀπελθὼν ἀπήγξατο (27:5). These so-called antecedent aorists do 
not have to precede the principal verb in position in the sen- 
tence. Thus ἤγειρεν αὐτὴν κρατήσας τῆς χειρός (Mk. 1:31), εὐχα- 
ριστοῦμεν --- ἀκούσαντες (Col. 1:3, 4), μέλλει κρίνειν---παρασχὼν (Ac. 
17:31), ἐκάθισεν --- γενόμενος (Heb. 1:3). This idiom is very 
common in the N. T. as in the older Greek.? Indeed, one par- 
ticiple may precede and one may follow the verb as in Lu. 4 : 35, 
ῥίψαν --- ἐξῆλθεν — βλαάψαν. In Heb. 6:10 the aorist is distin- 
guished from the present, ἐνεδείξασθε---διακονήσαντες Tots ἁγίοις καὶ 
διακονοῦντες. In Ro. 5:16, δὲ ἑνός ἁμαρτήσαντος, there is a refer- 
ence to Adam (verse 14). The principal verb may itself be 
future as in ἄρας — ποιησω (1 Cor. 6:15). In Lu. 23:19 ἦν 
βληθείς is punctiliar periphrastic (aorist passive), ἦν being aoristic 
also. Moulton (Prol., p. 249) cites ἦν ἀκούσασα from Pelagia 
(inser. 18). Cf. ἦσαν γενόμενοι in Thue. 4, 54, 3, and εἴη φανείς in 
Herod. 3:27. See Gildersleeve, Syntax, Ὁ. 125. 

(δ) But Simultaneous Action is Common also. It is so with the 
circumstantial participle as with the supplementary. Here again 
it is a matter of suggestion. It is simple enough with the supple- 
mentary participle as in ἔλαθον ξενίσαντες (Heb. 13: 2), though rare, 
the present suiting better (cf. Mt. 17: 25). The usual idiom is 
seen in ἐπαύσατο λαλῶν (Lu. 5:4). Indeed this simultaneous action 
is in exact harmony with the punctiliar meaning of the aorist 
tense. It is a very common idiom (chiefly circumstantial) in the 
N. Το" as in the older Greek.t So πέμψας --- εἶπεν (Mt. 2 :.8); 


ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν (22:1); ἥμαρτον παραδοὺς αἷμα δίκαιον (27:4); σύ 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 197; Burton, Ν. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 70; 
Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 166. 

2 W.-M., p. 433. 

3 Moulton, Prol., p. 131. 4 Goodwin, Gk. Moods and Tenses, p. 49 f. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 861 


τε καλῶς ἐποίησας παραγενόμενος (Ac. 10 : 33); χρησάμενος “ἐπέστρεψεν 
(2723). Cf. Ac. 1:24; Ro. 4:20; Heb. 2:10. It is needless 
to press the point except to observe that the order of the part. is 
immaterial. Note Ac. 10:33 above. So in σῶσον καταβάς (Mk. 
15:30); ἦλθαν σπεύσαντες (Lu. 2:16. Cf. σπεύσας κατάβηθι, Lu. 
19:5); ἐμαρτύρησεν δοὺς τὸ πνεῦμα (Ac. 15:8); διέκρινεν καθαρίσας 
(15 : 9); ἐποίησαν ἀποστείλαντες (11:30); ἔγκατέλειπεν ἀγαπήσας (2 
Tim. 4:10); ἐλάβετε πιστεύσαντες (Ac. 19:2). This construction 
of the part. after the verb is very common in the N. T. The 
coincident use of the aorist tense occurs also with the imper- 
fect, as συνήλλασσεν --- εἰπών (Ac. 7:26), ἐπιβαλὼν ἔκλαιεν (Mk. 
14 : 72); the present, as ἀποκριθεὶς λέγει (Mk. 8 : 29); the per- 
fect, as ἐκπεπλήρωκεν --- ἀναστατήσας (Ac. 13:33); and the future, 
AS καλῶς ποιήσεις προπέμψας (3 Jo. 6). In many examples only 
exegesis can determine whether antecedent or coincident action 
is intended, as in Heb. 9 : 12, εἰσῆλθεν --- εὑράμενος (Moulton, Prol., 
p. 182). So Moulton (7b., p. 131) notes εἰποῦσα for antecedent and 
εἴπασα (BC*) for coincident action in Jo. 11:28. The coincident 
aorist part. is common enough in the ancient Greek (Gilder- 
sleeve, Syntax, p. 141). The papyri show it also. Cf. εὐ ποιή- 
σεις δούς, F.P. 121 (i/ii a.p.), a constant formula in the papyri 
(Moulton, Prol., p. 181). Moulton (7b.) illustrates the obscure 
ἐπιβαλών in Mk. 14:72 by ἐπιβαλὼν συνέχωσεν Th.P. 50 (B.c.), 
‘he set to and dammed up.’ If it is coincident in Mark, it is so 
“with the first point of the linear éx\avev.”’ 

(e) Subsequent Action not Expressed by the Aorist Participle. 
Some writers have held this as possible, though no satisfactory 
examples have been adduced. Gildersleeve? denies that Stahl suc- 
ceeds in his implication. ‘Coincidence or adverbiality will explain 
the tense.’””? Burton’ likewise admits that no certain instance of 
an aorist part. used to express subsequent action has been found. 
He claims the idiom in the N. T. to be due to “ Aramaic influence.”’ 
But we can no longer call in the Aramaic or Hebrew, alas, unless 
the Greek itself will not square with itself. The instances cited by 
PUT OU ALe Heine Cision womos ike 20.130; 24.2 23325 13). 
“In all these cases it is scarcely possible to doubt that the par- 
ticiple (which is without the article and follows the verb) is 
equivalent to καί with a co-ordinate verb and refers to an action 


1 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 65. Cf. Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, 
p. 50. 

2 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 408. ᾿ 

3 N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 66. 


862 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


subsequent in fact and in thought to that of the verb which it 
follows.”! This view is held by Prof. Sir W. M. Ramsay? to 
apply to Ac. 16:6, and is in fact essential to his interpretation 
of that passage. Rackham#* adds Ac. 12:25 and regards these 
examples as ‘‘decisive.’”’ Another instance urged is Ac. 21: 14. 
But are they ‘decisive’ after all? Gildersleeve‘ is still uncon- 
vinced. Blass® bluntly says that such a notion “is not Greek” 
and even refuses to follow the uncials in Ac. 25:13 in read- 
ing ἀσπασάμενοι rather than ἀσπασόμενοι.Ἡ Moulton® refuses to 
follow Rackham in his interpretation of Ac. 12:25: “But to 
take συνπαραλαβόντες in this way involves an unblushing aorist 
of subsequent action, and this I must maintain has not yet 
been paralleled in the N. T. or outside.’’? And, once more, 
Schmiedel’? comments on Ac. 16:6: “It has to be maintained 
that the participle must contain, if not something antecedent to 
‘they went’ (διῆλθον), at least something synchronous with it, in 
no case a thing subsequent to it, if all the rules of grammar and 
all sure understanding of language are not to be given up.’ The 
matter might safely be left in the hands of these three great 
grammarians. But an appeal to the examples will be interesting. 
As to Ac. 12 : 25, ὑπέστρεψαν --- πληρώσαντες τὴν διακονίαν, συνπαρα- 
λαβόντες ᾿Ιωάνην, there is no problem at all unless εἰς be read rather 
than ἐξ or ἀπό. It is true that NBL read εἰς, but that reading is 
contradicted by the context. In 11:30 it is plain that Barnabas 
and Saul were sent from Antioch to Jerusalem, and in 13:3, 5, 
they are in Antioch with John Mark. The great uncials are not 
always correct, but if they are right in reading εἰς, the text has 
been otherwise tampered with. Even granting the genuineness 
of εἰς and the “‘subsequent”’ aorist, we are absolutely in the dark 
as to the sense of the passage. With eis the coincident aorist is 
good Greek, but still leaves us in the dark. With ἐξ or ἀπό there 
is no problem at all, πληρώσαντες being antecedent, and συνπαρα- 
λαβόντες coincident. In 16:6, διῆλθον δὲ τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν 


1 N. T. Moods and Tenses, Ὁ. 66. 

2 St. Paul the Traveller, p. 212. Cf. discussion in The Expositor in 1894 
and The Exp. Times, Aug., 1894. In The Exp. Times (1913) Ramsay has 
sought another interpretation of the passage without the notion of ‘subse- 
quent”’ action. 

3 Comm. on Acts, Ὁ. 183 f. 

4 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 408. Cf. also his Pindar Pyth., IV, 189. 

ὁ ΟΥ̓ΓΟΙ͂Ν. Τὶ tae Ὁ. 1917. 

ΤΟ 5) los: 

7 Encye. Bibl., I, p. 1599. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 863 


χώραν, κωλυθέντες ὑπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος λαλῆσαι τὸν λόγον ἐν TH 
᾿Ασίᾳ, the participle is naturally antecedent (or coincident). Paul 
was headed west for Asia, but, being forestalled by the Spirit, he 
turned farther north through “the Phrygian and Galatic region.” 
Later he tried to push on into Bithynia, but the Spirit again 
interposed and he deflected northwest to Troas (16:7 f.). One 
is not entitled to make kwAv0evtes=xal ἐκωλύθησαν because of the 
exigencies of a theory that demands that “the Phrygian and 
Galatic region” be Lycaonia (southern part of the Roman prov- 
ince of Galatia), which had already been traversed (16:1 f.). 
Besides, the narrative in 16:6 seems to be not resumptive, but 
a new statement of progress. Whatever the fate of the much 
discussed “South Galatian” theory, the point of grammar here 
is very clear. Another so-called instance is in 16 : 23, ἔβαλον eis 
φυλακήν, παραγγείλαντες τῷ δεσμωφύλακι. This is so obviously a 
case of coincident action that it would never have been adduced 
but for need of examples to support a theory elsewhere. Cer- 
tainly ‘‘in 17:26 ὁρίσας is not ‘later’ than the ἐποίησεν in time” 
(Moulton, Prol., p. 133). Still worse is the instance in 21: 14, 
μὴ πειθομένου δὲ αὐτοῦ ἡσυχάσαμεν εἰπόντες" Tov κυρίου τὸ θέλημα γινε- 
σθω. The participle is here necessarily antecedent or coincident 
(this last remark of acquiescence). So in 22: 24, ἐκέλευσεν --- εἴπας, 
the participle is coincident like the common ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν. Cf. 
λέγων in Heb. 2:11 f.; Ac. 7:35. Precisely the same thing is true 
of ἔφη — κελεύσας in 23:35. In 24:28, ἀνεβάλετο is expanded 
by three coincident aorist participles, εἰδώς --- eiras—dvatatdpevos. 
There remains 25:13, κατήντησαν εἰς Καισαρίαν ἀσπασάμενοι τὸν 
Φῆστον. Here Blass, as already noted, accepts the future ἀσπασό- 
μενοι, but the aorist is probably correct. But even so, if one 
simply notes the “‘perfective”’ force of the preposition in κατήντη- 
σαν, ‘went down,’ he will have no difficulty at all with the coinci- 
dent action of the aorist part. Κατήντησαν is the effective aorist 
and accents the end (reinforced by xar—). ‘They came down sa- 
luting’ (‘by way of salutation’). The salutation took place, of 
course, when they were ‘‘down” (xar—). Findlay (in loco) con- 
nects ἀσπ. with the initial act of κατήντησαν. Thus vanish into air 
the examples of ‘“‘subsequent”’ action with the aorist part. in the 
N. T., and the construction is not found elsewhere. Moulton 
(Prol., p. 132) cites from the papyri, ἐξ ὧν δώσεις LY. — λυτρώσασά 
μου τὰ ἱμάτια op. ἑκατόν O.P. 530 (ii/A.D.), a clear case of coincident 
action. The redemption of the clothes is obtained by paying the 
hundred drachme. 


864 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(Ὁ Aorist Participle in Indirect Discourse (Complementary Par- 
ticiple). It is a rare construction on the whole,! though more 
frequent with opaw than with dxotw.2 This aorist part. is ab- 
solutely timeless, not even relatively past. It is another in- 
stance of the coincident aorist part. So ὅσα ἠκούσαμεν γενόμενα 
(Lu. 4:23), ἐθεώρουν τὸν Σατανᾶν ws ἀστραπὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πεσόντα 
(10 : 18). In πεσόντα we have the constative aorist.2 Contrast 
the perfect in Rev. 9:1, εἶδον ἀστέρα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πεπτωκότα εἰς 
τὴν γῆν, and the present in Rev. 7:2, εἶδον ἄλλον ἀναβαίνοντα 
(linear), and εἴδαμέν τινα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ἐκβάλλοντα δαιμόνια (Lu. 
9:49). Cf. εἶδεν ἄνδρα---εἰσελθόντα καὶ ἐπιθέντα (Ac. 9:12. So in 
10:3; 26:18); ἠκούσαμεν --- ἐνεχθεῖσαν (2 Pet. 1:18). 

2. Punctiuiar (Aoristic) Present (ὁ ἐνεστὼς χρόνος). The 
present tense is named entirely from point of time which only 
applies to the indicative. But a greater difficulty is due to the 
absence of distinction in the tense between punctiliar and linear 
action. This defect is chiefly found in the indicative, since in the 
subj., opt., imper., inf. and part., as already shown, the aorist is 
always punctiliar and the so-called present practically always lin- 
ear, unless the Aktionsart of the verb itself is strongly punctiliar. 
Cf. discussion of the imper. But in the ind. present the sharp 
line drawn between the imperf. and aorist ind. (past time) does 
not exist.’ There is nothing left to do but to divide the so-called 
Pres. Ind. into Aoristic Present and Durative Present (or Punc- 
tiliar Present and Linear Present). The one Greek form covers 
both ideas in the ind.t’ The present was only gradually developed 
as a distinct tense (cf. the confusion about €7-v, whether aorist 
or imperf.). The present is formed on punctiliar as well as linear 
roots. It is not wise therefore to define the pres. ind. as denoting 
“action in progress” like the imperf. as Burton® does, for he has 
to take it back on p. 9 in the discussion of the “ Aoristic Present,” 
which he calls a ‘distinct departure from the prevailing use of 
the present tense to denote action in progress.’’ In sooth, it is 
no ‘“‘departure”’ at all. The idiom is as old as the tense itself 
and is due to the failure in the development of separate tenses 
for punctiliar and linear action in the ind. of present time. 
“The forms εἰμί, εἶμι, φημί, ἄγω, γράφω, etc., in which the stem 
has the form generally found only in aorists (§ 11, § 31) may be 


1 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 408. 

2 Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, p.51. ὃ. Moulton, Prol., p. 134. 

4 Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 120 f.; Sayce, Intr. to the Science of L., vol. II, 
p. 152 f. 6’ N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 6. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 865 


regarded as surviving instances of the ‘Present Aorist,’ i.e. of a 
present not conveying the notion of progress. We may com- 
pare the English use of J am, I go (now archaic in the sense of 
I am going), I say, (says she), etc.”! Hear Monro again: ‘The 
present is not a space of time, but a point,” and, I may add, 
yields itself naturally to aoristic (punctiliar) action. Some pres- 
ents are also “perfective” in sense like ἥκω. The so-called “pres- 
ent”’ tense may be used, therefore, to express an action simply 
(punctiliar), a process (durative or linear), a state (perfective or 
perfect).2 Some of the root-presents (like φη-μί) are aoristic. 
The perfect came originally out of the root-meaning also (cf. 
ἥκω, οἶδα) and grew out of the present as a sort of intensive 
present.2 The notion of state in νικῶ, κρατῶ, ἡττῶμαι is really 
that of the perfect. So the momentary action in By (ἔ-βη-ν) be- 
comes linear in the iterative βι-βάτω, ‘patter, patter.’ Moulton‘ 
clearly recognises that “‘the punctiliar force is obvious in certain 
presents.” The original present was probably therefore aoristic, 
or at least some roots were used either as punctiliar or linear, 
and the distinctively durative notions grew up around specially 
formed stems and so were applied to the form with most verbs, 
though never with all. In the modern Greek we find “the crea- 
tion of a separate aorist present (rayw),’’? while παγαίνω is linear. 
So παγαίνω is ‘I keep going,’ while πάγω is ‘I go’ (single act). 
Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 119. “ΑΒ a rule the present combines 
cursive (durative, continuous, ete.) and aorist action”’ (ib., p. 120). 
The aoristic present= undefined action in the present, as aoristic 
past (ind.) =undefined action in the past. In the case of ἄγω we 
see a root used occasionally for punctiliar, linear and even per- 
fected action. There are, besides the naturally aoristic roots, 
three special uses of the aoristic present (the universal present, 
the historical present, the futuristic present) .° 

(a) The Specific Present. Gildersleeve® thus describes this sim- 
plest form of the aoristic present in contrast with the universal 
present. It is not an entirely happy description, nor is “ef- 
fective present,’’ suggested by Jannaris,’ since there may be in- 
gressive and constative uses also. The common εἰμί (Jo. 10 : 11) 
is often aoristic. A fine example of the constative aorist pres- 
ent occurs in Lu: 7: ὃ, πορεύθητι, καὶ πορεύετει --- ἔρχου, καὶ ἔρχεται --- 
ποίησον, καὶ ποιεῖ. Cf. ἐξορκίζω σε (Mt. 20 : 09); ὁρῶ (Ac. 8 : 28); 

1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 45. 2 Giles, Man., p. 484. 3 -Ib., p. 491 f. 


4 Prol., p. 119 f. 5 Giles, Man., p. 485. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 120. 
6 Synt. of Cl. Gk., p. 81. 7 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 4338. 


866 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ἄρτι βλέπω (Jo. 9:25). The frequent ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω (Mt. 5 : 22, 28, 
etc.) is example of the specific aoristic present (constative). So 
ἀληθῶς λέγω (Lu. 12:44). Cf. col λέγω (Mk. 5:41); φησίν (Mt. 
14:8); οὐ λαμβάνω --- ἀλλὰ λέγω (Jo. 5:34), etc. In Mk. 2:5 
ἀφίενται is effective aorist present as in ἰᾶται (Ac. 9:34). Cf. 
ὅσοι οὐκ ἔχουσιν, οἵτινες οὐκ ἔγνωσαν (Rev. 2 : 24); πόθεν ἦλθον and 
πόθεν ἔρχομαι (Jo. 8 : 14); ἔχει --- ἦλθεν (Jo. 16 : 21). Moulton (Prol., 
p. 247) notes how in Mt. 6: 2, 5, 16, ἀπέχουσι, the combination of 
the aoristic pres. and the perfective use of ἀπό makes it very 
vivid. ‘The hypocrites have as it were their money down, as soon 
as their trumpet has sounded.” The “perfective” ἀπέχω (Mk. 
14 : 41) is copiously illustrated in the papyri and ostraca (Deiss- 
mann, Light, etc., p. 111). 

(b) The Gnomic Present. This is the aorist present that is time- 
less in reality, true of all time. It is really a gnomic present 
(cf. the Gnomie Aorist) and differs very little from the “Specific 
Present.” In Mt. 23:2 ἐκάθισαν is gnomic, and in verse 3: we 
have the aoristic presents (gnomic also), λέγουσιν γὰρ καὶ οὐ ποιοῦσιν. 
Note Jo.9:8. Cf. also ws λέγουσιν (Rev. 2 : 24). Good instances 
are found in 1 Cor. 15:42 ff., σπείρεται. So ὥσπερ of ὑποκριταὶ 
ποιοῦσι (Mt. 6:2). Abbott! has great difficulty with ἐκ τῆς Γαλι- 
λαίας προφήτης οὐκ ἐγείρεται (Jo. 7:52). It is this gnomic present. 
It is not true, to be sure, but this was not the only error of the 
Sanhedrin. Cf. Mt. 7:8. 

(ὦ .The Historical Present. 'This vivid idiom is popular in all 
languages,” particularly in the vernacular. ‘‘We have only to 
overhear a servant girl’s ‘so she says to me’ if we desiderate 
proof that the usage is at home among us.’’* Cf. Uncle Remus. 
Curiously the historic present is absent in Homer.‘ But Gilder- 
sleeve’ applauds Stahl for agreeing with his position “that it 
was tabooed as vulgar by the epos and the higher lyric” (A.J.P., 
xxill, 245). It is absent from Pindar and the Nibelungenlied. 
Gildersleeve® also observes that it is much more frequent in Greek 
than in English and is a survival of “the original stock of our 
languages.” “It antedates the differentiation into imperfect 
and aorist.”’ The “Annalistic or Note-Book Present” (like yiy- 
νονται παῖδες δύο) is practically the same use of the aorist present. 
Moulton’ suggests γεννᾶται in Mt. 2:4, but that is more like the 


a JOD. Οὐ ἢ O08. 5 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 393. 
2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 4384. 6 Syntax of Cl. Gk., p. 86. 
$ Moulton, Prol., p. 120 f. 7 Prol., p. 120. 


4 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 47. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 867 


futuristic (prophetic) use of the present. Brugmann! divides the 
hist. pres. into ‘dramatic’ and “‘registering”’ or annalistic pres- 
ents (cf. Gildersleeve). This vivid idiom is preserved in the 
modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 120). It is common enough 
in the LXX, since Thackeray (Gr., p. xx) notes 151 examples in 
1 Samuel, though it is rare in 2 Samuel and 2 Kings (“‘absent,”’ 
Thackeray, Gr., p. 24). But Hawkins (Horae Synopticae, p. 213) 
finds it 32 times in 2 Samuel and twice in 2 Kings. Haw- 
kins (2b.) finds the hist. pres. in the LX X 337 times. Josephus 
uses it also. The N. T. examples are thus “dramatic.” The 
hist. pres. is not always aoristic. It may be durative like the 
imperfect.2. This point has to be watched. Blass? considers that 
the historical present ‘‘ habitually takes an aoristic meaning,” but 
room has to be left for the durative meaning also. It is common 
in the Attic orators and in the N. T., except in Luke where it is 
rare.t. Luke’s Gospel has it only 9 times (possibly 11) and the 
Acts 13 times.. Hawkins, from whose Horae Synopticae (2d ed., 
pp. 143 ff.) these figures are taken, finds 93 historic presents in 
Matthew (15 of them in Parables), but 162 in John and 151 in 
Mark. It is rare in the rest of the N. T. It is most frequent 
in Mark, John, Matthew and in this order. Mark indeed uses 
it as often as 1 Samuel, though a much shorter book. John’s 
Gospel is much longer than Mark’s, but when the discourses 
and dialogues are eliminated, the difference between John and 
Mark is not great.2 Moulton® adds that the idiom is common 
in the papyri. Cf. Par. P. 51 (ii/B.c.) ἀνύγω --- ὁρῶ — κλαίγω — 
ἐπορευόμην — καὶ ἔρχομαι --- ἔλεγον, etc. Moulton illustrates λέγει 
Ἰησοῦς in the Oxyrhynchus Logia by Καῖσαρ λέγει, Syll. 376. See 
also ἀφήρπασεν καὶ βούλεται, P. Oxy. 37 (A.p. 49). Luke’s mani- 
fest reluctance to use it (changing Mark’s historical presents 
except in 8:49) is due to the fact that in Luke’s time the con- 
struction was regarded as “too familiar for his liking.’ He is 
the scientific historian, while Mark and John are the dramatists. 
Different writers would feel differently about it. ‘Josephus 
would use the tense as an imitator of the classics, Mark as a man 
of the people who heard it in daily use around him; while Luke 


1 Gk. Gr., p. 484f. The hist. present demands merely that the reader 
take his stand with the writer in the midst of the moving panorama. Del- 
briick, Vergl. Synt., Bd. 11, p. 261. 

2 Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, p. 11. 

3 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 188. 4 Tb. 

5’ Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, p. 143 f. ΦΈΡΟΙ ΠΡ 121: 


S68 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


would have Greek education enough to know that it was not 
common in the cultured speech of his time, but not enough to 
recall the encouragement of classical writers whom he probably 
never read and would not have imitated if he had read them.’’! 
But what about John? Jannaris? remarks that the idiom was 
common in the late Greek as in the early. The personal equation 
may have to explain the variations in the Gospels. Blass* un- 
dertakes to give a philosophy of the matter on the theory that 
the “circumstances,” “incidentals” and “final results” are ex- 
pressed in the past tenses of the ind., while the “principal actions” 
are found in the historical present. He cites Jo. 1: 29-42 in il- 
lustration (βλέπει — λέγει --- ἐμαρτύρησεν --- ἱστήκει --- λέγει — ἤκου- 
σαν --- λέγει --- εἶπαν --- λέγει --- ἦλθαν καὶ εἶδαν --- ἦν --- ἢν --- εὑρίσκει --- 
λέγει --- ἤγαγεν --- εἶπεν). One doubts if the phenomena can be 
brought under any rule. Matthew and Luke use ἰδού to enliven 
the narrative, while Mark and John avoid it.47 Mark has a habit 
of using xai before the historical present, while John often employs 
asyndeton.® But there is no doubt of the vividness of the narra- 
tive in Mark and John which is largely due to the historical 
presents. Modern literary English abhors this idiom, but it 
ought to be preserved in translating the Gospels in order to give 
the same element of vividness to the narrative. The historical 
present may begin® a paragraph (often so), occur in the midst of 
aorists and imperfects, or alternate with aorists. In Mt. 3:1 
παραγίνεται ᾿Ιωάνης is preceded by a note of past time. In Mk. 
5:15 ἔρχονται καὶ θεωροῦσιν occur between aorists. In Mk. 4 : 37 
the realistic γίνεται λαῖλαψ is followed by the imperfect. As 
specimens of this present in parables see Mt. 18 : 44. Sometimes 
the MSS. vary as between φαίνεται and ἐφάνη (Mt. 2:13). The 
variation in parables may be partly due to obscuration of the 
gnomic nature of the narrative. In such a wealth of material for 
illustration it is hard to select, but note John 20. In verse 1 f. 
note ἔρχεται --- βλέπει --- τρέχει --- ἔρχεται, all indicating the excite- 
ment of Mary. Then the narrative goes on with aorists and im- 
perfects till Peter and John draw near the tomb, when we have 
βλέπει — ἔρχεται --- θεωρεῖ (5-7) with two parenthetic aorists inter- 
jected (οὐκ εἰσῆλθεν, εἰσῆλθεν). In verse 8 the narrative is resumed 
by aorists. In verse 12 again θεωρεῖ shows the surprise of Mary 
at seeing the angels (λέγουσιν — λέγει, verse 13), as in verse 14 
Ae Proll 21: 4 Hawkins, Hor. Synop., p. 144. 


2 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 434. 5 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 350. 
3 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 188. 6 W.-Th., p. 267. 


- 


TENSE (XPONOZ) _ 869 


the present is used when she sees Jesus. Historical presents run 
through the dialogue with Jesus (15-18). Then the resumptive 
ταῦτα εἶπεν. That is enough to say on the subject. 

(d) The Futuristic Present. This futuristic present is gener- 
ally punctiliar or aoristic.' The construction certainly had its 
origin in the punctiliar roots,? but some of the N. T. examples 
(cf. English “I am going,” as well as “1 go’’) are durative, as 
Moulton’ shows. Thus in 1 Cor. 16:5 διέρχομαι (in contrast 
with διέλθω) means ‘I am going through’ (Macedonia). Tivoua 
leans to the aoristic* and so γίνεται (Mt. 26 : 2) may be punc- 
tiliar. “In αὔριον ἀποθνήσκομεν (1 Cor. 15:32) we have a verb 
in which the perfective prefix has neutralized the inceptive force 
of the suffix --ἰσκω: it is only the obsoleteness of the simplex 
which allows it ever to borrow a durative action.”® The aoris- 
tic origin of many present-stems has already been shown (and 
some perfectives like ἥκω). Thus all three kinds of action are 
found in the present (punctiliar, durative, perfect). All three 
kinds of time are also found in the present ind. (historical pres- 
ent= past, futuristic present=future, the common use for present 
time). Some of these ““momentary presents’ are always future. 
So εἶμι in old Greek prose,® but Homer uses εἶμι also as a pres- 
ent.’ The N. T. uses ἔρχομαι and πορεύομαι in this futuristic sense 
(Jo. 14:2f.), not εἶμι. Indeed ‘the future of Greek was origi- 
nally a present”? (Jebb in Vincent and Dickson’s Handbook, Ὁ. 
323). That is too strong, for the future ind. often comes from 
the aorist subj. Inthe N. T. such so-called futures as πίεσαι and 
φάγεσαι (Lu. 17:8) are really old aorist subjs. Cf. Mt. 24:40 f. 
The futuristic pres. occurs in the inscriptions and papyri, as in 
Petersen-Luschan, p. 160, N. 190, ἂν δέ τις ἀδικήσῃ, ὑπόκειται. See 
ἂμ μὴ παύσεται, ἔρχεται, B. M. II, 417 (iv/A.p.), ἀντίγραψον κἀγὼ 
ἀναβαίνω, Ο. P. 1157, 25f. (a.v./ili), γράψον μοι καὶ πέμπω αὐτῷ 
ἐπιθήκην, Ο. P. 1158, 28 f. (a.v./ili). Cf. Radermacher, N. Τ'. Gr., 
p. 124. In South Italian Greek the futuristic present is the only 
means of expressing the future ind. The other use of the futur- 
istic present is the dramatic or prophetic. “This present — a 
sort of counterpart to the historic present — is very frequent in 


1 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, p. 809; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 484. 

2 Giles, Man., p. 485. 8 Prol., p.120. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 189. 
4 Gildersleeve, Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 393. 

5 Moulton, Prol., p. 120. 6 Gildersl., Synt., p. 84. 

7 Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, p. 10. 

8 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 434. 9 Giles, Man., p. 485. 


870 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the predictions of the N. T.’! It is not merely prophecy, but 
certainty of expectation that is involved. As examples note Mt. 
17:11 ’Hvetas ἔρχεται καὶ ἀποκαταστήσει πάντα, 24:43 ποίᾳ φυλακῇ 
ὁ κλέπτης ἔρχεται, 20 : 2 γίνεται καὶ --- παραδίδοται, 20 : 18 ποιῶ τὸ 
πάσχα, 27:63 ἐγείρομαι, Lu. 3:9 ἐκκόπτεται καὶ βάλλεται, 19:8 
δίδωμι καὶ ἀποδίδωμι, JO. 4:35 ὁ θερισμὸς ἔρχεται, 8:14 ποῦ ὑπάγω, 
8:21 ὑπάγω καὶ ζητήσετε, 10:15 τὴν ψυχήν μου τίθημι, 12 : 20 ὅπου 
εἰμὶ ἔγώ, 20:17 ἀναβαίνω, 21 : 23 οὐκ ἀποθνήσκει, 1 Cor. 15: 26 
καταργεῖται. In Jo. 10:15 ff. τίθημι really covers the whole of 
Christ’s life viewed as a unit (constative aorist).2 In Mk. 9: 
31 we have παραδίδοται, in Mt. 17:22 μέλλει παραδίδοσθαι. This 
use of μέλλω and inf. is a sort of half-way station between the 
futuristic present and the punctiliar future. Cf. Jannaris, Hist. 
Gk. Gr., p. 448. The futuristic pres. startles and arrests atten- 
tion. It affirms and not merely predicts. It gives a sense of 
certainty. Cf. in Mt. 18:12, ἀφήσει καὶ πορευθεὶς ζητεῖ together, 
and φεύγει (Rev. 9 : 6). 

3. THE Puncriuiar (Aoristic) FurureE (ὁ μέλλων χρόνος). 

(a) Punctiliar or Durative. The future is a ‘mixed tense” 
both in origin and meaning.’ The mixed origin was discussed 
in ch. VITI, vit, (0). It was a late tense, little used in the early 
Vedic Sanskrit, and as a distinct form gradually disappeared 
from the modern Greek, where the periphrastic forms like θὰ λύω 
(λύσω) alone occur. But the modern Greek has developed thus two 
futures, θὰ λύσω punctiliar, θὰ λύω durative (Thumb, Handb., pp. 
116, 125). The Germanic languages (cf. English shall and will) 
have only the periphrastic future. For the history of the future 
ind. see Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 552 ff. In Sanskrit the fut. 
had no modes, 1.6. it was confined practically to the ind. (Whit- 
ney, Sans. Gr., p. 201). The oldest roots are derived either 
from punctiliar presents (ind.) or aorist (punctiliar) subjunctives.! 
Cf. πίομαι, βήσομαι. Gradually the future was formed on dura- 
tive roots also. Thus μενῶ, ‘I shall remain.’ Some verbs formed 
two futures,> one punctiliar, like σχήσω from éoyov=‘I shall ob- 
tain,’ the other durative, like ἕξω, ‘I shall have.’ The κοινή has 
dropped σχήσω, as it has “generally got rid of alternative forms.’’® 
So also θρέξομαι (τρέχω) was durative and δραμοῦμαι (é5papor) 
punctiliar,’ though both are absent in the Ν. T. It is probable 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 189. 5 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 480. 
2 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 352. 6 Moulton, Prol., p. 150. 
8 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 479. 7 Thompson, Synt., p. 219. 


4 Giles, Man., p. 447. 


TENSE (ΧΡΟΝΟΣ) 871 


that in the future passive we have with most verbs a purely 
punctiliar future formed on the aorist stem. The middle future 
was usually durative, the future passive punctiliar... Very few of 
the list of examples given by Jannaris can be illustrated in the 
N. T. owing to the disappearance of the future middle before the 
future passive. In 1 Pet. 4:18 φανεῖται (LXX, Prov. 11:31) is 
durative and certainly φανήσεται (Mt. 24 : 30) is punctiliar. So in 
Lu. 16:31 πεισθήσονται is punctiliar (effective), but πείσομαι does 
not occur in the N. T. So κτήσεσθε τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν (Lu. 21 : 19) 
seems to be durative, though no fut. passive of this verb appears 
inthe Ν. 1. So also συναχθήσονται (Mt. 24 : 28) is punctiliar (effec- 
tive). But the very disappearance of the future middle (as with 
the Attic φοβήσομαι) threw the burden of the durative future? on 
the future passive. So φοβηθήσομαι in Heb. 13:6 is durative. Cf. 
the durative ἀρκεσθησόμεθα (1 Tim. 6:8). So also ἀλλὰ καὶ χαρή- 
gouat (Ph. 1:18) is durative. Cf. also Jo. 16:20, 22, though 
χαρήσονται in Lu. 1:14 is ingressive punctiliar, as πλησθήσεται 
(1:15) is effective punctiliar. But in Jo. 16 : 20 both λυπηθήσεσθε 
and γενήσεται seem ingressive. In Heb. 9:28 ὀφθήσεται (cf. Ac. 
26 : 16) is ingressive, but ὄψομαι may be either durative (Mt. 5: 
8; Jo. 1:50; 19:37; Rev. 22:4) or punctiliar (Jo. 1:39; Heb. 
12:14, etc.). An excellent example of the effective future is 
found in ὁ ὑπομείνας eis τέλος σωθήσεται (Mt. 10 : 22). So the same 
form in the future may be either punctiliar or durative, as 
προάξω ὑμᾶς (Mk. 14 : 28) is durative, while ἄξει is punctiliar (ef- 
fective =‘bring’).? Πείσομεν is punctiliar (effective) in Mt. 28 : 14 
and durative in 1 Jo. 3:19. So γνώσομαι is punctiliar or dura- 
tive (Rev. 2:23). As punctiliar γνώσομαι may be either ingres- 
sive (1 Cor. 14:7, 9), effective (1 Cor. 4:19) or merely constative 
(Jo. 8:28, 32). From the nature of the action as future this 
Aktionsart of the verb will not be as prominent‘ in the future 
aorist as in the other punctiliar constructions. Blass® even goes 
so far as to say that the future “is the one tense which does 
not express action [kind of action, he means], but simply a time 
relation, so that completed and continuous action are not diffe- 
rentiated.”’ But it must be borne in mind that the future tense 
in itself makes as much distinction between punctiliar and dura- 


1 Cf. K.-G., Bd. I, pp. 114 ff., 170 ff.; Giles, Man., p. 483; Jann., Hist. Gk. 
Gr., p. 441. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 150. 3 Ib., p. 149. 

4 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 33. 

ΘΟ ΟΣ N.T: Gk., p. 201. 


872 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


tive action as the present tense does. The difference is that the 
future is usually punctiliar, while the present is more often dura- 
tive. The point need not be pressed. Other examples of the 
punctiliar aorist are καλέσεις (Mt. 1: 21) ingressive; παρακληθήσονται 
(Mt. 5:4) effective, and so χορτασθήσονται, but ἐλεηθήσονται is in- 
gressive while κληθήσονται is effective. In 1 Cor. 15 : 22, 28 note 
ζωοποιηθήσονται and ὑποταγήσεται (effective). In Jo. 8:32 note 
ἐλευθερώσει effective=‘set free’ (cf. ἐλεύθεροι γενήσεσθε, verse 59). 
So then both in origin and use the future is chiefly punctiliar. 

(b) The Modal Aspect of the Future. The future indicative is 
not merely a tense in the true sense of that term, expressing 
the state of the action. It is almost a mode on a par with 
the subjunctive and imperative. Gildersleeve? puts the matter 
plainly when he says: ‘‘The future was originally a mood.” 
In both Greek and Latin the forms of the future come for the 
most part from the subj. and it must be treated as a mode as 
well as a tense. Indeed Delbriick* and Giles* put it wholly under 
moods. It partakes, as a matter of fact, of the qualities of both 
mood and tense, and both need to be considered. The modal 
aspect of the fut. ind. is seen in its expression of will and feeling. 
Like the subj. the fut. ind. may be merely futuristic, volitional 
or deliberative. We have a reflection of the same thing in our 
shall and will. The fut. ind. has had a precarious history in 
Greek. Its place was always challenged by the present and 
even by the aorist ind., by the subj. and imper. modes, by peri- 
phrastic forms. It finally gave up the fight as a distinct form in 
Greek.> See under 3, (a). In the modern Greek the distinction 
between the periphrastic fut. and the subj. is practically lost.® 
The modal aspects of the fut. ind. appear clearly in subordinate 
clauses where the tense is common. In indirect discourse the 
future ind. merely represents the direct discourse (cf. Ro. 6: 
8). The future with the descriptive or identifying relative’ (Jo. 
6 : 51) shows no modal features. But it is found in other relative 
clauses where purpose (Lu. 7:27) or result (Lu. 7:4) is ex- 
pressed. The future has also a modal value in temporal clauses 
(Rev. 4:9; 17:17), in final clauses (Lu. 20:10; Heb. 3: 12), in 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 149. 2 Synt., p. 115. 
3 Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, p. 320f. 

4 Man., pp. 500, 505; Thompson, Synt., p. 218. 

5 Jann., Hist/:Gk:.Grij p. 552: 

6 Blass, Hermeneutik und Krit., 1892, p. 199. 

7 Gildersl., Synt., p. 115. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 873 


conditional sentences (Lu. 19 : 40), in wish (Gal. 5:12). In Rev. 
3:9 the fut. ind. and the aorist subj. occur side by side with ἵνα. 
But in independent sentences also the modal aspects of the future 
appear. 

(a) Merely Futuristic. This is the most common use of the future 
and in itself would not be modal. It is the prospective, what 
lies before the speaker. The predictive? (or prophetic) future 
has to be classed as aoristic (usually constative), though the 
question as to whether the action is durative or punctiliar may 
not have crossed the speaker’s mind. Cf. Mt. 21:37 ἐντρα- 
πήσονται, 41 ἀπολέσει, 43 ἀρθήσεται — δοθήσεται, 24 : 30 ἀποστελεῖ, 
ete. Cf. Mk. 18 : 24-27. Further good examples of the predic- 
tive future are in Mt. 11: 28f.; 12:31. Unfortunately in Eng- 
lish we have no established principle for the translation of the 
predictive future. In the first person it is done by “shall,” and 
naturally by ‘will’ in the second and third persons. It is not 
always easy to distinguish the merely futuristic from the volitive 
future, “but we have to reckon with an archaic use of the auxil- 
laries which is traditional in Bible translations.”* The use of 
“shall” in the second and third persons is almost constant in the 
R. V. both for the volitive and the futuristic uses. If “shall” 
could be confined in these persons to the volitive and ‘will’ to 
the futuristic, even “the solemnly predictive,’’* it would be a 
gain.® Thus in Mk. 14:13 ἀπαντήσει would be ‘will meet.’ In 
Mt. 11:28 f. ἀναπαύσω would be ‘shall give you rest’ (R. V. 
‘will’), εὑρήσετε ‘will find’ (R. V. ‘shall’). But ἀναπαύσω here may 
be volitive. If so, ‘will’ is correct. So in Mt. 12:31 ἀφεθήσεται 
would be ‘will be forgiven’ (R. V. ‘shall’). Cf. also Mt. 26 : 13, 
AadnOnoerar=‘will be preached.’ Moulton® notes that ἀπαρνήσῃ 
(Mt. 26:34; Mk. 14:30; Lu. 22:61) is often misunderstood 
because of the rendering ‘shalt deny me.’ “It could not there- 
fore be Peter’s fault if Jesus commanded him.” Here “will” is 
free from that peril. Cf. Mt. 25:29, 32; Lu. 19:43. With the 
negative the English “shall”? becomes volitive when the Greek is 
not. Cf. Mk. 13:31, οὐ παρελεύσονται (cf. od μὴ παρέλθῃ in 13 : 30). 
Sometimes (very rarely) ob μή occurs with the predictive fut. (cf. 
the usual aorist subj.) as in οὐ μὴ παρελεύσονται (Lu. 21 : 33); οὐ μὴ 
εὑρήσουσιν (Rev. 9:6); οὐκέτι ob μὴ εὑρήσουσιν (18:14; cf. ἀπῆλθεν, 


1 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, p. 309. 

2 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 34 f. 

3 Moulton, Prol., p. 150. 5 Moulton, Prol., p. 151. 
4 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 34. 6. Ibj\p:7150. 


874. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ἀπώλετο). The construction of οὐ μή with the fut. ind. is “mori- 
bund” in the N. T.,! only 14 and some of these doubtful (MSS. 
vary greatly between aorist subj. and fut. ind.). Some of the 14 
are examples of the volitive future. In Mt. 15:6 οὐ μὴ τιμήσει 
is probably volitive,? though some hold it predictive. 

(8) The Volitive Future. The three divisions (futuristic, voli- 
tive, deliberative) glide into one another both in the subjunctive 
and the future ind.2 The volitive future is practically an impera- 
tive in sense, for the will is exercised. The futuristic glides im- 
perceptibly into the volitive ‘‘as in the colloquial σὺ ὄψῃ, ‘you 
will see to that,’ Mt. 27: 4.4 Cf. ὑμεῖς ὄψεσθε (Mt. 27: 24), ἐκκό- 
wes (Lu. 18:9). In Heb. 8:5 the imperative and the fut. ind. 
occur together, ὅρα ποιήσεις. The impatient οὐ παύσῃ διαστρέφων (Ac. 
13 : 10) is almost imperatival, certainly volitive. ‘The future ind. 
is exceedingly common in this sense (volitive).”’® In legal precepts 
the fut. ind. is unclassical.6 But the idiom itself is classical and ‘‘is 
not a milder or gentler imperative. A prediction may imply re- 
sistless power or cold indifference, compulsion or concession.” ? It 
is exceedingly frequent in the LX X. It is chiefly found in the N. T. 
in quotations from the Ὁ. T. Cf. καλέσεις (Mt. 1:21), οὐκ ἔσεσθε 
(6:5); ἐρεῖτε (21: 3) = ἔἔπατε (Mk. 11:3). Cf. Jas. 2:8; Ro. 13:9; 
Gal. 5:14. The volitive future really includes purpose (will) 
in the first person, as well as in the second and (rarely) in the 
third. Thus προσεύξομαι, ψαλῶ (1 Cor. 14:15)=‘I will pray,’ “1 
will sing,’ not mere futurity. So in ἀναστὰς πορεύσομαι (Lu. 15: 
18) we seem to find ‘will,’ not mere declaration. Most of the ex- 
amples are in the second person, like οὐκ ἔσεσθε (Mt. 6:5), and 
are chiefly negative (4:7; Ac. 23:5; Ro. 7:7). But some ex- 
amples occur in the third person also; though Burton® is scep- 
tical. Cf. ἔσται in Mt. 20:26 f. (note θέλῃ). So Mk. 9:35. In 
Lu. 10:6 we have ἐπαναπαήσεται ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν ἡ εἰρήνη, while in Mt. 
10:13 ἔλθάτω ἡ εἰρήνη ὑμῶν ἐπ᾽ αὐτήν In the volitive future 
‘will’ is the English translation for the first person, ‘shall’ for 
the second and third. The rare use of μή with the fut. ind. shows 
a volitive use. Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 117) is sceptical, but 
Moulton (Prol., p. 177) cites from Demosthenes μὴ βουλήσεσθε 
εἰδέναι and from B. U. 197 (i/a.D.) μὴ ἐξέσται, B. U. 814 (iii/a.p.) 


1 Prol., p. 190. 2 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 35. 
3 Moulton, Prol., p. 184. 

ἈΠΌ 1 7 Gildersl., Synt., p. 116. 

Shls..fDky oe 8 N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 35. 
8 


Blass, Gr. of Ν. T. Gk., p. 209. 9 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 209. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 875 


μὴ ἀφήσις, B. M. 42 μὴ --- κρατήσεις (ii/B.c.). Blass! quotes μηδένα 
μιμήσετε from Clem., Hom., III, 69, and Moulton (Prol., p. 240) adds 
μὴ θησαυρίσεται, D in Mt. 6:19, and λέξεις δὲ μηδέν, Eurip., Med. 
822, and observes (p. 248) that MS. evidence should be watched 
on the point. Sometimes οὐ μή occurs with the volitive future 
as in οὐ μὴ τιμήσει (Mt. 15:5); οὐ μὴ ἔσται σοι τοῦτο (16 : 22). 
In Mt. 206 : 85 οὐ μὴ ἀπαρνήσομαι is also volitive (cf. ΜΚ. 14 : 51). 
The volitive future seems to be found in Lu. 10 : 19, οὐδὲν οὐ μὴ 
ὑμᾶς ἀδικήσει (W. H. text), but it is durative. But οὐ alone is the 
usual negative in the volitive future, as in οὐχ ἁρπάσει τις ἐκ τῆς 
χειρός μου (Jo. 10:28. Cf. οὐ μὴ ἀπόλωνται). Cf. pres. imper. 
and fut. ind. side by side in Jo. 1 : 38 (cf. 1:46). On οὐ μή see 
Modes and Particles. It is possible that οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς 
(Mt. 16:18) is volitive. 

(y) Deliberative Future. Burton? has pointed out that ques- 
tions are of two kinds (questions of fact or questions of doubt). 
Questions of fact make an inquiry for information about the 
past, present or future. These questions employ the moods and 
tenses as other simple declarative sentences in both direct and 
indirect discourse. But deliberative questions ask not for the 
facts, but about the “possibility, desirability or necessity” of a 
proposed course of action. The subj. as the mood of doubtful 
assertion is perfectly natural here. The future is also doubtful 
from the nature of the case. So deliberative questions use either 
the subj. or the fut. ind. Deliberative questions (like questions 
of fact) may be merely interrogative or they may be rhetorical. 
The deliberative questions in the N. T. with the fut. ind. are all | 
direct questions except Ph. 1: 22, τί αἱρήσομαι οὐ γνωρίζω, where the 
punctuation is doubtful. (W. H. marg. have τί αἱρήσομαι.))} In σχῶ 
τί γράψω (Ac. 25 : 26) it is not certain whether γράψω is fut. ind. or 
aorist subj. In Lu. 11:5, ris ἐξ ὑμῶν ἕξει φίλον καὶ πορεύσεται --- 
καὶ εἴπῃ αὐτῷ, the fut. ind. (rhetorical) and aorist subj. occur side by 
side if we can trust the reading. Cf. Mt.7:6, with μήποτε; Eph. 
6 : 3, with ἵνα (O. T.). The examples of the fut. ind. in deliberative 
questions are all disputed by some MSS. which have the aorist 
subj., so that Blass remarks that “the N.T. in this case prac- 
tically uses only the conjunctive”; but that is an overstatement, 
since the best MSS. (see W. H. and Nestle texts) support the 
fut. ind. in some instances. As an example of merely interroga- 

1 Tb. 2 N. T. Moods and Tenses, pp. 36, 76 f. 


δ ῬΊ5ΒΒ, στ. οἱ Ν. Τ΄. σκ., ἡ. 211. 
Selb ΣΙ ΟΞ ΙΕ ip. 279: 


876 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


tive deliberative questions with fut. ind. take εἰ πατάξομεν ἐν pa- 
χαίρῃ (Lu. 22:49). In Jo. 18:39, βούλεσθε ἀπολύσω, We may have 
the fut. ind. or the aorist subj., but note βούλεσθε. The N. T. 
examples are nearly all rhetorical. So Mt. 12 : 26 πῶς σταθήσεται, 
Mk. 4:13 πῶς--- γνώσεσθε, Jo. 6 : 68 πρὸς τίνα ἀπελευσόμεθα. Cf. fur- 
ther Ro. 3:5; 6:1 (the common τί ἐροῦμεν;); 9 : 14; 1 Cor. 14: 7, 
9,16; 15:29, 51; 1 Tim. 3:5. Cf. Lu. 20:15. Cf. ayopacuper xal 
δώσομεν (Mk. 6 : 37). 

(c) The Future in the Moods. The future differs from the 
other tenses in this respect, that in the moods where it occurs it 
has always the element of time. This is not true of any other 
Greek tense.! 

(a) The Indicative. It is far more common here than in the 
other moods. In direct discourse the fut. ind. expresses absolute 
time. Cf. τότε ὄψονται (Lu. 21:27). In the gnomic future the 
act is true of any time (cf. gnomic aorist and present). So μόλις 
ὑπὲρ δικαίου τις ἀποθανεῖται (Ro. 5:7); χρηματίσει (7:3), ete. In 
indirect discourse the time is relatively future to that of the 
principal verb, though it may be absolutely past. So with ἐνό- 
μισαν ὅτι λήμψονται (Mt. 20 : 10); εἶπεν σημαίνων ποίῳ θανάτῳ δοξάσει 
τὸν θεόν (Jo. 21: 19). 

(β) The Subjunctive and Optative. There never was a fut. im- 
perative. The so-called fut. subjs. in the N. T. have already 
been discussed. W. H. admit ὄψησθε to the text in Lu. 18 : 28, 
but claim it to be a late aorist subj.2 The same thing may be 
true of δώσῃ, read by MSS. in Jo. 17:2; Rev. 8:3, but not of 
᾿ καυθήσωμαι In 1 Cor. 13:38. This may be a lapsus calami‘ for καυ- 
χήσωμαι. Harnack (The Expositor, May, 1912, p. 401) quotes 
Von Soden as saying: “Καυθήσωμαι --- not καυθήσομαι --- is to be rec- 
ognised as the traditional form in families of MSS. which do not 
give καυχήσωμαι." But Harnack refuses to ‘saddle’? Paul with 
this Byzantine “‘deformity.” Jannaris® thinks that these sporadic 
examples in late Greek are the fut. ind. “‘spelt with the thematic 
vowel (η and w) of the subjunctive.’ One naturally thinks of 
the Latin ‘subj. future. The fut. opt. never had a place save in 
indirect discourse, and that is lost in the N. T. 

(y) The Infinitive. The future inf. was never a common con- 
struction and was almost confined to indirect discourse.6 The six 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p: 201. 

2 Ib. 4 Ib.; Moulton, Prol., p. 151. 
3 Appendix, p. 172. 5 Hist. Gk. Gr.; p..556: 

6 


See the list in Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 486. 


TENSE (XPONOZ) 877 


examples in the N. T. seem to be punctiliar save two (Ac. 11: 
28; Jo. 21:25). Μέλλω has the fut. inf. three times, but only in 
the case of ἔσεσθαι (Ac. 11: 28; 24:15; 27:10). The three other 
instances of the fut. inf. in the N. T. belong to ind. discourse. 
One (χωρήσειν) occurs with οἶμαι (Jo. 21:25), one (ἔσεσθαι) with 
μηνύω, or more exactly after ἐπιβουλή (Ac. 23: 30, genitive absolute, 
μηνυθείσης μοι ἐπιβουλῆς ἔσεσθαι),1 one (εἰσελεύσεσθαι) with ὀμνύω 
(Heb. 3:18). So that the fut. inf. “was already moribund for 
practical purposes.’’? In the papyri Moulton found the fut. inf. 
often a mere blunder for an aorist. In Ac. 26:7, B has the fut. 
inf. after ἐλπίζω. In the fut. inf. the time relation is only relative, 
as with all infinitives, not absolute as in the ind. Elsewhere with 
such verbs the aorist inf. occurs as with ἐλπίζω (1 Cor. 16 : 7); μέλλω 
(Ro. 8: 18); ὀμνύω (Ac. 2 : 30); ὁμολογέω (Mt. 14:7); προσδοκάω (Ac. 
27 : 33); mpoxatayyeddw (Ac. 3 : 18); or the present inf. as with μέλλω 
(Ac. 3:38); or the perfect inf. as with ἐλπίζω (2 Cor. 5:11). 

(6) The Participle. The future part. was later in its develop- 
ment‘ than the other tenses of this very ancient, even prehistoric,° 
verbal adjective. The fut. part. was never developed in the 
Beeotian Dialect. It is by no means dead in the papyri. Moul- 
ton? notes “the string of final fut. participles in O. P. 727 (ii/a.p.); 
B. U. 98 (ili/A.D., etc.”? See also κοινολογησόμενον P. Goodspeed 4 
(ii/B.c.). ra — (σγταθησόμενα P. Th. 33 (B.c. 112), and the list in 
O. P. 1118, 10f (//a.p.). It seems to me to be more common in 
the papyri than in the N. T. Simcox® suggests that its rarity in 
the N. T. is due to the use of other phrases. Cf. μέλλω in Ac. 18: 
14; 20 : 3, 7 and ἐρχόμενος in Rev. 1:4, etc. The time is, of course, 
only relative to that of the principal verb, as in ἐληλύθει προσκυνήσων 
(Ac. 8:27). The anarthrous examples are volitive® and are the 
most frequent.!° They are used for purpose or aim. Cf. Mt. 27: 
49 ἔρχεται σώσων, Ac. 8:27 ἐληλύθει προσκυνήσων, 22:5 ἐπορευόμην 
ἄξων, 24:11 ἀνέβην προσκυνήσων, 24 : 17 ποιήσων παρεγενόμην, Heb. 
13:17 ἀγρυπνοῦσιν ὡς ἀποδώσοντες. Cf. also ν. |. ὡς εὑρήσων in Mk. 
11:13. These all seem to be punctiliar. Some MSS. also read 
ἀσπασόμενοι in Ac. 25:13. This is surely a slim showing com- 

1 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 120, suggests omission of μέλλω. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 151. Cf. Hatz., Einl., pp. 190 ff. 

eeblase. Gr-0leNa Ly (ΠΡ. 202. 

4 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 71. 7 Prol., p. 230. 

5 Moulton, Prol., p. 151. 8 Lang. of the N. T., p. 126. 

6 Claflin, Synt. of the B. Inscr., p. 73. ® Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 496. 


10 Moulton, Prol., p. 151. That is, in the old Gk. Both volitive and futur- 
istic are rare in the N. T. 


"".».......... 


S878 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


pared with the classic idiom.! Some MSS. read κομιούμενοι in 2 
Pet. 2:13, rather than ἀδικούμενοι. The future participle with 
the article is futuristic, not volitive. So with τὸ ἐσόμενον (Lu. 
22:49); ὁ παραδώσων (Jo. 6 : 64); τὰ συναντήσοντα (Ac. 20 : 22); ὁ 
κακώσων (1 Pet. 8 : 18); τὸ γενησόμενον (1 Cor. 15 : 37); ὁ κατακρινῶν 
(Ro. 8 : 84); τῶν λαληθησομένων (Heb. 8 : 5). 

(d) The Periphrastic Substitutes for the Future. The peri- 
phrastic future is as old as the Sanskrit and has survived the in- 
flected form in Greek. Some of these forms are durative, probably 
most of them, but a few are punctiliar. Jannaris notes in Soph- 
ocles, O. C. 816, λυπηθεὶς ἔσει, and O. T. 1146, ob σιωπήσας ἔσει, 
but no examples of the aorist participle and ἔσομαι occur in the 
N.T. They are all present parts. (like ἔσεσθε μισούμενοι, Lu. 21: 
17) and so durative. In the LXX we actually have the inf. with 
ἔσομαι (Num. 10:2: 2 Sam.910<711; Tob.5..15)> Phe use of 


| μέλλω with the aorist inf. approaches the punctiliar future.? Cf. 


ἤμελλεν προσαγαγεῖν (Ac. 12:6); μέλλουσαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι (Ro. 8: 
18. Cf. Gal. 3 : 23), with which compare the pres. inf. in 1 Pet. 
5:1. The aorist inf. occurs also in Rev. 3:2, 16; 12:4. The 
volitive future was sometimes expressed by θέλω and in the later 
Greek helped drive out the future form. It is disputed whether 
in the N. T. θέλω is ever a mere future. But in a case like θέλεις 
εἴπωμεν (Lu. 9 : 54) we note the deliberative subj.2 Cf. Mt. 13: 
28. So βούλεσθε ἀπολύσω (Jo. 18 : 39). Βούλομαι is less frequent in 
the N. T. than θέλω and can hardly be resolved into a mere future. 
It is purpose. Cf. examples with the aorist inf. in Mt. 11: 27; 
Ac. 5 : 28; 17:20. With θέλω the aorist inf. is the usual construc- 
tion, and it is nearly always easy to see the element of will as 
dominant. In a few cases θέλω seems to shade off towards the voii- 
tive fut. ind. Cf. Jo. 5:40, ob θέλετε ἐλθεῖν πρός με, Ac. 25 : 9, θέ- 
Aes — κριθῆναι; Here we have an approach to the later usage, but 
the auxiliary has not yet lost its force. Cf. also Jo. 6 : 67; 9 : 27; 
Jas. 2:20, where the formula is polite. But in Jo. 7:17 the 
R. V. rightly preserves ‘‘willeth.” So in Mt. 16:24. Herodotus 
shows a fondness for ἐθέλω as a quasi-auxiliary, and the connec- 
tion between him and the modern Greek usage is doubtless through 
the vernacular. Cf. Jebb in Vince. and Dickson, p. 326. Even 


τ Cf. Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, p. 335. 

2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 448. Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. wea Bde Llp. 253; 
“The dirreranee between pres. and aor. furnishes the explan. of μέλλω with aor. 
ind.”’ Giles, Man., p. 479. 

δ᾽ Moulton, Prol., p. 185. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 879 


δύναμαι May contain an “‘inceptive future.”’! In Lu. 20:36 the 
MSS. vary between δύνανται and μέλλουσιν. But in the N. T. 
δύναμαι retains its real force even in examples like Mk. 2:19; 
3:24; 10:38; 14:7; Jo. 18 : 87; Ac. 17:19. In Ac. 25:26 note 
γράψαι οὐκ ἔχω (cf. σχῶ τί γράψω). 

1Π. Durative (Linear) Action. 

The principles underlying the use of the tenses have now been 
set forth with sufficient clearness to justify brevity. 

1. INDICATIVE. 

(a) The Present (ὁ ἐνεστῶς) for Present Time. It has already 
been seen that the durative sense does not monopolize the “ pres- 
ent” tense, though it more frequently denotes linear action.? 
The verb and the context must decide. 

(a) The Descriptive Present. Its graph is (——). As with the 
imperfect, so with the present this is the most frequent use. Cf. 
ἀπολλύμεθα (Mt. 8:25. Contrast aorist σῶσον. So Mk. 4:38; 
Lu. ὃ : 24); σβέννυνται (Mt. 25:8); ἐν ᾧ ἔρχομαι (Jo. 5:7); φαίνει 
(1 Jo. 2:8); συνχύννεται (Ac. 21:31); τελεῖται (2 Cor. 12 : 9); θαυ- 
μάζω ὅτι οὕτως ταχέως μετατίθεσθε (Gal. 1:6); ἐπιστρέφετε (4 : 9); 
ἔχουσιν (ΜΚ. 2:19). ΟΕ. 1 ΤῊ. 8: 8. In these examples the dura- 
tive action is very obvious and has to be translated by the 
progressive (periphrastic) form in English, ‘We are perishing,’ 
‘Our lamps are going out,’ etc. But in the case of θαυμάζω (Gal. 
1:6) ‘I wonder’ brings out the durative idea, though ‘ye are 
changing’ is necessary for μετατίθεσθε. Cf. ἔχει (Jo. 3 : 36) where 
‘has’ is durative. Cf. ξητοῦμεν (Lu. 2 : 48), οὐ θέλομεν (Lu. 19 : 14). 

(8) The Progressive Present. 'This is a poor name in lieu of a 
better one for the present of past action still in progress. Usu- 
ally an adverb of time (or adjunct) accompanies the verb. 
Gildersleeve® calls it “Present of Unity of Time.” Cf. ἐστὶν ἕως 
ἄρτι (1 Jo. 2:9). Often it has to be translated into English by a 
sort of ‘progressive perfect” (‘have been’), though, of course, that 
is the fault of the English. “So in modern Greek, ἑξῆντα μῆνας 
σ᾽ ἀγαπῶ (Abbott, Joh. Gr., Ὁ. 222). The durative present in such 
cases gathers up past and present time into one phrase” (Moul- 
ton, Prol., p. 119). Cf. ᾿Ιδοὺ τρία ἔτη ad’ οὗ ἔρχομαι (Lu. 18 : 7); 
τοσαῦτα ἔτη δουλεύω σοι (15 : 29); πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον ἔχει (Jo. ὅ : 6); 
τοσοῦτον χρόνον μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν εἰμί (14 : 9); ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐστε (15: 
27); πάλαι δοκεῖτε (2 Cor. 12:19). Cf. ἀπὸ βρέφους οἶδας (2 Tim. 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 448. 2 Moulton, Prol., p. 119. 
3 Synt., p. 86. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 189; Burton, N. T. Moods 
and Tenses, p. 10. 


S80 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


3:15). It is a common idiom in the N. T. Cf. 2 Pet. 3:4; 
1Jo.3:8. In Jo. 8:58 εἰμί is really absolute. 

(y) The Iterative or Customary Present. Its graph is (..... yy: 
Cf. ἐγκρατεύεται (1 Cor. 9 : 25); πυκτεύω and ὑπωπιάζω καὶ δουλαγωγῶ 
(9: 26f.). So νηστεύω δὶς τοῦ σαββάτου, ἀποδεκατεύω πάντα ὅσα κτῶμαι 
(Lu. 18 : 12); δίδωμι καὶ ἀποδίδωμι (19 : 8, unless it refers to a new 
purpose in Zaccheus, when it would be aoristic); ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν (1 
Cor. 10:16); ὃν κλῶμεν (10: 16); προλαμβάνει (11:21); καταγγέλ- 
Neve (11: 26); ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει (11: 29); κοιμῶνται (11: 30); οὐχ ἁμαρ- 
rave. (1 Jo. 8 : 6); ἁμαρτάνει (8 : 8. Cf. Mt. 9:17. Probably also 
ἀφίομεν (Lu. 11:4). 

(5) The Inchoative or Conative Present. Either an act just 
beginning, like γίνεται (Mk. 11: 23), εὐθὺς σκανδαλίζονται (4 : 17), 
λιθάζετε (JO. 10:32), νίπτεις (18:6), ποιεῖς (13:27), ἄγει (Ro. 
2:4), or an act begun but interrupted like πείθεις (Ac. 26: 28; 
ef. 2 Cor. 5:11), ἀναγκάζεις (Gal. 2:14), δικαιοῦσθε (5:4), avay- 
κάζουσιν (6:12). Indeed λιθάξετε (Jo. 10 : 32) and νίπτεις (13 : 6) 
may be regarded as conative also. This idiom is more common 
in the imperfect. Cf. Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 82. In English we 
have to use ‘‘begin”’ or “‘try.” 

(e) The Historical Present. These examples are usually aoristic, 
but sometimes durative.! In Mk. 1:12 we have ἐκβάλλει which 
is durative. Cf. ἤγετο in Lu. 4:1 (but Mt. 4:1, ἀνήχθη). So in 
Mk. 1 : 21 εἰσπορεύονται is durative. The same thing seems to be 
true of ἀκολουθοῦσιν in 6:1. 

(Ὁ The Deliberative Present. Rhetorical deliberative questions 
may be put by the present ind., but it is rather a rhetorical way 
of putting a negation than a question of doubt. Cf. τί ποιοῦμεν; 
(Jo. 11:47), ‘What are we doing?’ Cf. τί ποιήσει (Mt. 21:40) 
with τί ποιῶμεν (Jo. 6 : 28) and τί ποιήσωμεν (Ac. 4:16). The im- 
plication of the question in Jo. 11:47 is that nothing was being 
done. In Mt. 12 : 34, πῶς δύνασθε ἀγαθὰ λαλεῖν; a durative delib- 
erative question is expressed by means of δύνασθε and the pres. 
inf. Cf. a similar construction with δεῖ in Ac. 16:30.2 Cf. the 
same idiom in an indirect question (Col. 4:6; 2 Th. 3:7; 1 Tim. 
3:15). The use of the pres. ind. in a deliberative question is a 
rare idiom. Blass* finds parallels in colloquial Latin and an ex- 
ample in Herm., Sim., IX, 9, 1. | 

(n) The Periphrastic Present. ‘The examples are not numerous 
in the LXX.4 Cf. Num. 14:8; 1 Ki. 18:12, ete. It is rare in 


1 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 11. $ Ib. 
2 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 210. 4 C. and S., Sel., p. 68. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 881 


the N. T. Moulton! warns us that “éywy ἐστί and δέον ἐστί (with 
other impersonal verbs) are both classical and vernacular.” In 
the present tense the idiom is on purely Greek lines, not Semitic. 
For classical examples see Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 81). So the 
impersonal verbs (and ἔχω) stand to themselves? in support from 
ancient Greek and the κοινή. Cf. ἔστιν ἔχοντα (Col. 2 : 23); πρέ- 
πον ἐστίν (Mt. 3:15); ἐξόν (sc. ἐστί) in Ac. 2:29 and 2 Cor. 12: 
4; δέον ἐστίν (Ac. 19:36. Cf. 1 Pet. 1:6). Other examples are 
ἑστώς εἰμί (Ac. 25:10), ἔστιν κατερχομένη (Jas. 3:15), ἐστὶν προσανα- 
πληροῦσα --- ἀλλὰ καὶ περισσεύουσα (2 Cor. 9:12), ἐστιν ἀλληγορού- 
μενα (Gal. 4:24) and, in particular, explanatory phrases with 
oncoTiy (NGL 25 8273s Mike 5 Δ Jow 1:41): Cf further 
ΑΚ Gol: Ov own 2 Cornell, 

(0) Presents as Perfects. Here the form is that of the present, 
but the root has the sense of completion. The action is durative 
only in the sense of state, not of linear action. This is an old 
use of these roots. Cf. Lu. 15 : 27, 6 ἀδελφὸς ἥκει (‘has come,’ ‘is 
here’). Cf. ἐξῆλθον καὶ ἥκω (Jo. 8:42). See ch. VIII. So with 
κεῖται (Mt. 3:10), ‘the axe lies at the root of the trees’ (has 
been placed there); ὁ διδάσκαλος πάρεστιν (Jo. 11:28) = ‘the 
Teacher is come.’ Sometimes νικάω is so used (cf. Ro. 12:21; 
Rev. 15:2). So ἡττῶνται (2 Pet. 2:20). Cf. ἀκούεται in 1 Cor. 
11:18. See also ἀκούεται (1 Cor. 5:1) which is rather iterative. 
᾿Αδικῷ in Mt. 20:13 is durative, but approaches a perfect in 
Ac. 25:11 (cf. πέπραχα). 

(.) Perfects as Presents. Some perfect forms have come to be 
used as practical durative presents, though not of the same 
word. Thus οἶδα from efdov=‘I have seen,’ ‘I know’ (ef. Mt. 6 : 8). 
So ἕστηκα (Lu. ὃ : 20), μέμνημαι (1 Cor. 11:2). As to ἀπόλωλα that 
occurs in the N. T. in the participle (Mt. 10:6) and the same 
thing is true of εἴωθα (Lu. 4:16), which occurs in past perfect. 
So βέβηκα, γέγονα, δέδοικα, ἠμφίεσμαι, ἔγρήγορα, ἔοικα, κέκλημαι, κέκτημαι, 
πέποιθα, πέφυκα, τέθνηκα. Cf. Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 488. 

(x) Futuristic Presents. These are usually punctiliar, but some 
are durative.t Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 83) calls this ‘‘ Praesens 
Propheticum.” The absence of εἶμι in the N. T. is noticeable. 
The papyri illustrate abundantly this futuristic present (Moul- 
ton, Prol., p. 120). Since the pres. ind. occurs for past, pres- 


1 Prol., p. 226. Cf. also Schmid, Atticismus, III, p. 114; K.-G., Bd. I, pp. 
38 ff. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 204. 

3 Goodwin, M. and T., p.9; Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 10; Gildersl., Synt., 
p. 87. 4 Moulton, Prol., p. 120. 


S82 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ent and future time it is clear that ‘‘time” is secondary even 
in the ind. In the other moods it has, of course, no time at-all. 
As examples of the durative present in this sense take παραδίδοται 
(Mt. 26:45), ἀναβαίνομεν (Mk. 10:33), ὑπάγω ἁλιεύειν and ἐρχόμεθα 
(Jo. 21:3), διέρχομαι (1 Cor. 16:5), ἔχομεν (2 Cor. 5:1). Μέλλω 
and the pres. inf. is, of course, a prospective present. This idiom 
is very common in the N. T., 84 examples with the pres. (6 aor., 
3 fut.) inf., though, of course, μέλλω is not always in the pres. ind. 
ΟΜ 1163.27 fate, 

(b) The Imperfect for Past Time (ὁ zaparartxos). Here we have 
the time-element proper, the augment probably being an old 
adverb for ‘‘then,’’ and the action being always durative. ‘The 
augment throws linear action into the past.”! The absence of a 
true imperfect in English makes it hard to translate this Greek 
tense. 

(a) Doubtful Imperfects. They are sometimes called “aoristic”’ 
imperfects. This term is not a happy one, as Gildersleeve? shows 
in his criticism of Stahl for his ‘‘synonym-mongering” and 
“multiplication of categories.” The only justification for the 
term is that, as already shown in the discussion of the aorist, it 
is not possible always to tell whether some forms are aorist ind. 
or imperf. ind. The same root was used for both forms, as only 
one form existed and it is hard to tell which tense the form is. A 
certain amount of obscurity and so of overlapping existed from 
the beginning. We see this difficulty in ἦν, ἔφην, ἔλεγον, etc., par- 
ticularly in verbs of saying, commanding, etc.4 Modern Greek 
conceives of ὑπῆγα, ἐπῆγα and ἔφερα as aorists (Thumb, Handb., p. 
148). Thumb (Th. L.-Z., xxviii, 423) thinks that in the N. T. 
ἔφερον had begun to be treated’ as aorist, but Moulton (Prol., p. 
129) demurs, though he admits the possibility of punctiliar action 
In πρόσφερε τὸ δῶρον in Mt: 5 : 24 (2b., p. 247). See also φέρε καὶ ἴδε, 
φέρε καὶ βάλε in Jo. 20:27. But one must not think that the 
Greeks did not know how to distinguish between the aorist and 
the imperfect. They “did not care to use their finest tools on 
every occasion,’® but the line between aorist and imperf. was 
usually very sharply drawn.6 The distinction is as old as the 
Sanskrit.” In modern Greek it still survives, though the differ- 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 128. 2 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 394. 

3 Giles, Man., p. 488; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 487; Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 46. 
4 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., XXIV, p. 180; XXIX, p. 4. 

5 Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, p. 17. 

6 Gildersl., Synt., pp. 91, 94. 7 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 201 f. 


EE a a a, es 


TENSE (XPONOZ) 883 


ence between ἔλεγεν and εἶπεν is well-nigh gone,! if it ever existed. 
The same thing is true of the usage of Achilles Tatius.2, Hence we 
need not insist that ἦν (Jo. 1:1) is strictly durative always (im- 
perfect). It may be sometimes actually aorist also. So as to 
ἔφη (Mt. 4:7); ἔλεγεν (Mk. 4:21, 24, 26, 30, etc.), etc. Blass, 
Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 192, fails to make a clear distinction. Note 
ἐκέλευον (Ac. 16 : 22). 

(8) The Descriptive Tense in Narrative. But the linear action 
may be insisted on in the true imperfect. It is properly ‘“nicht- 
punktuell.”” Though less frequent in Homer than the aorist 
it often “divides the crown with the aorist.”* The imperfect 
is here a sort of moving panorama, a ‘‘moving-picture show.” 
The modern Greek preserves this idiom (Thumb, Handb., p. 
121). In1 Cor. 10:3 f. ἔφαγον and ἔπιόν give the summary (con- 
stative) record, while ἔπινον presents an explanatory description. 
See further προσῆλθον καὶ διηκόνουν (Mt. 4:11); ἔπεσεν καὶ ἐδίδου 
(13 : 8); ἐνύσταξαν καὶ ἐκάθευδον (25:5). Sometimes the change 
from aorist to imperf. or vice versa in narrative may be due 
to the desire to avoid monotony. In Mt. 26:59 we have οὐχ 
εὗρον, in Mk. 14:55 οὐχ εὕρισκον. The aorist tells the simple 
story. The imperfect draws the picture. It helps you to see the 
course of the act. It passes before the eye the flowing stream of 
history. It is the tense of Schilderung.A Cf. εἶχεν τὸ ἔνδυμα αὐτοῦ 
(Mt. 3:4), ἐξεπορεύετο (3:5), ἐβαπτίζοντο (3:6). The whole 
vivid scene at the Jordan is thus sketched. Then Matthew re- 
verts to the aorist (3:7). Cf. ἤρχοντο in Jo. 19:2. So ὃς ὥφειλεν 
αὐτῷ (Mt. 18: 28) aptly describes a debtor as ἔπνιγεν, ‘the choking 
in his rage.’ See the picture of Jesus in ἐθεώρει (Mk. 12:41). Cf. 
ἐθεώρουν (Lu. 10:18), ἐξελέγοντο (14:7), περιεβλέπετο (Mk. 5 : 32), 
ἐξίσταντο (Lu. 2:47; cf. Ac. 2:12). Cf. Lu. 9: 48-45; 16:19; 
Mt. 8:24. A good example is ἐκυλίετο ἀφρίζων (Mk. 9:20). Cf. 
further, ἔπιπτεν καὶ προσηύχετο (Mk. 14: 35), the realistic scene in 
Gethsemane (Peter’s description probably); ἐπεθύμει καὶ οὐδεὶς 
ἐδίδου (Lu. 15:16); ὡμίλουν πρὸς ἀλλήλους (24 : 14); ἐξεπλήσσουντο 
(Mt. 7:28); ἐτίθει (2 Cor. 83 : 13); ἠκολόυθει καὶ ἐκάθητο (Mt. 26: 
58). <A splendid example of the descriptive durative is ἐσιώπα 
(Mt. 26 :63)=‘kept silent.’ So ἐπλέομεν (Ac. 21:3). Note ἐνό- 
μιζον (Ac. 21:29) between past perfect and aorist. Cf. ἐφίλει 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 128. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 436. 

2 Sexauer, Der Sprachgebr. d. rém. Schriftst. Achilles Tatius, 1899, p. 29. 
3 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 242. 

4 Hultsch, Der Gebr. d. erzihlenden Zeitf. bei Polyb. 


884 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(Jo. 11:36), διετήρει (Lu. 2:51. Cf. 2:19). See the picture of 
Noah’s time in Lu. 17:27. Cf. ἐπορεύοντο χαίροντες (Ac. 5:41). 
Quite striking is ἠλπίζομεν in Lu. 24:21. See further for the 
“imperfect and aorist interwoven’? in narrative Gildersleeve, 
Syntax, Ὁ. 91. An artist could describe his work by ἐποίησα or 
ἐποίουν. Gildersleeve notes (7b., p. 93) that in the inscriptions of 
the fourth cent. B.c. the imperfect is absent. It becomes com- 
mon again in the imperial time. 

(y) The Iterative (Customary) Imperfect. Sometimes it is diffi- 
cult to tell whether an act is merely descriptive or is a series. 
Cf. πολλοὶ πλούσιοι ἔβαλλον (Mk. 12 : 41); ἐπνίγοντο (5 : 13), where 
the separate details are well described by the vivid imperfect. 
The notion of repetition is clearly present in ἠρώτα ἐλεημοσύνην 
(Ac. 3:3); Apwra αὐτὸν (Mk. 7: 26). Cf. Jo. 4:31. The modern 
Greek keeps this usage (Thumb, Handb., p. 122). It is not neces- 
sary to see any “‘aoristic” notion here.t Cf. παρεκάλουν σπουδαίως 
(Lu. 7:4, W. H.); rapnve (Ac. 27:9). It is well shown in Βαρνά- 
Bas ἐβούλετο, Παῦλος ἠξίου (15:37 f.), the one opposing the other. 
In Ac. 24:26 repetition is shown in ὡμίλει by πυκνότερον pera- 
πεμπόμενος. Cf. ἄλλοι δὲ ἄλλο τι ἐπεφώνουν (21 : 34); ἐπυνθάνετο in 
verse 33; καθ’ ἡμέραν ἐκαθεζόμην (Mt. 26:55); ἔτυπτον (27: 30); 
ὅπου ἤκουον (Mk. 6:55); κατηγόρουν πολλά (15:3); ἀπέλυεν ὃν 
παρῃτοῦντο (15:6. Cf. εἰώθει ἀπολύειν ὃν ἤθελον, Mt. 27 : 15); ἐνέ- 
νευον (Lu. 1: 62): ἐβάπτιζεν (Jo. 8 : 22); ἔλυε (ὃ : 18); ἐδίδοσαν (19 : 
3); ἐζώννυες (21:18); ἐτίθουν (Ac. 8 : 2); ἐπίπρασκον καὶ διεμέριζον (2 : 
45. Cf. 4:34). Moulton (Prol., p. 128) represents the iterative 
imperfect by the graph (...... VCE ACHIOR 1S Sissi ke 
3:11;4:33f. A good example is in Lu. 2 : 41, ἐπορεύοντο κατ᾽ Eros. 

(5) The Progressive Imperfect. Sometimes the imperfect looks 
backward or forward, as the case may be.? Thus Τί ὅτι ἐζητεῖτε 
με (Lu. 2:49); ἣν εἴχετε am’ ἀρχῆς (1 Jo. 2:7); ἐνεκοπτόμην (Ro. 
15:22); ἔμελλον (Rev. 3:2). This idea is, however, often ex- 
pressed by μέλλω,) but without the backward look also. Cf. 
Lu. 9:31; 10:1; Jo. 4:47; 6:71, ete. In ἐκινδύνευον (Lu. 8 : 23) 
the verb itself expresses peril or danger. Gildersleeve (Syntaz, 
p. 97) calls this idiom ‘Imperfect of Unity of Time.” Cf. the 
“progressive” present in (a), (8). The Text. Recept. gives a good 
example in ἦν πάλαι τὸ πλοῖον ἐν μέσῳ τῆς θαλάσσης (Mk. 6 : 47). 
See also ἦν γὰρ ἐξ ἱκανῶν χρόνων θέλων ἰδεῖν αὐτόν (Lu. 28 : 8). 

1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 191. 


2 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 13 f. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 13. 
8 Gildersl., Synt., p. 94 f. 


ts i, 


TENSE (XPONOS) 885 


(e) The Inchoative or Conative Imperfect. Here the accent is 
on the beginning of the action either in contrast to preceding 
aorists (Just begun) or because the action was interrupted (be- 
gun, but not completed). The two sorts of inchoative action 
may be represented by two graphs, thus ( ——) for the first, (— ) 
for the second.'!' In English we have to say ‘‘began”’ for the one, 
“tried”? for the other. The modern Greek maintains this idiom 
(Thumb, Handb., p. 121). As examples of the first sort where 
“began” brings out the idea, note ἐδίδασκε (Mt. 5:2. Cf. Jo. 7: 
14); ἐλάλει (Mk. 7:35. Cf. Lu. 1 : 64); ἔκλαιεν (14 : 72); διερήσσετο 
(Lu. 5:6); διελάλουν (6: 11); συνεπληροῦντο (ὃ : 23); ἐπεσκίαζεν (9: 
34. Note ingressive aorist ἐφοβήθησαν); ἐπέφωσκεν (23 : 54); ἐπε- 
γίνωσκον (Ac. 3:10); ἐκήρυσσεν (9 : 20); διεκρίνοντο (11:2); κατήγ- 
γέλλον (13:5); ἐθορύβουν (17:5); παρωξύνετο (17:16); ἀπελογεῖτο 
(26:1); émowodvro (27:18); edvero (27:41). Cf. Lu. 13:13, 17. 
In ἐκάλουν (Lu. 1:59) we see both ideas combined. The action 
was begun, but was sharply interrupted by οὐχί, ἀλλά from Eliza- 
beth. Cf. νῦν ἐζήτουν (Jo. 11:8). A good instance of the inter- 
rupted imperf. is προσέφερεν in Heb. 11:17. Examples of the 
conative imperfect (action begun, but interrupted) are διεκώλυεν 
(Mt. 3:14); ἐδίδουν (Mk. 15:23, in contrast with οὐκ ἔλαβεν); 
ἐκωλύομεν (Lu. 9:49); ἐζήτουν (Jo. 10:39; ef. 19:11); ἐνόμιζεν 
(Ac. 7:25. Note οὐ συνῆκαν); συνήλλασσεν (7: 26. Note ἀπώσατο); 
ἔπειθεν (Ac. 18:4); ἠνάγκαζον (26:11); but not Gal. 1:18. Moul- 
ton (Prol., p. 247) cites the conative pres. ἀναγκάζουσιν (Gal. 
G11 2): 

(Ὁ The “Negative” Imperfect. This is not a very happy piece 
of nomenclature, to use Gildersleeve’s remark about Stahl’s over- 
refinement, and yet it is the best one can do. “The negative 
imperfect commonly denotes resistance to pressure or disappoint- 
ment.’”’? As examples note ὁ δὲ οὐκ ἤθελεν (followed by ἔβαλεν, Mt. 
18:30) and preceded by παρεκάλει (iterative), οὐδεὶς ἐδίδου (Lu. 
15 : 16), οὐκ ἤθελεν (15 : 27. Note ὠργίσθη), οὐκ ἐπίστευεν (Jo. 2 : 24), 
οὐ γὰρ ἤθελεν (Jo. 7: 1), οὐδεὶς ἐτόλμα (21:12), οὐκ εἴων (Ac. 19 : 30). 
Cf. Mt. 22 : 3. 

(n) The ‘‘ Potential” Imperfect. This is a peculiar use of the 
tense for present time, where the present ind. fails to meet the 
requirement of the situation. Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 97) calls it 
“modal” use, ἔδει, etc. The unfulfilled duty comes as a surprise. 
This “modal” force of the imperfect ind. appears still in the 


1 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 128. 
2 Gildersl., Synt., p. 95. Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 838. 


S86 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 128). There are several va- 
rieties of it. Verbs of wishing form one class of passages. In 
a case like ἐβουλόμην (Ac. 25:22), βούλομαι would be too blunt 
(cf. 1 Tim. 2:8). The exact idea is ‘I was just on the point of 
wishing.’ It is freely rendered ‘I could wish’ or ‘I should wish.’ 
In 2 Cor. 1:15 ἐβουλόμην πρότερον has its usual signification. In 
Phil. 13 f. ἐβουλόμην (a past preference) is set over against οὐδὲν 
ἠθέλησα (a past decision).!. Another example is ἤθελον παρεῖναι 
πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἄρτι (Gal. 4 : 20). Note ἄρτι. For the force of the pres- 
ent see 1 Cor. 10:20; Col. 2:1; and especially Lu. 19:14, od 
θέλομεν. In Jo. 6:21, ἤθελον, the usual notion occurs. An ex- 
ample is found in Ro. 9:8, ηὐχόμην, where Paul almost expresses 
a moral wrong. He holds himself back from the abyss by the 
tense. He does not say εὔχομαι (cf. 2 Cor. 18:7), nor εὐξαίμην ἄν 
(Ac. 26 : 29). Note οὐ ψεύδομαι in Ro. 9:1. In Ac. 27:29 ηὔχοντο 
has its usual force. 

Wishes about the present are naturally unattainable. In the 
ancient idiom εἴθε or εἰ yap was used with the imperf. ind. or 
ὥφελον and the inf. Callimachus, B.c. 260, uses ὥφελον with the 
ind. The augmentless form ὄφελον appears in Herodotus (Moul- 
ton, Prol., p. 201). In the N. T. only ὄφελον is used with the 
imperf. for wishes about the present. Cf. ὄφελον ἀνείχεσθε (2 Cor. 
11:1); ὄφελον ἧς (Rev. 3:15). 

Verbs of propriety, possibility, obligation or necessity are also 
used in the imperfect when the obligation, etc., is not lived up to, 
has not been met. Winer? has stated the matter well. The 
Greeks (and the Latins) start from the past and state the real 
possibility or obligation, and the reader, by comparing that with 
facts, notes that the obligation was not met. The English and 
the Germans start from the present and find trouble with this 
past statement of a present duty (an unfulfilled duty). A distinc- 
tion is usually drawn between the present and the aorist infini- 
tives when they occur with these verbs (ἐδύνατο, ὥφειλον, ἔδει, καλὸν 
ἦν, κρεῖττον ἦν, ἀνῆκεν, καθῆκεν). The present inf. refers more di- 
rectly to the present, the aorist to an action in the past. This is, 
however, only by suggestion. Thus in Mt. 18 : 33, οὐκ ἔδει καὶ σὲ 
ἐλεῆσαι, note ws κἀγὼ σὲ ἠλέησα. Cf. also Mt. 23:23 ταῦτα δὲ 
ἔδει ποιῆσαι κἀκεῖνα μὴ ἀφεῖναι, (25 : 27) ἔδει σε βαλεῖν, (26 : 9) ἐδύνατο 
πραθῆναι καὶ δοθῆναι, (206 : 24) καλὸν ἦν αὐτῷ (no inf. here), (Ac. 22: 
22) οὐ γὰρ καθῆκεν αὐτὸν ζῆν, (24 : 10) obs ἔδει ἐπὶ σοῦ παρεῖναι, (20 : 
32) ἀπολελύσθαι ἐδύνατο (note perf. inf.), (27:21) ἔδει μὴ ἀνάγεσθαι 

1 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 15. 2 W.-Th., p. 282. 


free eer ty fee ἃ, 





TENSE (XPONOZ) 887 


κερδῆσαί te, (2 Pet. 2:21) κρεῖττον ἦν αὐτοῖς μὴ ἐπεγνωκέναι (perf. 
inf.), (2 Cor. 2:3) ad’ ὧν ἔδει με χαίρειν, (Col. 3:18) ὡς ἀνῆκεν ἐν 
κυρίῳ. (Cf. Eph. 5:4.) But it must not be supposed that these 
imperfects cannot be used in the normal expression of a past ob- 
ligation or possibility that was met. The context makes the 
matter clear. Cf. Lu. 18:16; 22:7; 24:26; Jo. 4:4, ete. In 
Lu. 15:32 ἔδει applies to both the past and present, probably 
with an implication against the attitude of the elder brother. In 
Heb. 2:10 ἔπρεπεν and 2:17 Sere have their natural past 
meaning. 

Another instance where the imperfect refers to present time is in 
the second-class conditional sentences (see chapter XIX, Mode). 
When a condition is assumed as unreal and refers to present 
time, the imperfect tense is used both in the protasis and the 
apodosis in normal constructions. See apodosis in Mt. 26 : 24 
and in Ac. 26 : 32 (both quoted above). It is only the tense that 
calls for discussion here. Cf. ἁμαρτίαν οὐχ εἴχοσαν (Jo. 15 : 22, 24), 
where νῦν δὲ is used to explain the point. So οὐκ εἶχες (Jo. 19: 
11). In 1 Cor. 5:10, ὠφείλετε dpa — ἐξελθεῖν, and Heb. 9 : 25, ἐπεὶ 
ἔδει --- παθεῖν, we only have the apodosis. Cf. εἰ ἦν — ἐγίνωσκεν ἄν 
(Lu. 7:39) as a type of the more usual construction wih ἄν. 
Cf. Lu. 17:6. In Heb. 11:15 the imperfects describe past time. 

(0) In Indirect Discourse. In general the imperfect in indir. 
discourse represents an imperfect of the direct discourse. But 
sometimes with verbs of perception it is relative time and refers 
to a time previous to the perception.!. Thus εἶχον τὸν ᾿Ιωάνην ὅτι 
προφήτης ἦν (Mk. 11:32); εἶδον ὅτι οὐκ ἦν (Jo. 6 : 22.. Cf. οὐκ ἔστιν 
in verse 24); ὅτι προσαίτης ἢν (9 : 8); ἐπεγίνωσκον ὅτι ἦν ὁ καθήμενος 
(Ac. 3:10), while in 4:13 ἦσαν is rightly antecedent to ἐπεγίνω- 
σκον, ἤδεισαν ὅτι ---ὑπῆρχεν (16:3). In Ac. 3:10 the idiom ap- 
proaches that in Jo. 1:15, οὗτος ἦν ὁ εἰπών (a parenthesis), where 
the verb is thrown back to past time. Our idiom more natu- 
rally calls for ἐστίν here. Gildersleeve? calls this the ‘imperfect 
of sudden appreciation of real state of things.” 

(.) The Periphrastic Imperfect. It is easy to see how in the 
present, and especially in the future, periphrastic forms were felt 
to be needed to emphasize durative action. But that was the 
real function of the imperfect tense. The demand for this stress- 
ing of the durative idea by jv and the present participle was cer- 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 192; Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 339. This imperfect 
is particularly common in John. 
2 Synt., p. 96 f. 


888 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


tainly not so great. And yet it is just in the imperfect in the N. T. 
that this idiom is most frequent. It is not unknown in the an- 
cient Greek.! Schmid? finds it rare in the κοινή, especially in the 
imperfect, where the N. T. is so rich in the idiom. He suggests 
the Aramaic influence, particularly as that lanzuage is fond of 
this periphrasis. Periphrasis is thoroughly Greek, and yet in the 
N. T. we have unusual frequency of a usage that the κοινή has 
not greatly developed except “where Aramaic sources underlie the 
Greek” (Moulton, Prol., p. 226). Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 124) 
gives classical examples from Pindar, Thuc., Isocrates, etc. It 
is true that in the N. T. the pres. participle with ἦν occurs chiefly 
in Mark (16 times), Luke (30), Acts (24, but 17 of them in chap- 
ters 1-12), and just in those portions most subject to Aramaic 
influence (possible Aramaic sources). Only 7 occur in Acts 13- 
28, and these mainly in the speech in 22 delivered in Aramaic.’ 
The LXX*‘ gives abundant illustration of this analytic tendency 
in the imperfect. Cf. Gen. 37:2; Deut. 9:24; Judg.1:7. Cf. 
Thackeray, Gr., p. 24. From Pelagia (p. 18) Moulton (Prol., p. 
249) cites ἤμην ἀπερχόμενος. For a papyrus illustration see ὅσα 
ἦν καθήκοντα, P. Oxy. 115 (1i/A.d.). The idiom itself is therefore 
Greek, but the frequency of it in the N. T. is due to the Hebrew 
and Aramaic. Matthew has it 3 times, John 10, Paul 32 The 
Pauline examples (Gal. 1: 22f.; Ph. 2:26) are more like the 
classic independence of the participle. It is usually the de- 
scriptive imperfect that uses the periphrastic form. So ἦν διδά- 
σκων (Mt. 7:29); qv ἔχων (Mk. 10:22); ἦσαν ἀναβαίνοντες (10: 
32); ἦν προσευχόμενον (Lu. 1:10); καιομένη ἦν (Lu. 24:32). But 
sometimes it is the iterative imperfect as in ἦν διανεύων (Lu. 1: 
22); ἦν διδάσκων τὸ Kab’ ἡμέραν (19 :47).6 In Lu. 5:17 the peri- 
phrastic imperfect and past perfect occur in the same sentence. 
In Lu. 23 : 12 note προὐπῆρχον ὄντες (cf. Ac. 8: 9). 

(x) Past Perfects as Imperfects. The present perfects of these 
verbs are merely presents in sense when compared with other 
verbs. So the past perfects have only an imperfect force. Thus 
noec (Mt. 27:18); εἰώθει (27:15); ἱστήκει (Jo. 18 : δ). 

(c) The Future for Future Time. The future is mainly aoristic 
(punctiliar), as has already been shown, but sometimes dura- 
tive.’ The broad lines of the problem have already been 


LCT KG bdalLapeast 5 Moulton, Prol., p. 227. 

2 Atticismus, III, p. 113 f. 6 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 16. 
8 Moulton, Prol., p. 227. 7 Moulton, Prol., p. 149. 

4 


C. and S., Sel., p. 69. 


i ene en ny . « 


TENSE (XPONOS) 889 


drawn. As already shown, the modern Greek has a special dura- 
tive future by means of θὰ λύω (pres. subj.). See Thumb, Handb., 
p. 160. A summary statement of the durative future is given. 

(a) The Three Kinds of Action in the Future (futuristic, voli- 
tive, deliberative). ‘These occur here also. Thus merely futur- 
istic are σώσει (Mt. 1:21); βαπτίσει (Mt. 3:11); ἐλπιοῦσιν (12: 
21); ἔσται (Lu. 1:14 f.); ἐπιστρέψει and προελεύσεται (1:16 f.); ἑλ- 
κύσω (Jo. 12:32); ζήσομεν (Ro. 6:2); κυριεύσει (6:14); βαστάσει 
(Gal. 6 : 5); ἐπιτελέσει (Ph. 1 : 6); χαρήσομαι (1: 18); ζητήσου- 
ow (Rev. 9:6). Burton! calls this “the progressive future.” Cf. 
Ac. 7:6. Durative also is ἀδικήσει with od μή (Lu. 10:19). So 
ov μὴ διψήσει (Jo. 4:14; οἵ. 6:36); οὐ μὴ ἀκολουθήσουσιν (Jo. 10: 
5). Examples of the volitive durative future are the legal pre- 
cepts (common in the LXX) so often quoted in the N. T. Cf. 
οὐ φονεύσεις (Mt. 5: 21); οὐ μοιχεύσεις (5 : 27); οὐκ ἐπιορκήσεις, ἀποδώ- 
σεις (5:33); ἀγαπήσεις (5:48; οἵ. ἀγαπᾶτε, verse 44); ἔσεσθε (5: 
48), ete. Perhaps οἰκοδομήσω (Mt. 16: 18)Ξ 1 will’ rather than 
‘IT shall.’ In 1 Tim. 6:8, τούτοις ἀρκεσθησόμεθα, the resolution is 
volitive. It is possible that we have the volitive use in Mt. 
4:4, οὐκ ἐπ᾽ ἄρτῳ μόνῳ ζήσεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος. The deliberative future 
may also be durative. Cf. Mt. 18 :21, ποσάκις ἁμαρτήσει; (merely 
interrogative) and Lu. 14 : 34, ἐν τίνι ἀρτυθήσεται; (rhetorical). Cf. 
aor., pres. and fut. ind. in Mt. 28: 7. 

(8) The Periphrastic Future. The very failure of the future 
to express durative action clearly? led to the use of the present 
participle with ἔσομαι. In Lysias (2), 18, note ἔσονται γενόμενοι More 
like a future punctiliar (or perfect). Cf. Mt. 10:22 and 24:9, 
ἔσεσθε μισούμενοι (Mk. 13:13; Lu. 21:17); (Mk. 18:25) ἔσονται 
πίπτοντες, (Lu. 1: 20) ἔσῃ σιωπῶν, (5:10) ἔσῃ ζωγρῶν, (17 : 35) 
ἔσονται ἀλήθουσαι, (21 : 24) ἔσται πατουμένη, (1 Cor. 14:9) ἔσεσθε 
λαλοῦντες. Cf. Gen. 4 :12, 14; Deut. 28 : 29; Mal. 3:3, etc. The 
frequent use of μέλλω and the pres. inf. (durative) has already 
been mentioned. The fut. of μέλλω itself occurs (Mt. 24 : 6) with 
the pres. inf. 

2. SUBJUNCTIVE AND OptaTive. The rarity of the pres. subj. 
(and opt., of course) has already been commented upon. The 
aorist is used as a matter of course here unless durative action is 
to be expressed. A few examples will suffice. Thus τί ποιῶμεν; 
(Jo. 6:28); ἐὰν ἔχητε (Mt. 17: 20); ἔχωμεν (Ro. 5:1). The sub- 
junctive is very common indeed, but not in the present tense. 
There is in the N. T. no instance of a periphrastic present subj. 

1 N. T. M. and T., p. 32. 2 Cf, Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 444. 


890 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


or optative. John’s free use of the pres. subj. has already been 
noted (Abbott, Joh. Gr., pp. 369 ff.). Cf. ἐὰν ποιῆτε (18 : 17); ἐὰν 
μαρτυρῶ (5:31). In Col. 1:18 note γένηται πρωτεύων like ἐγένετο 
στίλβοντα (Mk. 9:3). The present opt. survives in δυναίμην (Ac. 
8:31); ἔχοι (Ac. 17:11); βούλοιτο (Ac. 25: 20); θέλοι (Ac. 17: 18; 
Lu. 18 62); ey (9:46; 15:26; 18:36; 22:23; Ac. 10:17). 

3. ImpERATIVE. The contrast between the present imperative 
and the aorist subj. in prohibitions had to be set forth in con- 
nection with the punctiliar-aorist subj. The present imper. was 
found to be regularly durative. In Paul’s frequent use of the 
pres. imper. with μὴ the inchoative or conative or customary 
(prohibiting a course of conduct) use of the present is noticeable, 
as in μὴ ἀμέλει (1 Tim. 4:14); μηδενὶ ἐπιτίθει (5 : 22); μηδὲ κοινώνει 
(ib.); μὴ μεθύσκεσθε (Eph. 5:18); μὴ ψεύδεσθε (Col. 3:9) Cf. μὴ 
ἀπαίτει (Lu. 6:30). In general μή is used with the present 
imper. to forbid what one is already doing. Cf. μὴ φοβεῖσθε 
(Jo. 6:20); μὴ κρίνετε (Mt. 7:1); μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε (Jo. 5 : 14); μὴ 
θαυμάζετε (5:28); μὴ δοκεῖτε (5:45); μηκέτι σκύλλε (Lu. 8 : 49). 
The durative force of the pres. imper. is well seen in καθεύδετε 
καὶ ἀναπαύεσθε (Mt. 26:45). Cf. also πάντοτε χαίρετε, ἀδιαλείπτως 
προσεύχεσθε, ἐν παντὶ εὐχαριστεῖτε (1 Th. 5 : 16-22). A good ex- 
ample is seen in Ac. 18:9, Μὴ φοβοῦ, ἀλλὰ λάλει Kal μὴ σιωπήσῃς, 
‘He had been afraid, he was to go on speaking, he was not to 
become silent.’ Cf. 2 Tim. 2:16, 22f. The contrast between 
aorist and pres. imper. is often drawn in the N. T., as in Jo. 5: 8; 
Mt. 16:24. We note the periphrastic pres. imper. in ἴσθι εὐνοῶν 
(Mt. 5:25); ἴσθι ἔχων (Lu. 19:17); ἴστε γινώσκοντες (Eph. 5 : δ); 
ἔστωσαν καιόμενοι (Lu. 12:35). Cf. Judg. 11:10; Prov. 3:5; γίνου 
γρηγορῶν (Rev. 3:2); 2 Cor.6:14. Moulton (Prol., p. 249) cites 
from Pelagia (p. 26) ἔσο γινώσκων. 

4. INFINITIVE. The present inf. can. be assumed to be dura- 
tive. The matter has had some discussion in connection with the 
aorist inf. (punctiliar), but a few further examples will illustrate 
the usage. Cf. τὰ αὐτὰ γράφειν ὑμῖν (Ph. 3:1) and τὸ ἀγαπᾶν 
ἀὐτόν (Mk. 12:33) where the linear action is obvious.? Indeed 
the force of the pres. inf. is so normal as to call for little com- 
ment. Cf. οὐ δύναμαι ποιεῖν (Jo. 5:30. Cf. Mt. 6 : 24); τὸ θέλειν 
(Ro. 7:18); ἁμαρτάνειν (1 Jo. 3:9); προσεύχεσθαι (1 Cor. 11 : 13); 
τοῦ πατεῖν (Lu. 10:19), ete. For the distinction between the 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 125f. Cf. Naylor, Cl. Rev., 1906, p. 348. 
2 Blass, Gr. of N. Τὶ Gk., p. 204. 
8 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 46. 4 Moulton, Prol., p. 204. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 891 


aorist and pres. inf. see ἐμβῆναι --- καὶ προάγειν (Mt. 14:22). Cf. 
αἰτεῖν in Ac. 3:2. The frequent use of μέλλω and the pres. inf. 
has already been twice mentioned. In indirect discourse the 
pres. inf. merely represents the pres. ind. of the direct discourse. 
Cf. εἶναι (Mt. 22:23; Ro. 1:22); ἐκβάλλειν (Lu. 11:18), ete. 
There is no instance in the N. T. of a pres. inf. in indir. discourse 
representing an imperfect πα. Luke has a periphrastic pres. 
inf., ἐν τῷ εἶναι αὐτὸν. προσευχόμενον, which occurs twice (9 : 18; 
ΤῊΣ Ὁ 2eGhrony15 316%) Onlystwo *fut.iinfs: in the: N)T: 
seem to be durative (Ac. 11:28; Jo. 21:25). The pres. inf. is 
most natural with ἐν (cf. Lu. 8:40), and is common with διά 
(cf. Mt. 13:5f.); εἰς (Ro. 12:2); but not (pres. 3, aor. 9) with 
πρός (Mk. 13:22). It is used only once with πρό (Jo. 17:5) 
and is not used with μετά. Cf. Burton, NV. 7. Moods and Tenses, 
p. 49 f. 

5. Parricrete. The present participle, like the present inf., is 
timeless and durative. 

(a) The Time of the Present Participle Relative. The time comes 
from the principal verb. Thus in πωλοῦντες ἔφερον (Ac. 4:34. 
Cf. πωλήσας ἤνεγκεν in verse 37) the time is past; in μεριμνῶν δύναται 
(Mt. 6 : 27) the time is present; in ἔσεσθε μισούμενοι (Mt. 10 : 22), 
ὁ βλέπων ἀποδώσει (Mt. 6:18), ὄψονται τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχό- 
μενον (24:30) it is future. Cf. Mt. 24:46; Lu. 5:4; 12:48. 
Further examples of the pres. part. of coincident action are seen 
in Mt..27 241; ‘Mk;16:: 20; Jo. 6:6; 21:19; Ac. 9:22; 10:44; 
19 : 9. 

(b) Futuristic. Just as the pres. ind. sometimes has a futuristic 
sense, so the pres. part. may be used of the future in the sense of 
purpose (by implication only, however). Cf. εὐλογοῦντα (Ac. 3: 
26); ἀπαγγέλλοντας (15 : 27); διακονῶν (Ro. 15: 26). In Ac. 18 : 22, 
ἐξῆλθεν διερχόμενος τὴν Γαλατικὴν χώραν, the pres. part. is coincident 
with the verb. In 21:2 ἢ. the pres. parts. διαπερῶν and ἀποφορτι- 
ζόμενον are futuristic (cf. 3:26; 15:27). Blass compares it with 
ὁ ἐρχόμενος (Jo. 11:27) and ἐρχόμενον (1:9). This use of the pres. 
part. is common in Thue. (Gildersleeve, A.J. P., 1908, p. 408). 

(c) Descriptive. But usually the pres. part. is merely descrip- 
tive. Cf. Mk. 1:4; Ac. 20:9; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:18. There is no 
notion of purpose in ἄγοντες (Ac. 21:16). In τοὺς σωζομένους (Ac. 
2 : 47) the idea is probably iterative, but the descriptive durative 
is certainly all that is true of τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους in Heb. 10 : 14 (cf. 
10 : 10). 

1 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 52. 


S92 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(d) Conative. It may be conative like the pres. or imperf. ind. 
as in πείθων (Ac. 28 : 23) or τοὺς εἰσερχομένους (Mt. 23 : 14). 

(e) Antecedent Time. By implication also the pres. part. may 
be used to suggest antecedent time (a sort of “imperfect” part.). 
So τυφλὸς ὧν ἄρτι βλέπω (Jo. 9:25). See further Mt. 2 : 20; Jo. 
12:17; Ac. 4:34; 10:7; Gal. 1:28. Cf. 6 Bawrifwy (Mk. 1:4). 

(f) Indirect Discourse. An interesting example of the pres. 
part. with the object of a verb (a sort of indir. disc. with verbs of 
sensation) is found in εἴδαμέν τινα ἐκβάλλοντα δαιμόνια (Lu. 9 : 49). 
The pres. part. is common after εἶδον in Rev. (10:1; 13:1; 11: 
14; 18:1; 20:1, ete.). Cf. Ac. 19:35, γινώσκει τὴν πόλιν οὖσαν. 

(g) With the Article. The present participle has often the itera- 
tive (cf. pres. ind.) sense. So ὁ κλέπτων (Eph. 4 : 28)=‘the rogue.’ 
. Cf. ὁ καταλύων (Mt. 27:40); of ζητοῦντες (2:20). The part. with 
the article sometimes loses much of its verbal force (Moulton, 
Prol., p. 127; Kiihner-Gerth, I, p. 266). He cites from the pa- 
pyri, τοῖς γαμοῦσι, C. Ρ. R. 24 Gi/a.p.). Cf. τὰ ὑπάρχοντα (Lu. 
19:8). So in Gal. 4: 27, ἡ οὐ τίκτουσα, ἡ οὐκ ὠδίνουσα. 

(h) Past Action Still in Progress. This may be represented by 
the pres. part. So Mk. 5:25; Jo. 5:5; Ac. 24:10. Cf. Burton, 
N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 59. 

(1) “Subsequent” Action. Blass! finds “subsequent” action 
in the pres. parts. in Ac. 14:21 f. and 18:23. But in 14:21f. 
note ὑπέστρεψαν eis τὴν Λύστραν — ἐπιστηρίζοντες Tas ψυχὰς τῶν μαθη- 
τῶν, the aorist ind. is ““οἴϊθοῦνο᾽᾽ and accents the completion 
of the action. The pres. part. is merely coincident with the 
“effective” stage. It is a point, not a process in the aorist. 

(7) No Durative Future Participles. The few fut. parts. in the 
N. T. seem to be punctiliar, not durative, unless τὸ γενησόμενον 
(1 Cor. 15:37) be durative, but this example is pretty clearly 
ingressive punctiliar. 

IV. Perfected State of the Action (ὁ τέλειος ἢ συντελικός). 

1. THE IDEA OF THE PERFECT. 

(a) The Present Perfect. The oldest of the perfects. ‘‘The 
perfect is a present perfect.’’? Such it was in the beginning un- 
doubtedly. The past perfect and future perfect are both built 
upon the present perfect stem. Both are comparatively rare, 
especially the future perfect. The use was at first also confined 
to the indicative. Moulton (Prol., p. 140) calls it the most im- 
portant exegetically of the Greek tenses. 


A Gr Of NL GK. pal 5 ΟΕ Gad bette UT 
2 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., p. 395. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 893 


(b) The Intensive Perfect. This use (or the iterative) was prob- 
ably the origin of the tense. So ὄλλυμαιτε “1 perish,’ d\w\a=‘T 
perish utterly.’! Cf. also θνήσκω, τέθνηκα; μιμνήσκω, μέμνημαι. The 
iterative process is seen in ἀπέσταλκα (2 Cor. 12:17), ἑώρακεν 
(Jo. 1:18). The “effective” aoristic present is close kin to the 
perfect, as we have already seen,in ἥκω (Lu. 15 : 27); ἀκούω (1 Cor. 
11:18); ἀδικῶ (Ac. 25:11). Reduplication, though not always 
used, was an effort to express this intensive or iterative idea. So 
likewise the aorist of an action just accomplished, like ἔγνων τί 
ποιήσω (Lu. 16:4), is near in idea to the present perfect, though 
there is a difference. More about the intensive perfect a little 
later. 

(c) The Extensive Perfect. This comes to be the usual force 
of the tense. Gildersleeve? has put the thing finely: ‘The perfect 
looks at both ends of an action.” It “unites in itself as it were 
present and aorist, since it expresses the continuance of com- 
pleted action.”’* That is to say, the perfect is both punctiliar and 
durative. The aorist (punctiliar) represents an action as finished, 
the linear present as durative, but the perfect presents a com- 
pleted state or condition. When the action was completed the 
perfect tense does not say. It is still complete at the time of the 
use of the tense by speaker or writer. In Jo.1:32 τεθέαμαι in 
the mouth of John the Baptist refers to the baptism of Jesus 
some weeks before, but he still has the vision. Cf. 1:34, ἑώρακα 
καὶ μεμαρτύρηκα, Where there is a difference of time between the 
two words. When Andrew said to Peter εὑρήκαμεν (1 : 41) his dis- 
covery is recent and vivid. No single graph for the perfect can 
therefore be made. In some cases the line of connection from 
the act (punctiliar) to the time of speaking would be very short, 
in others very long. This line of connection is just the contribu- 
tion of the perfect tense as distinct from aorist and present. As 
a matter of fact, in the combination of punctiliar and durative in 
the perfect it begins with the punctiliar and goes on with the 
durative thus (e——), but the emphasis may be now on the 
punctiliar, now on the durative. In others the two are drawn 
almost to a point, but not quite. In still others there is a broken 
continuity thus (Α τ" Β). It is the perfect of repeated 
ΠΟ 0118. Dose Cor: 12717. 


1 Jebb in V. and D.’s Handb., p. 327. Cf. Giles, Man., pp. 449, 491 f. 
2 Synt., p. 99. Cf. also Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 395 f. 

3 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 198. 

4 Moulton, Prol., p. 144. 


894 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(d) Idea of Time in the Tense. In the ind. it appears in 
three forms with the notion of time (past perfect, present per- 
fect, future perfect). In the other modes only the present per- 
fect occurs, but it has no time in itself and in the imper. and 
subj. is naturally future. Often in the N. T., as in the Attic 
writers,! a sharp distinction is drawn between the perfect and the 
aorist or the present. Cf. μαρτυρεῖ with ἀπέσταλκεν and μεμαρτύρη- 
κεν in Jo. 5:36 f.; εἰσήγαγεν --- καὶ κεκοίνωκεν (Ac. 21: 28); ὅτι ἐτάφη, 
καὶ ὅτι ἔγήγερται (1 Cor. 15 : 4); ἐκτίσθη --- ἔκτισται (Col. 1:16); ἦσαν, 
ἔδωκας, τετήρηκας (Jo. 17:6). The perfect active is frequently in- 
transitive,? as has been already shown under Voice. Cf. torn, 
ἕστηκα, ἀπόλλυμι, ἀπόλωλα, οἷο. 

2. THE INDICATIVE. 

(a) The Present Perfect (ὁ ἐνεστὼς συντελικὸς ἢ παρακείμενος). It 
is not clear how the notion of present time is conveyed by this 
tense in the ind. since it is absent in the subj. and imper., not to 
say inf. and part. Gildersleeve suggests that it ‘‘comes from the 
absence of the augment and from the fact that a completed 
phenomenon cannot complete itself in the future.” But that ex- 
planation is not very satisfactory. The tense does occur some- 
times in the future, and the present perfect is older than the past 
perfect which rests on it. Perhaps at first it was just the perfect 
tense (cf. aoristic presents and timeless aorists) and was timeless. 
By degrees it came to be used only for present time. The rise of 
the past perfect made it clear. The pres. perf. is much more 
common in the κοινή than in the earlier Greek. ‘‘The perfect was 
~ increasingly used, as the language grew older, for what would 
formerly have been a narrative aorist’’ (Moulton, Prol., p. 141). 
In particular is this true of the vernacular as the papyri show. 

(a) The Intensive Present Perfect. Moulton? calls these “ Per- 
fects with Present Force.’ They are Perfecta Praesentia. In 
reality they are perfects where the punctiliar force is dropped and 
only the durative remains (cf. past perfect). Gildersleeve‘ dis- 
tinguishes sharply between the intensive use of emotional verbs 
and what.he calls the “ Perfect of Maintenance of Result.” But 
it is questionable if the difference does not lie in the nature of the 
verb rather than in a special modification of the tense. A real 
distinction exists in 1 Jo. 4:14 between τεθεάμεθα and μαρτυροῦ- 
μεν. Burton® follows Gildersleeve, but he admits*the doubt on 

1 Giles, Man., p. 493. 4 Synt., p. 99 f. 


2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 29. PN. Ps Mo anda yp. cae 
8 Prol., p. 147. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 895 


the subject... In these verbs when the perfect has lost the 
punctiliar notion it is due to the change in meaning of the verbs.? 
The list is rather large in Homer, particularly where attitude of 
mind is expressed.’ Giles (Man., p. 481) thinks that originally 
the perf. was either intensive or iterative like ἕστηκα, and that 
the notion of recently completed action (extensive) is a develop- 
ment. These almost purely durative perfects in the N. T. may 
be illustrated by ἔοικα (Jas. 1:6); avewya (2 Cor. 6:11); οἶδα (Mt. 
6:8); ἕστηκα (Rev. 3:20); ἐνέστηκα (2 Th. 2: 2); πέποιθα (Ph. 2: 24); 
κέκραγεν (Jo. 1: 15) which is an example of Gildersleeve’s emotional 
intensives and due according to Blass‘ to the “literary language,” 
μέμνημαι (1 Cor. 11:2); τέθνηκα (Lu. 8:49). Most of these verbs 
have an inchoative or conative or iterative sense in the present. 
Moulton® has shown from the LXX and the papyri that κέκραγα 
is vernacular κοινή and not merely literary. He thinks that, while 
κράζω in the LXX is durative, κέκραγα is merely punctiliar. See 
(0) The Aoristic Perfect. It is possible also that πεπιστεύκαμεν καὶ 
ἐγνώκαμεν (Jo. 6:69) belong here. It is less open to dispute that 
καταβέβηκα (Jo. 6:38) is a present state. Cf. κεκοίμηται (Jo. 11:11). 
But more doubtful are ἤλπικα (Jo. 5:45); ἥγημαι (Ac. 26 : 2); 
πέπεισμαι (Ro. 8:38).6 But τετάρακται (Jo. 12:27) seems to fall 
under the intensive perfect. Cf. ἑστὼς εἰμί (Ac. 25 : 10). 

(8) The Extensive Present Perfect=a completed state. This 
act may be durative-punctiliar like ἤγγικεν (Mt. 3: 2) with a 
backward look ( ὁ). Cf. thus ἠγώνισμαι, τετέλεκα, τετήρηκα (2 
Tim. 4:7). This consummative effect is seen in τετήρηκαν (Jo. 
17:6), ἐλήλυθεν (12 : 23) and πεπληρώκατε (Ac. 5:28). Cf. Heb. 
8:13; 10:14. In Jo. 20:29, ὅτι ἑὠρακάς με πεπίστευκας, the cul- 
mination is just reached a few moments before. But more fre- 
quently it is the punctiliar-durative perfect where the completed 
act is followed by a state of greater or less duration (e——). In 
Jo. 19 : 22, 6 γέγραφα γέγραφα, we have an example of each. Cf. 
the common γέγραπται (Mt. 4:7). ‘It was written (punctiliar) 
and still is on record’ (durative). Thus is to be explained in- 
stances like εἴρηκεν in Heb. 10:9 (cf. εἶπον in 10:7). ‘The state- 
ment is on record.’ It is only in appearance that προσενήνοχεν and 
πεποίηκεν (Heb. 11:17, 28) seem different. ‘This common usage in 
Hebrews has been compared to that in Thue. vol. I, pp. 2, 6, ete. 





1 Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, p. 269 f. 

2 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 15. 3 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 22. 

4 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 198. Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 347 f. 

5 Prol., p. 147. 6 Ib.; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 199. 


896 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Cf. further Heb. 7:6, 9, 11, 18, 16, 20, 23, where the perma- 
nence of the Jewish institutions is discussed. Jo. 6: 25 γέγονας 
has punctiliar and durative ideas (‘camest and art here’). Cf. 
Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 347. In Col. 1:15 ἐκτίσθη is merely punc- 
tiliar, while in verse 16 ἔκτισται adds the durative idea, whereas 
in verse 17 again συνέστηκεν has lost the punctiliar and is only 
durative. In 1 Cor. 15:4 ἐγήγερται stands between two aorists 
because Paul wishes to emphasize the idea that Jesus is still 
risen. Usually ἠγέρθη was sufficient, but not here. Cf. ἐστήρικται 
(Lu. 16:26). Cf. ἀφέωνται (Lu. 5 : 23); ἐκκέχυται (Ro. 5:5). John 
is especially fond of this use of the present perfect. Cf. 1:32, 
34, 41; 5:33, 36ff. In chapter 17 the present perfects call for 
special attention. Cf. 1 Jo. 1:1 for contrast between the pres- 
ent perfect and the aorist. 

(y) The Present Perfect of Broken Continuity! As already ex- 
plained, we here have a series of links rather than a line, a broken 
graph (51). Perhaps πέπραχά τι in Ac. 25:11 is to be so 
understood. But certainly it is true of ἀπέσταλκα (2 Cor. 12 : 17) 
where Paul refers to various missions to the Corinthians. In 
particular Moulton? notes the examples with πώποτε, as οὐδεὶς 
ἑώρακεν πώποτε (JO. 1:18). Cf. further μεμαρτύρηκεν (5 : 37); δεδου- 
λεύκαμεν (ὃ : 33). 

(5) The Dramatic Historical Present Perfect. Here an action 
completed in the past is conceived in terms of the present time for 
the sake of vividness. Burton* doubts if any genuine examples of 
the vivid historical perfect occur in the N. T. Certainly κέκραγεν 
(Jo. 1: 15) is a vivid historical tense even if only intensive in sense. 
Cf. μαρτυρεῖ just before. But by the term “historical” it is not 
meant that this use of the perfect is common in all narrative. 
But the Vedic Sanskrit has it often in narrative. It is a matter 
of personal equation after all. Thus Xenophon, who ‘affects 
naiveté,”’ uses the present perfect much more frequently than 
Herodotus and Thucydides.4 It is rather the tense of the orator 
or the dramatist and is often rhetorical.’ Hence Isocrates and 
Demosthenes surpass Plato in the use of the present perfect. 
“The nearness of any department of literature to practical life 
may readily be measured by the perfect.”?® Moulton’ notes how 
in the papyri there is an increasing use of the present perfect just 


1 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 144. 

2 Ib. 4 Gildersl., Am. Jour. Philol., X XTX, p. 396. 
* Net. Misantiaenies: 5 Thompson, Synt., p. 216. 

6 Gildersl., Am. Jour. Philol., 1908, p. 396. 7 Prol., p. 141. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 897 


because it is so largely the language of life. He notes also how 
Socrates in Plato’s Crito uses this vivid present perfect: “ rexual- 
ρομαι ἔκ τινος ἐνυπνίου, ὃ ἑώρακα ὀλίγον πρότερον ταὐτης τῆς νυκτός, 
where point of time in the past would have εἶδον as inevitable as 
the aorist is in English, had not Socrates meant to emphasize the’ 
present vividness of the vision.”’ This vivid perfect is found in 
John’s Gospel in particular. One only needs to have some imagi- 
nation himself. Cf. τεθέαμαι (1:32). John still has that vision. 
So εὑρήκαμεν (1:41). The aorist would have been prosaic. Cf. also 
ἀπεστάλκατε (ὃ : 33), a realistic change. (Cf. 1:19ff.) So also 
ἀπέσταλκεν In Ac. 7:35; κεκοίνωκεν in 21:28 and πεποίηκα in 2 Cor. 
11:25. A striking instance of it is seen in Rev. 5:7, εἴληφεν, 
where John sees Jesus with the book in his hand. It is dull to 
make εἴληφεν here=édaBev. Another example of this vivid perfect 
is ἐσχήκαμεν (2 Cor. 1:9), a dreadful memory to Paul. So with 
ἔσχηκεν in 7:5. A particularly good instance is γέγονεν (Mt. 25: 
6), where the present perfect notes the sudden ery (ef. aorist 
and imperf. just before). Cf. εἴρηκεν in 2 Cor. 12: 9. Blass! has 
observed that it occurs sometimes in parables or illustrations, 
and quite naturally so, for the imagination is at play. Thus is 
to be explained ἀπελήλυθεν (Jas. 1: 24) between two aorists. James 
sees the man. ‘He has gone off.’ Cf. Mt. 13: 46, ἀπελθὼν πέπρακεν 
πάντα ὅσα εἶχεν Kal ἠγόρασεν αὐτόν. In Lu. 9:36 ἑώρακαν is “ virtu- 
ally reported speech.”? Cf. ἀκηκόαμεν (Ac. 6:11, but ἠκούσαμεν in 
15 : 24). 

(ce) The Gnomic Present Perfect. A few examples of this idiom 
seem to appear in the N. T. The present was always the more 


usual tense for customary truths,’ though the aorist and the per- --- 


fect both occur. Cf. τετελείωται (1 Jo. 2:5); δέδεται (1 Cor. 7: 
39)*; κέκριται and πεπίστευκεν (JO. 8 : 18); κατακέκριται (Ro. 14 : 23); 
πεπλήρωκεν (13:8). Cf. Jo. 5:24; Jas. 2:10. 

(Ὁ The Perfect in Indirect Discourse. It is misleading to say, 
as Blass’ does, that “the perfect is used relatively instead of the 
pluperfect”’ in such instances. This is explaining Greek from the 
German. Blass does not call this construction “indirect dis- 
course,” but merely “after verbs of perception”; but see my 
discussion of Indirect Discourse in ch. XIX. Cf. Lu. 9: 86 
οὐδενὶ ἀπήγγειλαν οὐδὲν ὧν ἑώρακαν, Ac. 10:45 ἐξέστησαν ὅτι ἐκκέχυται. 
In Mk. 5:33, εἰδυῖα ὃ γέγονεν αὐτῇ ἦλθεν, the perfect preserves the 

1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 200. 4 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 39. 


2 Moulton, Prol., p. 144. 5 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 200. 
3 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 53 f. 


898 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


vividness of the woman’s consciousness. Here the past perfect 
or the aorist could have been used (cf. Mk. 3:8; 15:10; Mt. 
27:18; Ac. 19:32). It is akin to the reportorial vividness of the 
historical perfect. It is not the perfects here that call for expla- 
nation from the Greek point of view. It is rather the occasional 
aorists, imperfects or past perfects that demand discussion. 

(yn) Futuristic Present Perfect. Since the present so often oc- 
curs in a futuristic sense, it is not strange if we find the present 
perfect so used also=future perfect. This proleptical use of the 
perfect may be illustrated by δεδόξασμαι (Jo. 17:10), δέδωκα (17: 
22), τετέλεσται (19 : 28), σέσηπεν and γέγονεν and κατίωται in Jas. 
5 :2f. (οἷ. ἔσται καὶ φάγεται). This use is sometimes called “ pro- 
phetico-perfect.’’ Indeed some of the examples classed as gnomic 
are really proleptical also. Cf. Jo. 3:18; 5:24; Jas. 2:10; Ro. 
13 nip 2233 

(0) The ‘Aoristic’’ Present Perfect. The Present Perfect is 
here conceived as a mere punctiliar preterit like the aorist ind. 
We have seen how in some verbs the punctiliar idea drops out 
and only the durative remains in some present perfect forms (like 
οἶδα). It is not per se unreasonable to suppose that with some 
other verbs the durative idea should disappear and the form be 
merely punctiliar. We seem to have this situation in xéxpaya in 
the LX X (Moulton, Prol., p. 147). The action itself took place 
in the past though the state following its completion is present. 
By centering attention on the former, while forgetting the latter, 
the perfect becomes aoristic. We must distinguish between the 
aoristic (punctiliar) and the preterit notions. We have seen 
that originally the tense was probably timeless. Nothing, then, 
but an appeal to the facts can decide whether in the N. T. the 
present perf. ind. ever=the aor. ind. (i.e. is preterit punctiliar). 
The Sanskrit? shows a deal of confusion and freedom in the use 
of the pres. perf. ind. The blending of the perfect and aorist 
forms in Latin is also a point to note in spite of the independence 
of the Greek tense development. E. J. Goodspeed (Am. J. Theol., 
X, 102 f.) regards Latin as having some influence on the ultimate 
confusion in the Greek. There is no doubt of the ultimate con- 
fusion in the late Greek? (from A.p. 300 on) between the perfect 
and the aorist (see later). The use of -θηκα and —yxa in the aorist 
pass. ind. in modern Greek illustrates one way confusion could 

1 Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 15; Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 101. 


2 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 296. 
8. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 440; Moulton, Prol., p. 142. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 899 


arise (Thumb, Handb., p. 144). Cf. ἔδωκα, δέδωκα. In the modern 
Greek all other remnants of the old perfect form are gone save in 
the participle, which has lost its reduplication, like δεμένος. But 
had it begun in the older Greek? Jannaris! answers Yes and 
cites Thue. 1, 21, οὔτε ὡς ποιηταὶ ὑμνήκασι --- οὔτε ws oyoypador 
ξυνέθεσαν. But this may be the dramatic historical perfect. 
Jebb? answers Yes and quotes Demosthenes and Lucian; but 
these again may be merely the rhetorical dramatic perfect. The 
grammarians and scholiasts, under the influence of the Latin, 
did come to lose all consciousness of any distinction and explained 
one tense by the other.? The present perfect was always more 
common in eyery-day life, as we have noted. The papyri prove 
this abundantly.’ Moreover, the present perfect grew in popular 
use at the expense of the aorist, where the aorist might have been 
employed. There is thus no strong presumption against the pos- 
sibility of such confusion in the N. T. Besides, “the line between 
aorist and perfect is not always easy to draw.”’® This is especially 
true of an event just past which may be described by either 
tense. Moulton® admits that ‘the LX X and inscriptions show 
a few examples of a semi-aoristic perfect in the pre-Roman age, 
which, as Thumb remarks (Hellenismus, p. 153), disposes of the 
idea that Latin influence was working” thus early. But Moulton 
rightly rejects ἰδὼν ὁ λαὸς ὅτι κεχρόνικε Μωῦσῆς (Ex. 32:1) as an 
instance (merely oratio obliqua). Simcox’ says that “πὸ one but 
a doctrinaire special pleader is likely to deny that in Rev. 5:7; 
8:5, εἴληφεν, and in 7:14, εἴρηκα, are mere preterits in sense.” 
Well, I do deny it as to εἴληφεν in Rev. 5:7 and 8:5, where we 
have the vivid dramatic colloquial historical perfect. ‘The same 
thing is possible with εἴρηκα in 7:14, but I waive that for the 
moment. Burton’ is more cautious. He claims that the N. T. 
writers ‘had perfect command of the distinction between the 
aorist and the perfect,”’ but admits that ‘there is clear evidence 
that the perfect tense was in the N. T. sometimes an aorist in 
force,” though “the idiom is confined within narrow limits.” 
Some of the examples claimed by him for this usage I have ex- 
plained otherwise already. Moulton® sees that this confusion 
may exist in one writer, though not in another, but he admits a 


1 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 439. 6 Ib., p. 142. 

2 V. and D., Handb., p. 328. 7 Lang. of the N. T., p. 104. 
3 Ib.; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 339 f. 8 N. T. M. and T., p. 44. 

4 Moulton, Prol., p. 141. ® Prol., pp. 148 ff. 


ΠΡ: 


( 


900 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


“residuum of genuinely aoristic perfects.” He admits γέγονα 
to be “perplexing,” though in the 45 examples in the ind. 
in the N. T. “it has obviously present time” and “the aoristic 
sense is not really proved for any of them.” That is cer- 
tainly true. There are instances in the N. T., as in the later 
Greek generally,! where γέγονα approaches a present in sense, as 
in 1 Cor. 18:11, but its use as a mere preterit is not shown, not 
even by the examples quoted by Moulton? from the papyri (O. P. 
478 and B. U. 136). The first has προσβεβηκέναι --- γεγονέναι --- 
τετελευκέναι, all three apparently vivid historical perfects. The 
example in Josephus (Apion, 4 : 21) may be the same. We have 
left εἴληφα, εἴρηκα, ἔσχηκα, werpaxa. ‘The last Moulton* refuses to 
admit as an aorist in sense, since “the distinction is very clearly 
seen in papyri for some centuries” between πέπρακα and ἠγόρασα. 
He cites O. P. 482 (ii/A.D.), χωρὶς ὧν ἀπεγραψάμην καὶ πέπρακα. Be- 


sides in Mt. 13 : 46 πέπρακεν is in a vivid parable (dramatic his- | 


torical perfect). Moulton notes the confusion as worse in illiterate 
papyri, like οὐκ ἔλουσάμην οὐκ ἤλιμε (= ἤλειμμαι), O. P. 528 (ii/A.D.). 
As to ἔσχηκα the matter is more plausible in one example (2 Cor. 
2:13). Blass‘ affirms the true present perfect sense for ἔσχηκα 
elsewhere in the. N: T..(Mk# 5245322) Cors13930725 Robe) 
Moulton® replies that ‘““we must, I think, treat all the Pauline 
passages alike.” But why? He does not claim such uniformity 
for γέγονα in any Ν. T. writer. There is some analogy between 
ἔσχηκα and ἔθηκα and ἀφῆκα, and ἔσχον may be ingressive, not con- 
stative. Moulton (Prol., p. 145) makes a good deal out of the 
fact that ἔσχον occurs only 20 times in the N. T. and that thus 
ἔσχηκα may have come to mean ‘possessed’ (constative), but he 
admits that this does not suit in Ro. 5:2. He cites a possible 
example from B. U. 297 (i1/A.D.) rots δικαίαν αἰτίαν ἐσχηκόσι Kal ἄνευ 
τινὸς ἀμφισβητήσεως ἐν TH νομῇ γενομένους (=—o.1s). Radermacher 
(ΔΙ. T. Gr., p. 122) thinks that the perfect in the κοινή comes 
within the sphere of the aorist at times. Thackeray (Gr., p. 24) 
thinks that εἴληφα in Dan. 0 4 : 30° and ἔσχηκα, 3 M. 5 : 20, belong 
here. But if the whole case has to be made out from one ex- 
ample (2 Cor. 2:18; cf. 2 Cor. 7:5), it is at least quite proble- 
matical. The only substantial plea for taking ἔσχηκα as preterit 
here is the fact that Paul did have ἄνεσις for his spirit after Titus 


1 Cf. Buresch, Téyovay (Rh. M., 1891, p. 231 note). 
2 Prol., p. 146. 

δ. ΤΌς, po 142. 5 Prol., p. 145. 

4 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 200. 6 Ib., p. 146. 


ee ee 


TENSE (XPONOS) 901 


came. But it was a partial ἄνεσις as the Epistle shows. It is 
therefore possible that in 2 Cor. 2:18 we do have a present per- 
fect=preterit punctiliar (cf. ἐξῆλθον), possible but not quite cer- 
tain. Paul may have wished to accent the strain of his anxiety 
up to the time of the arrival of Titus. The aorist would not have 
done that. The imperfect would not have noted the end of his 
anxiety. It was durative plus punctiliar. Only the past perfect 
and the present perfect could do both. The experience may have 
seemed too vivid to Paul for the past perfect. Hence he uses the 
(historical dramatic) present perfect. That is certainly a pos- 
sible interpretation of his idea. Moulton (Prol., p. 238) in the 
Additional Notes draws back a bit from the preterit use of 
ἔσχηκα. He had advanced it “with great hesitation”? and as “a 
tentative account.’ ‘The pure perfect force is found long after 
Paul’s day: thus in the formula of an IOU, ὁμολογῶ ἐσχηκέναι 
παρὰ σοῦ διὰ χειρὸς ἐξ οἴκου χρῆσιν ἔντοκον (B. U. 1015 in the early 
iii/A.D.), ‘to have received and still possess.’”’ We have εἴληφα and 
εἴρηκα left. Take εἴληφα. In Rev. 3:3 we have μνημόνευε οὖν πῶς 
εἴληφας καὶ ἤκουσας καὶ τήρει, Kal μετανόησον. It is preceded by εὕρηκα 
in the proper sense. This is an exhortation about the future. 
If ἤκουσας had been ἀκήκοας no difficulty would exist. The perfect 
would emphasize the permanence of the obligation. It is as easy 
to say that ἤκουσας Ξε ἃ perfect as that εἴληφας ΞΞ ἃ aorist. Both 
are abstractly possible and neither may be true. The reception 
may seem more a matter to be emphasized as durative than the 
hearing (punctiliar). It is a fine point, but it is possible. Cf. 
πεποίηκεν καὶ ἐλέησεν IN Mk. 5:19. Cf. Jo. 3:32. The mere fact 
of the use of aorists and perfects side by side does not prove con- 
fusion of tenses. It rather argues the other way. It is possible 
with Blass! to see the force of each tense in ἑώρακεν and ἤκουσεν 
in Jo. 3:32 (cf.1Jo.1:1-3). Note also εἰσήγαγεν καὶ κεκοίνωκεν 
(Ac. 21:28). Cf. Lu. 4:18 where Nestle puts period after με. 
Moulton? does find such confusion in the illiterate documents 
among the papyri. Simcox (Lang. of the N. T., p. 105) wishes to 
know what ‘‘distinction of sense” exists between ἔλαβον and τετε- 
λείωμαι in Ph. 3:12. It is very simple and very clear. "ἔλαβον 
denies the sufficiency of Paul’s past achievement, τετελείωμαι de- 
nies it as a present reality. Cf. Ro. 13:12. I have already ex- 
plained εἴληφα in Rev. 5:7 and 8:5. There is surely no trouble 
about εἴληφα In 2:28. In 11:17 again, ὅτι εἴληφες τὴν δύναμίν σου 
τὴν μεγάλην καὶ EBacirevoas, it is not εἴληφες (punctiliar-durative, 
1 Gr. of N. T. Gk, p. 199. 2 Prol., p. 142 f. 


902 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


‘receivedst and still hast’) that calls for explanation, but ἐβασί- 
λευσας, Which may be used to accent the ingressive idea or as a 
practical equivalent of the perfect. The use of εἴρηκα (Rev. 7: 
14) and εἴρηκαν (19:3) seems more like a real preterit than any 
other examples in the N. T. In 7:14, B reads εἶπον. I would 
not labour the point over these two examples. If such a confu- 
sion of tenses occurred anywhere in the N. T., the Apocalypse 
would be the place to expect it. And yet even the Apocalypse is 
entitled to a word in its defence on this point in spite of the fact 
that Moulton! “frankly yields’ these instances and Blass? says 
that “the popular intermixture of the two tenses appears un- 
doubtedly in the Apocalypse.” It is to be remembered that the 
Apocalypse is a series of visions, is intensely dramatic. It is just 
here that the rhetorical dramatic (historical) perfect so freely 
granted in the orators would be found. It is wholly possible that 
in this use of εἴρηκα we have only this idiom. “In history the 
perfect has no place outside of the speeches and the reflective 
passages in which the author has his say.’’* It is curious how 
aptly Gildersleeve here describes these very instances of the 
present perfect which are called “aoristic.”” So I conclude by 
saying that the N. T. writers may be guilty of this idiom,* but 
they have not as yet been proven to be. Cf. ἐχάρην ὅτι εὕρηκα in 
2 Jo. 4. The distinction between the perf. and pres. is sharply 
drawn in Jas. 3:7, δαμάζεται καὶ δεδάμασται. 

(.) The Periphrastic Perfect. For the origin of this idiom see 
discussion in connection with the Past Perfect, (b), (n). The use of 
ἔχω (so common in later Greek and finally triumphant in modern 
Greek) has a few parallels in the N. Τ Cf. ἔχε με παρῃτημένον 
(Lu. 14:19 f.) with Latin idiom “I have him beaten.’ Cf. ἔχω 
κείμενα (LU. 12:19, pres. part. used as perf.), ἐξηραμμένην ἔχων τὴν 
xetpa (Mk. 3:1). Cf. Mk. 8:18; Heb. 5:14; Jo. 17:13, &ywow 
— πεπληρωμένην. Here the perf. part. is, of course, predicate, but 
the idiom grew out of such examples. The modern Greek uses 
not only ἔχω δεμένο, but also δεμένα, but, if a conjunctive pron. 
precedes, the part. agrees in gender and number (cf. French). 
So τὴν ἔχω ἰδωμένη, ‘I have seen her’ (Thumb, Handb., p. 162). 
Passive is εἶμαι δεμένος. The use of γίνομαι is limited. Cf. ἐγένετο 


1 Prol., p. 145. 2 Gr. of N. T..Gk, ps 200. 

$ Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 396. 

4 KE. J. Goodspeed (Am. Jour. of Theol., Jan., 1906, p. 102 f.) shows that 
the ostraca confirm the pap. in the free use of the perfect. 

6 Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 488. 


TENSE (XPONOZ) 903 


ἐσκοτωμένη (Rev. 16:10), a mixture of tenses (cf. Mk. 9:3). See 
Ex. 17:12; Ps. 72:14. Peculiar is γεγόνατε ἔχοντες in Heb. 5: 12. 
It is εἰμί that is commonly used (about 40 times in the N. T.) 
with the perfect part. Cf. Num. 22:12; Is. 10:20. Burton! 
notes that the intensive use of the perfect tense (cf. past perfect) 
is more common than the extensive. As examples of the inten- 
sive (=present) take πεπεισμένος ἐστίν (Lu. 20:6). So Jo. 2:17; 
Ac. 2:18, etc. For the extensive use (completed act) note ἐστὶν 
mempaypevov (Lu. 23:15). So Jo. 6:31; Heb. 4:2, etc. In Ac. 
26 : 26 the main accent is on the punctiliar aspect (at the begin- 
ning, as in Jo. 6:31). 

(x) Present as Perfect. These examples, like ἥκω, πάρειμι, ἡττά- 
ovat, κεῖμαι, have already been discussed under 1, (a), (7). Cf. ἀπό- 
κειται (2 Tim. 4 : 8). 

(0) The Past Perfect (ὁ ὑπερσυντελικός). 

(a) The Double Idea. It is the perfect of the past and uses the 
form of the present perfect plus special endings and often with 
augment. The special endings? show kinship with the aorist. 
As the present perfect is a blending in idea of the aoristic (punc- 
tiliar) and the durative present (a sort of durative aoristic present 
combined), so the past perfect is a blend of the aorist and the 
imperfect in idea. It is continuance of the completed state in 
past time up to a prescribed limit in the past. As in the present 
perfect, so here the relation between the punctiliar and the dura- 
tive ideas will vary in different verbs. The name ὑπερσυντελικός 
(plus-quam-perfectum)=more than perfect in the sense that it 
always refers to an antecedent date, “ἃ past prior to another 
past’’4 is not always true. 

(8) A Luxury in Greek. The Greeks cared nothing for rela- 
tive time, though that was not the only use for the past perfect, 
as just stated.® Ordinarily the aorist ind. was sufficient for a 
narrative unless the durative idea was wanted when the imperfect 
was ready to hand. Herodotus shows a fondness for the past 
perfect.6 It disappeared in Greek before the present perfect,’ 
though in the N. T. it still survives in current, but not common, 
usage.2 It was never so frequent in Greek as the past perfect 


1N. T. M. and T., p. 40. $ Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 201. 

2 Giles, Man., p. 457. 4 Thompson, Synt., p. 217. 

δ Moulton, Prol., p. 148. It is absent from the Bootian dial. (Claflin, 
Synt., etc., p. 72). 

§ Stahl, Krit.-hist. Synt., p. 122. 

7 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 441. ®sDlass, Grs of N. Ty Gk: p. 201; 


904. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


was in Latin. The N. T. idiom conforms to that of the older 
language. 

(y) The Intensive Past Perfect. Present perfects that had 
come to be mere presents through accent on the durative idea 
and loss of emphasis on the aoristic (punctiliar) are virtual im- 
perfects when turned into the past. Cf. ὡς εἰώθει (Mk. 10:1). 
So ἤὔδειν (Jo. 1:31), ἱστήκεισαν (JO. 19:25; cf. Ac. 1:10 f.), ἔπε- 
mola (Lu. 11:22) and even ἐγνώκειτε (Mt. 12:7),! for ἔγνωκα 
sometimes is used like οἶδα (1 Jo. 2:4). So with ἦν ἀπολωλώς (Lu. 
15 : 24; ef. εὑρέθη. Here we have a mere existing state in the 
past with the obscuration of the idea of completion (aoristic- 
punctiliar). But it is to be noted that the durative sense is usually 
a changed meaning from the aoristic sense. Cf.-oféa from εἶδον. 
For this idiom in classic Greek see Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 103. 
Cf. also E. Schwartz, Index to Hus., pp. 214 ff. 

(5) The Extensive Past Perfect. The past perfect usually pre- 
sents a completed state or fixed condition in past time. As already 
said, it is not necessarily “‘a blend of past and preeterpast.”’2 In 
Latin the past perfect shows no trace of the Aktconsart of the per- 
fect; the past perfect is just time relatively past. The Greek past 
perfect expresses a state following a.completed act in past time.’ 
Sometimes it is made clear by the context that a considerable 
space of time had intervened, though this is quite incidental with 
the Greek. Take Jo. 6:17, καὶ σκοτία ἤδη ἔγεγόνει καὶ οὔπω ἐληλύθει 
πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς. ‘The verb in the sentence before is ἤρχοντο 
(deseriptive) and the verb following is διεγείρετο (inchoative). The 
time of these imperfects is, of course, past. But the two interven- 
ing past perfects indicate stages in the going (ἤρχοντο) before 
they reached the shore. Both ἤδη and οὔπω help to accent the 
interval between the first darkness and the final appearance of 
Jesus which is soon expressed by the vivid historical present, 
θεωροῦσιν (6:19). Here we have a past behind a past beyond a 
doubt from the standpoint of the writer, and that is the very rea- 
son why John used the past perfect here. In verse 16, as δὲ ὀψία 
ἐγένετο κατέβησαν of μαθηταί, he had been content with the aorist 
in both the principal and the subordinate clauses. He had not 
cared there to express relative time, to stress the interval at all. 
The tenses in Jo. 6: 16-21, by the way, form a very interesting 
study. John‘ does, as a matter of fact, use the past perfect more 

1 Moulton, Prol., p. 148. 2 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 397. 


* Brugmann, K. Vergl. Gr., pp. 569, 576. Cf. Stahl, Krit.-hist. Synt., pp. 
120 ff. 4 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 349. 


TENSE (XPONO2) 905 


frequently than do the Synoptists. He uses it to take the reader 
“behind the scenes” and often throws it in by way of parenthesis. 
Thus in 1:24 the past perfect ἀπεσταλμένοι ἦσαν points back to 
the aorist ἀπέστειλαν in 1:19. In 4:8 ἀπεληλύθεισαν is a paren- 
thetical explanation of what the disciples had done before this 
incident with the woman. So in 9:22 συνετέθειντο has ἤδη and 
notes a previous agreement. In 11:13 εἰρήκει points to a time 
just before, but note ἔδοξαν. The tenses in 11:11—13 are all in- 
teresting (εἶπε, λέγει, εἶπον, εἰρήκει, κεκοίμηνται, πορεύομαι, σωθήσεται). 
In 11:19 ἐληλύθεισαν denotes antecedent action, and in 11 : 80, 
οὔπω é\—, the interval is marked. Cf. also 11:44, περιεδέδετο. 
In 11: 57 δεδώκεισαν points backward as is true of οὐδέπω οὐδεὶς ἦν 
τεθειμένος (19:41). In 3:24 and 7:30; 8:20, the standpoint is 
later than the event described, but none the less it stretches 
backward though from a relatively future time. But this dis- 
tinction is not confined to John. Cf. Mt. 7:25, τεθεμελίωτο, 
which points back to verse 24. So in Mk. 14 : 44 δεδώκει refers to 
Judas’ previous arrangement. Cf. also ἐκβεβλήκει in Mk. 16:9 
with ἐφάνη. The tenses in Mk. 15:6-10 are interesting. The 
three past perfects all refer to antecedent action. Cf. φκοδόμητο 
with ἤγαγον in Lu. 4 : 29, and with ἐπορεύετο in verse 30. In Lu. 
16 : 20 ἐβέβλητο suggests that the poor man had been at the door 
some while. In Ac. 4 : 22 γεγόνει (cf. τῷ γεγονότι) does not pre- 
cede ἀπέλυσαν (verse 21) by any great amount of time, yet the in- 
terval is real (cf. 3:1-10).1. In Ac. 9:21 ἐληλύθει is contrasted 
with ἐστιν ὁ πορθήσας. In 14:23 οἵ. πεπιστεύκεισαν with παρέθεντο. 
Cf. Ac. 4:27 and 31. In 14:26 the reference is to the begin- 
ning of the tour from Antioch. In 20:16, κεκρίκει, and 20 : 38, 
εἰρήκει, the two ends of the action nearly come together, but in 
21:29 the antecedent action is clear. In Jo. 11:30, οὔπω ἐληλύ- 
ber — ἀλλ᾽ ἣν ἔτι --- ὅπου ὑπήντησεν, the three past tenses of the ind. 
come out well. In 11: 56 f. ri δοκεῖ ὑμῖν; ὅτι οὐ μὴ ἔλθῃ εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν; 
δεδώκεισαν, the three kinds of time (present, future, past) are all 
employed. But in 12:16 the aorist ind. is employed, οὐκ ἔγνω- 
σαν τὸ πρῶτον --- τότε ἐμνήσθησαν, though antecedent time is indi- 
cated by τὸ πρῶτον and τότε. Here the past perfect would more 
exactly have marked off τὸ πρῶτον. If the previous time is to be 
depicted in its course, the past perfect is used (Thumb, Handb., 
p:2163). 

(ec) The Past Perfect of Broken Continuity? ((**:>-:::). This 
is true of Lu. 8:29, πολλοῖς χρόνοις συνηρπάκει αὐτόν. It is an 

1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 201. 2 Moulton, Prol., p. 148. 


906 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


iterative past perfect in a series of links instead of a line, like the 
present perfect of broken continuity in Jo. 1:18. Cf. the perf. 
inf. in Ac. 8:11. 

(¢) Past Perfect in Conditional Sentences. Usually the aorist 
ind. occurs in these conditions of the second class determined as 
unfulfilled in relation to the past. But sometimes the past per- 
fect appears. Cf. Jo. 19:11; Ac. 26:32; 1 Jo. 2:19. See Con- 
ditional Sentences, ch. XIX. 

(n) The Periphrastic Past Perfect. This construction had al- 
ready begun in ancient Greek. In the third person plural of liquid 
and mute verbs it was uniformly done for the sake of euphony. 
It was occasionally found also with other verbs. In the modern 


Greek! we find εἶχα δεμένο, ‘I had bound,’ ἤμουν δεμένος or εἶχα ° 


δεθεῖ. "Ἔχω was at first more than a mere auxiliary, though in 
Herodotus it appears as a true auxiliary. The dramatists also 
use it often In the N. T. the examples with εἶχον are not nu- 
merous. Cf. συκῆν εἶχέν τις πεφυτευμένην (Lu. 18 : 6); ἣν εἶχον ἀπο- 
κειμένην (Lu. 19 : 20), really predicative accusative participles with 
ἔχω. But the past perfect with the perfect partic. and ἦν is rather 
common. Cf. Jo. 19:11. Burton* notes that about two-thirds 
of them are intensive and only one-third extensive. As examples 
of the intensive use see Mt. 26:43, ἦσαν BeBapnuevor; Lu. 15 : 24, 
ἦν ἀπολωλώς. Cf. also Lu. 1:7. Examples of the extensive type 
are ἦσαν ἐληλυθότες (Lu. 5:17); ἦσαν προεωρακότες (Ac. 21:29). For 
examples in the LXX see 2 Chron. 18 : 34; Judg. 8:11; Ex. 39: 
23, etc. See also βεβαπτισμένοι ὑπῆρχον (Ac. 8: 16). 

(0) Special Use of éxeiunv. This verb was used as the passive 
of τίθημι. The present was=a present perfect. So the imperfect 
was used as a past perfect, as in Jo. 20:12, ὅπου ἔκειτο τὸ σῶμαΞΞ 
‘where the body had lain’ or ‘had been placed.’ So in Jo. 2: 6 ἦσαν 
κείμεναι 18 & periphrastic past perfect in sense. Cf. Lu. 23 : 53, jv 
κείμενος. See also 19:20. Perhaps a similar notion is seen in 
ὁμοθυμαδὸν παρῆσαν (Ac. 12 : 20). 

(c) The Future Perfect (ὁ μέλλων συντελικός). There was never 
much need for this tense, perfect action in future time.‘ It is rare 


in ancient Greek and in the LXX (Thackeray, Gr., p. 194). The 


only active forms in the N. T. are εἰδήσω (Heb. 8: 11, LXX, pos- 
sibly a mere future) and the periphrastic form ἔσομαι πεποιθώς (Heb. 
2:13, LXX also). Both of these are intensive. Most of the MSS. 


1 Thumb, Handb., pp. 161, 165. 
2 Jebb in Vince. and Dickson’s Handb., p. 329. 
2 Ne To Mwvand Tor 45. 4 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 395. 


a 


TENSE (XPONOS) 907 


read κεκράξονται in Lu. 19:40, but NBL have κράξουσιν. This is 
also intensive (cf. xéxpaya), if it is accepted, as it is not by W. H. 
nor by Nestle. I note ἔσῃ μοι μεγάλην χάριταν κατ[ὰ] τεθειμ[ἐ]νο(ς), 
B. G. U. 596 (a.p. 84). The modern Greek has a fut. perf. in θὰ 
ἔχω δεμένο (Thumb, Handb., p. 162). In ἥξουσιν (Lu. 19:43) we 
have a practical future perfect (intensive). For the rest the fu- 
turum exactum is expressed only by means of the perfect part. and 
εἰμί. This idiom is found in the LXX (the active in Gen. 48 : 8; 
44:32; Is. 58:14, ete. The passive in Gen. 41:36; Ex. 12:6). 
N. T. examples are ἔσται δεδεμένον and ἔσται λελυμένον (Mt. 16: 
19); ἔσται λελυμένα (18 : 18); ἔσονται διαμεμερισμένοι (Liu. 12 : 52). 
These all seem to be extensive. For 8 βἰζθίοῃ of the future per- 
- fect see Thompson, Syntax of Attic Greek, p. 225f. This tense 
died before the future did. 

3. THE SUBJUNCTIVE AND OprTaTivE. The perfect optative 
is not found in the N. T. It was always rare in the Greek of 
the early period. See Hatzidakis, EHinl., p. 219. The only in- 
flected perf. subj. in the N. T. is εἰδῶ, which occurs nine times 
(Mt. 9:6; Mk. 2:10; Lu. 5 : 24, ete.).. But in this form the per- 
fect sense is gone. See ἵνα εἰδῆτε, P. B. M. 1178 (a.p. 194). In- 
deed, the perf. subj. was always very rare in Greek. In the 
Sanskrit the perf. tense, outside of the Vedic language, never de- 
veloped to any extent except in the ind. and the participle.t. In 
the classic Greek it was in subj. and opt. a mark of the literary 
style and did not really belong to the life of the people. The 
perf. subj. is absent from the vernacular modern Greek. - A little 
reflection will show how usually there was no demand for a true 
perfect, combining punctiliar and durative, in the subj. Even in 
the literary style of the older Greek, when the perf. subj. did 
occur it was often the periphrastic form in the active and nearly 
always so in the passive “The perfect of the side-moods is true 
to the kind of time, completion, intensity, overwhelming finality.’’ 
By “kind of time’ Gildersleeve means kind of action, not past, 
present or future. Cf. the LXX also, Is. 8/14; 10:20; 17:8. 
In Lu. 14:8 there appears to be a conscious change from κληθῇς 
tO μήποτε ἢ κεκλημένος, possibly suggesting a long-standing invi- 
tation by the latter. In Jo. 3:27, ἐὰν μὴ ἢ δεδομένον, it is punc- 
tiliar-durative. In 16:24, ἵνα ἧ πεπληρωμένη (cf. 1 Jo. 1:4), the 
consummation is emphasized (durative-punctiliar), extensive per- 

1 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 292. 


2 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 31f. Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 140. 
3 Gildersleeve, Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 401. 


908 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


fect (completed act). The same thing is true of 17:19, Wa ὦσιν 
ἡγιασμένοι, and 17:28, ἵνα dow τετελειωμένοι. In Jas. 5:15, κἂν ἦ 
πεποιηκώς, we seem to have the perfect of “broken continuity.” In 
2 Cor. 1:9, ἵνα μὴ πεποιθότες ὦμεν, it is merely intensive. 

4. Toe ImpErAtivE. What has been said of the rarity of 
the perf. subj. can be repeated concerning the perf. imper. Out 
of 2445 imperatives in the Attic orators the speeches themselves 
show only eight real perfects (Gildersleeve, Syntax, Part I, p. 
158. Cf. also Miller, “‘The Limitation of the Imperative in the 
Attic Orators,” A. J. P., xiii, 1892, pp. 399-486). In Is. 4:1 one 
may note κεκλήσθω intensive. The perfect imper. is common in 
Homer.! In the late Greek it occurred most frequently in the 


purely intensive perfects or in the third person singular of other - 


verbs2 But it is gone from the modern Greek and is nearly dead 
in the N. T. In Jas. 1:19 tore may be imperative (intensive) 
or ind. See the formula ἔρρωσθε (Ac. 15 : 29) and ἔρρωσο in Text. 
Rec. (28 : 30).2. The only other example is found in Mk. 4 : 39, 
σιώπα, πεφίμωσο, Where it is also intensive like the others. The 
durative idea is in both σιώπα (linear pres.) and πεφίμωσο, ‘keep 
on being quiet’ and ‘keep the muzzle on.’ The periphrastic perf. 
imper. occurs in Lu. 12:35, ἔστωσαν περιεζωσμέναι (intensive). Cf. 
καιόμενοι. The time of the perf. imper. and subj. is, of course, 
really future. 

5. Tur INFINITIVE. There were originally no tenses in the 
inf. (see Sanskrit), as has already been stated. But the Greek 
developed a double use of the inf. (the common use, and indir. 
discourse). 

(a) Indirect Discourse. In indir. discourse (cf. ch. XIX) the 
tenses of the inf. had the element of time, that of the direct. 
But in the N. T. there is no instance of the perf. inf. repre- 
senting a past perf. ind.4 The tense occurs in indir. discourse, 
but the time is not changed. Cf. Ac. 14:19 ἔσυρον ἔξω τῆς πό- 
News, νομίζοντες ἤδη τεθνηκέναι, (12 : 14) ἀπήγγειλεν ἑστάναι. So εἰδέναι 
in Lu. 22 : 84: γέγονέναι (Jo. 12:29); γεγονέναι (2 Tim. 2: 18). 
These examples are also all intensive perfects. So with Col. 
2:1, θέλω ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι. In 1 Tim. 6:17, παράγγελλε ὑψηλοφρονεῖν 
μηδὲ ἠλπικέναι (indir. command), the intensive perf. again occurs. 
In Lu. 10 : 36, δοκεῖ σοι γεγονέναι, we have ‘“‘the vivid present of 
story-telling.”® Cf. πεπραχέναι (Ac. 25 : 25). On the whole the 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 22. 4 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 52. 
2 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 23f. ὃ Moulton, Prol., p. 146. So Heb. 4:1. 
8 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 200 f. 


ΒΟ ων ὦν... ω... 


TENSE (XPONOS) 909 


perf. inf. is rather common (44 times, according to H. Scott) in 
the N. T.!. See further Jo. 12:18; Ac. 16:27; 27:18; Ro. 15: 
8; Heb. 11:3. 

(b) Perfect Infinitive not in Indirect Discourse. 

(a) Subject or Object Infinitive. Cf. 2 Pet. 2:21, μὴ ἐπεγνω- 
κέναι, Where the tense accents the climacteric aspect (durative- 
punctiliar) of the act and rather suggests antecedence (extensive) 
to ἦν. In Ac. 26 : 32, ἀπολελύσθαι ἐδύνατο, we have an instance of 
the obj. inf. with implied antecedence (extensive). Note also δὸς 
ἐργασίαν ἀπηλλάχθαι (Lu. 12:58). In Ac. 19:36 κατεσταλμένους 
ὑπάρχειν is a periphrastic form of the subject inf. In 2 Cor. 
5:11 note πεφανερῶσθαι with ἐλπίζω. Cf. 1 Pet. 4:3 (with ἀρκε- 
tos). Not very different is the use with ὥστε (Ro. 15:19). 

(8) With Prepositions. At first it may seem surprising that the 
perfect tense should occur with the articular inf. after preposi- 
tions. But the inf. does not lose its verbal character in such con- 
structions. It is still a verbal substantive. It is, of course, only 
by analogy that the tense function is brought into the infinitive. 
For the papyri note ἐπὶ τῷ γεγονέναι, P. Oxy. 294 (A.D. 22); ὑπὲρ 
τοῦ ἀπολελύσθαι σε, P. B. M. 42 (3.c. 168). Cf. μετὰ τὸ εἰρηκέναι 
(Heb. 10:15), the only instance with wera. Here the tense has 
the same force as εἴρηκεν in 10:9. It stands on record as said. 
We find it also with es, as in Eph. 1:8, εἰς τὸ εἰδέναι (intensive) 
and εἰς τὸ γεγονέναι (Heb. 11:3). It is most frequent with διά and 
the acc. (causal sense). So Mk. 5:4, δεδέσθαι καὶ διεσπάσθαι καὶ 
συντετρίφθαι (extensive). See οἰκοδομῆσθαι (Lu. 6:48). Cf. Ac. 18: 
2; 27:9. In8:11 we have the perf. inf. of “broken continuity.” 
In the N. T. the perf. inf. with prepositions appears only with 
διά, ets and μετά. 

6. THE PARTICIPLE. 

(a) The Meaning. The perf. part. either represents a state (in- 
tensive) or a completed act (extensive). Examples of the former 
are κεκοπιακώς (Jo. 4:6); ἑστώς (18 : 18); τὸ εἰωθός (Lu. 4:16). In- 
stances of the latter occur in ὁ εἰληφώς (Mt. 25 : 24); πεποιηκότες 
(Jo. 18:18). The perf. part. is quite common in the N. T. and 
preserves the usual idea of the tense. 

(Ὁ) The Time of the Tense. It is relative, not absolute. It 
may be coincident with that of the principal verb, usually so in 
the intensive use.2 Cf. Jo. 4:6 κεκοπιακὼς ἐκαθέζετο, (19 : 38) εἷ- 
δον ἤδη τεθνηκότα, (Ro. 15 : 14) ἐστε --- πεπληρωμένοι. But by sug- 
gestion the act may be represented as completed before that of 

1 W.-Th., p. 334. 2 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 71. 


910 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the principal verb and so antecedent action. Thus ἱστήκεισαν --- 
πεποιηκότες (JO. 18 : 18); προσφάτως ἐληλυθότα (Ac. 18 : 2); ἀπολελυ- 
μένην (Lu. 16:18); εἰρηκότος (Mt. 26:75). This antecedent action 
may be expressed also by the intensive perfect as in ἐξῆλθεν ὁ Te- 
θνηκώς (Jo. 11:44), but δεδεμένος is coincident action. So in Mk. 
5:15 ἱματισμένον 1s coincident, but τὸν ἐσχηκότα antecedent. Cf. 
Rev. 6:9. The modern Greek keeps the perf. part. (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 167). 

(c) The Perfect Tense Occurs with Various Uses of the Participle. 
The attributive part. has it. Cf. of ἀπεσταλμένοι (Ac. 10 : 17). 
Sometimes a distinction is drawn between the aorist and the 
perf. part. Cf. ὁ λαβών in Mt. 25:20 with ὁ εἰληφώς (25 : 24); 
ὁ καλέσας in Lu. 14: 9 with ὁ κεκληκώς (14:10). Cf. 2 Cor. 12 : 21; 
1 Pet. 2:10. The predicate participle also uses it. Cf. Lu. 8: 
46; 16:18, 20 f.; Jo. 19:33; Ac. 18:2; Heb. 18:23. With Rev. 
9:1, εἶδον πεπτωκότα, compare Lu. 10:18, ἐθεώρουν πεσόντα (the 
state, the act). 

(d) The Periphrastic Participle. There are two examples of this 
unusual idiom. Cf. Eph. 4:18 ἐσκοτωμένοι τῇ διανοίᾳ ὄντες, (Col. 
1:21) ὄντας ἀπηλλοτριωμένους. The durative aspect of the perfect 
is thus accented. Cf. Heb. 5:14 for ἔχω used periphrastically. 


re 


CHAPTER XIX 
MODE (ἜΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 


Introductory. For a brief sketch of the number of the modes 
and the reasons for treating the indicative as a mode see Conju- 
gation of the Verb, chapter VIII, v, (a). References are there 
given to the pertinent literature. The use of ἄν is given a brief 
treatment below in connection with the modes. The subject of 
conjunctions is divided for logical consistency. The Paratactic 
Conjunctions belong to the same division with Paratactic Sen- 
tences, while Hypotactic Conjunctions fall under Hypotactic Sen- 
tences. The conjunctions could of course be treated in sepa- 
rate chapter or as a division of the chapter on Particles (X XJ). 
That will be there done (v, 1) for Paratactic Conjunctions. Hy- 
potactic Conjunctions will there receive only summary treatment 
and can best be discussed in detail in connection with subordinate 
clauses. And there are advantages in the present method. It 
needs to be said also that the division of the treatment of modes 
into those of Independent and Subordinate Sentences (A and B) 
is purely arbitrary and for the sake of clearness. There is no real 
difference in the meaning of a mode in an independent and a 
dependent sentence. The significance of each mode will be suffi- 
ciently discussed under A (Independent Sentences). The inclu- 
sion of all the subordinate clauses under mode is likewise for the 
sake of perspicuity. Voice, tense, mode thus stand out sharply.! 
The difficulty of making a clear distinction in the significance of 
the modes has already been discussed in chapter VIII, v, (0). 

mood is a mode of statement, an attitude of mind in which the 
speaker conceives the matter stated. | Apollonius Dyskolos first 
described moods as ψυχικαὶ διαθέσεις. That is a correct descrip- 
tion of the function of mood as distinct from voice and tense.° 


1 Jann., Hist: Gk. Gr., pp. 445 ff., has this plan. I had already made my 
outline before reading his treatment of the subject. 
2 Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 185. 
8 Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 498; K.-G., I, p. 200; Stahl, Krit.-hist. Synt., 
p. 220. See Sandys, Hist. af Class. Scholarship, III, p. 458. 
911 


912 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


The mode is the manner of the affirmation, while voice and tense 
have to do with the action of the verb (voice with relation of the 
subject to the action of the verb, tense with the state of the 
action). But even so the matter is not always clear. The mode 
is far and away the most difficult theme in Greek syntax. Our 
modern grammatical nomenclature is never so clumsy as here in 
the effort to express “the delicate accuracy and beauty of those 
slight nuances of thought which the Greek reflected in the synthetic 
and manifold forms of his νου." So appeal is made to psychology 
to help us out. “If the moods are ψυχικαὶ διαθέσεις, why is not every 
utterance modal? Why does not every utterance denote a state 
of the soul? A universal psychology would be a universal syntax.’’? 
Every utterance does denote a state of the soul. This is one 
argument for treating the indicative as atmodéy The verb is neces- 
sarily modal from this point of view. But the term is naturally 
confined to the finite verb and denied to the infinitive and participle. 
Dionysius s Thrax does call the infinitive a ν mode, but he is not 
generally followed.? Gildersleeve? notes also that “moods are 
temporal and tenses modal.’ He sees that the order moods 
and tenses is the natural sequence in the English (ef. chapter 
VII, v), but he follows the order tenses and moods in _ his 
Syntax of Classical Greek, though it is hard to separate them 
in actual study. Gildersleeve® laments also that διάθεσις came 
to be applied to voice and ἔγκλισις to mode (ef. enclitie words 
as to accent), “but after all tone of utterance is not so bad 
a description of mood.” It is possible that at the beginning 
the indicative was used to express all the various moods or 
tones of the speaker, as the accusative case originally included 
the whole field of the oblique cases. It was only gradually 
that the other moods were developed by the side of the indic- 
ative (thus limiting the scope of the ind.) to accent certain 
“moods of mind, i.e. various shades of desire,’® more sharply. 
Thompson calls this development “artificial,” since no other race 
but the Greeks have preserved these fine distinctions between in- 
dicative, subjunctive, optative, imperative, not to say injunctive 











1 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 136. 

2 Gildersl., “‘A Syntactician among the Psychologists,’ Am. Jour. of 
Philol., Jan., 1910, p. 74. 

3 Cf. Steinthal, Gesch. d. Sprachw., pp. 309, 628. 

4 Am. Jour. of Philol., XXIII, p. 127; XXX, p. 1. 

δ Ib., XXX, p.1; Synt. of Classic. Gk., p. 79. 

6 Thompson, Synt., p. 510. 


inlaid ὰὦΝ 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 913 


and future indicative (almost a mode to itself). But that is too 
severe a term, for the modes were a gradual evolution. The in- 
junctive was the unaugmented indicative, like λύου, λύεσθε, λύσασθε, 
λύθητε, λύετε, λύσατε, σχές.: Moulton? says: ‘‘Syntactically it rep- 
resented the bare combination of verbal idea with the ending 
which supplies the subject; and its prevailing use was for prohi- 
bitions, if we may judge from the Sanskrit, where it still remains 
to some extent alive. The fact that this primitive mood thus 
occupies ground appropriate to the subjunctive, while it supplies 
the imperative ultimately with nearly all its forms, illustrates the 
syntactical nearness of the moods. Since the optative also can 
express prohibition, even in the N. T. (Mk. 11:14), we see how 
much common ground is shared by all the subjective moods.” 
Yes, and by the indicative also. The present indicative is often 
a practical future. Originally the subjunctive had the short 
vowel (cf. ἴομεν in Homer). The distinction between the indic- 
ative and subjunctive is not always clear... The subjunctive in 
Homer is often merely futuristic. The affinity between the sub- 
junctive and the optative is very close. The indicative continued 
to be used in the volitive sense (past tenses) and of command 
(future tense). Thus the other modes were luxuries of the lan- 
guage rather than necessities, while the indicative was the original 
possessor of the field. As already shown (chapter VIII, v) the 
injunctive survived in the imperative and subjunctive. The 
future indicative continued to fulfil the function of all the modes 
(cf. the indicative before the rise of the other modes). Thus the 
future indicative may be merely futuristic, or volitive, or delibera- 
tive. The same thing is true of the subjunctive and the optative. 
Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 184f. Thompson (Syntax, p. 186) curiously 
says that “the indicative, however, assumed some of the func- 
tions of the other moods.” If he had said “retained,” he would 
have it right. He had just said properly enough: “It would be an 
error, with regard both to their origin and functions, to regard — 
the moods as separate and water-tight compartments.” The early 
process was from simplicity to variety and then from variety to 
simplicity (cf. again the history of the cases). The struggle be- 
tween the modes has continued until in the modern Greek we 
have practically only the indicative and the subjunctive, and they 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 165. 

2 Ib. Cf. also Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 510. The injunctive had 
“a meaning hovering between the imperative, conjunctive and optative.” 

3 Giles, Man., p. 459. 


914 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


are in some instances alike in sound (Thumb, Handb., p. 115 f.). 
The subj. is “considerably reduced” in use in the modern 
Greek. The optative has disappeared entirely, and the im- 
perative, outside the second person, and the future indicative 
are expressed by periphrasis. Even the infinitive and the par- 
ticiple in the κοινή have felt the inroads of the subjunctive.! 
It is true that as a rule we see the modes to best advantage in 
the simple sentence,” though essentially the meaning in the com- 
pound sentence is the same. But it is true, as Gildersleeve? 
urges, that “the predominance of parataxis over hypotaxis is a 
matter of style as well as of period. Hypotaxis holds fast to 
constructions that parataxis has abandoned. The futural subjunc- 
tive abides defiantly in the dependent clause of temporal sen- 
tences and dares the future indicative to invade its domain. The 
modal nature of the future, obscured in the principal sentence, 
forces itself upon the most superficial observer in the dependent 
clause.” In a broad sense the indicative is the mode of objective 
statement in contrast with the subjective modes developed 
from it. But the description needs modification and is only true 
in a general sense. The N.T. idiom as of the κοινή in general will 
be found to differ from the classic Greek idiom here more than is 
true of the construction of the tenses. The disappearance of the 
optative is responsible for part of this change. But the effort 
must now be made to differentiate the four modes in actual usage 
whatever may be true of the original idea of each. That point 
will need discussion also. The vernacular in all languages is fond 
of parataxis. See Pfister, ‘ Die parataktische Darstellungsform in 
der volkstiimlichen Erzihlung” (Woch. f. klass. Phil., 1911, pp. 
809-813). 


A. INDEPENDENT OR PARATACTIC SENTENCES (IAPATAKTIKA 
᾿ΑΞΙΩΜΑΤΑῚ) 


I. The Indicative Mode (λόγος ἀποφαντικός or ἡ ὁριστικὴ 
ἔγκλισις). 

1. ΜΒΑΝΙΝα or THE INDICATIVE ΜΟΡῈΕ. 

The name is not distinctive, since all the modes “indicate.” It 
is not true that the indicative gives “absolute reality,’’®> though it 


1 Thompson, Synt., p. 494. In the Sans. it was the subjunctive that went 
down in the fight. Cf. Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 201 f. 

2 Tb3°p.495: 3 Am. Jour. of Philol., Jan., 1909, p. 2. 

4 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 205. 

5 Bernhardy, Wiss. Synt. der griech. Sprache, p. 384. 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 915 


is the ‘‘modus rectus.” It does express ‘“‘l’affirmation pure et 
simple.’’! |The indicative does state a thing as true, but does not 
guarantee the reality of the thing. In the nature of the case only 
-the statement is under discussion.| A clear grip on this point will 
help one all along. The indicative has nothing to do with reality 
(‘an sich’’).2 The speaker presents something as true.? Actuality 
is implied, to be sure, but nothing more.’ Whether it is true or 
no is another matter. Most untruths are told in the indicative 
mode. The true translation into Latin of ὁριστική would be finitus or 
defintus.» Indicativus is a translation of ἀποφαντικός. The indic- 
ative is the most frequent mode in all languages. It is the nor- 
mal mode to use when there is no special reason for employing 
another mode. The assertion may be qualified or unqualified. 
This fact does not affect the function of the indicative mode to 
make a definite, positive assertion. Cf. Jo. 13:8, for instance. 
A fine study of the indicative mode is afforded in Jo. 1 : 1-18, 
where we have it 38 times, chiefly in independent sentences. The 
subjunctive occurs only three times (1:7 f.). The use of ἦν, ἐγέ- 
veto, ἦλθεν, οὐκ ἔγνω, παρέλαβον, ἔλαβον, ἔδωκεν, ἐθεασάμεθα, etc., has the 
note of certitude and confident statement that illustrate finely 
the indicative mode. 

2. Kinps oF SENTENCES USING THE INDICATIVE. 

(a) Either Declarative or Interrogative. The mere declaration 
probably (and logically) precedes in use the question.’ But there 
is no essential difference in the significance of the mode. This 
extension of the indicative from simple assertion to question is 
true of all Indo-Germanic tongues.’ Cf. Mt. 2:2; Mk. 4:7; Jo. 
1:19. The simple assertion is easily turned to question. Cf. 
ἐπείνασα yap ἐδώκατξε μοι φαγεῖν, ἐδίψησα καὶ ἐποτίσατέ με, KTA., and 
πότε σε εἴδομεν πεινῶντα καὶ ἐθρέψαμεν, κτλ. (Mt. 28 : 35-39). For 
the change from question to simple assertion see πιστεύεις τοῦτο; 
ἔγὼ πεπίστευκα (JO. 11:26f.). Cf. Ac. 26:27. The formula σὺ 
λέγεις iS Sometimes used for the answer, as in Mt. 27:11; Lu. 
22:70; Jo. 18:37. So also od εἶπας in Mt. 26:25, 64. The 
question without interrogative words is seen in Mt. 11: 28; Jo. 
13 :6; Ac. 21:37; Ro. 2 : 21-23; 7:7, etc. Sometimes it is diffi- 


1 Vandacle, L’Optatif Gree, 1897, p. 111. 2.K.-G:, Bd. I, p. 201. 
3 Ib. Der Redende stellt etwas als wirklich. 

4 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., Ὁ. 445. 

5 Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 297 f. 

6 Burton, M. and T., p. 73. 

‘7 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 445. Peblass, Gr. votsN. 1 Gksp. 205. 


ν 


916 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


cult to tell whether a sentence is declarative or interrogative, as 
ine)’ Gore ΒΝ 

For this very reason the Greek used various interrogatory par- 
ticles to make plain the question. Thus apa ye γινώσκεις ἃ ava- 
γινώσκεις; (Ac. 8:30. Note the play on the verb). Cf. Lu. 18 : 8; 
Gal. 2:17. It is rare also in the LXX (cf. Gen. 18:9; 37:10; 
Jer. 4:10), but ἄρα is common.! It is a slight literary touch in 
Luke and Paul. The use of εἰ in a question is elliptical. It is 
really a condition with the conclusion not expressed or it is an 
indirect question (cf. Mk. 15:44; Lu. 23:6; Ph. 3:12). It is 
used in the N. T., as in the LX X quite often (Gen. 17: 17, etc.). 
This construction with a direct question is unclassical and may 
be due to the Septuagint rendering of the Hebrew 7 by εἰ as well 
as by μή.Σ Cf. Mt. 12:10, Ei ἔξεστιν τοῖς σάββασιν θεραπεῦσαι; see 
alsooMt.19:°3;"Mk. 89238 Luris: 237 227493 Acris Gy feel 
2; 21: 37; 22:25. Note frequency in Luke. In Mk. 10: 2 (parallel 
to Mt. 19: 3) the question is indirect. The idiom, though singular, 
has “attained to all the rights of a direct interrogative’’* by this 
time. The idiom may be illustrated by the Latin an which in 
later writers was used in direct questions. So 81, used in the Vul- 
gate to translate this εἰ, became in late Latin a direct interroga- 
tive particle. A similar ellipsis appears in the, use of εἰ (ef. Heb. 
3:11) in the negative sense of a strong oath (from the LXX also).4 
The particle ἢ is found in the LXX Job 25:5 B, but not in the 
N.T.°> So far the questions are colourless. 

The use of interrogative pronouns and adverbs is, of course, 
abundant in the N. T. Thus τίς, either alone as in Mt. 3 : 7, with 
ἄρα as in Mt. 24:45, with yap as in Mt. 9:5, with οὖν as in Lu. 
3:10.6 See the double interrogative ris τί n Mk. 15:24. For ri 
τοῦτο (predicative use of τοῦτο) see Lu. 16:2. For the ellipsis 
with ἵνα τί (cf. διὰ τί in Mt. 9:11; εἰς τί in Mk. 14:4) see Mt. 
9:4, and for τί ὅτι note Lu. 2:49 (ef. τί γέγονεν ὅτι in Jo. 14: 
22). The use of τί in Ac. 12:18 and 13: 25 is interesting. Ti is an 
accusative adverb in Mk.10:18. A sort of prolepsis or double 
accusative occurs in οἶδα σὲ τίς εἶ (Mk. 1:24). Other pronouns 
used in direct questions are ποῖος (Mk. 11:28), πόσος (Mk. 6: 


1 Viteau, Etude sur le Grec du N. T. Le Verbe, p. 22. Some editors read 
ἄρα in Gal. 2:17, but see Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 259. See ἄρα in Mt. 18: 1. 

2 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 260. 

3. W.-Th., p. 509. 4 Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 179. 

5 Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 22. 

6 Cf. Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 178. 


δ λα... 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 917 


38), ποταπός (Mt. 8:27). The sense of 6 in Mt. 26: 50 is dis- 
puted, as of ὅτι in Mk. 2:16; 9:11, 28; Jo. 8: 25.1 The use of 
interrogative adverbs is frequent. Cf., πότε (Mt. 25:38); ἕως 
πότε (Mt. 17 : 17); πῶς (Lu. 10 : 26); ποῦ (Lu. 8 : 25); ποσάκις (Mt. 
18.: 21). 

Alternative questions are expressed by 7 alone as in 1 Cor. 9: 
8, or with τί --- 7 as in Mt. 9:5. The case of ἢ τίς is different 
(Mt. 7:9). 

Exclamations are sometimes expressed by the relative forms, 
like ὡς ὡραῖοι in Ro. 10:15, but more frequently by the inter- 
rogative pronouns like πόσα (Mk. 15 : 4); πηλίκος (Gal. 6:11); τί 
(Lu. 12 : 49); ποσάκις (Mt. 23 : 37). Cf. πόσον in Mt. 6: 23. 

(b) Positive and Negative. If an affirmative or negative an- 
swer is expected, then that fact is shown by the use of ov for 
the question expecting the affirmative reply and by μή for the 
negative answer. As a matter of fact, any answer may be ac- 
tually given. It is only the expectation that is presented by οὐ 
or μή. This use of οὐ is like the Latin nonne. So οὐ τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι 
expopynretvoauev; (Mt. 7:22). Cf. Mt. 6:25; 18 : 27; 13:55; Lu. 
Το 5: 1} litle Cor. 9 Ἰ 14524 Jas: 2:25; Heb. 3% 
16, etc. This is the common classic construction. The use of οὐ 
may suggest indignation as in οὐκ ἀποκρίνῃ οὐδέν; (Mk. 14 : 60. Cf. 
οὐκ ἀπεκρίνατο οὐδέν in verse 61). So with οὐ παύσῃ διαστρέφων; (Ac. 
13:10). Surprise is indicated by οὐκ ἄρα in Ac. 21:38. Οὐχί is 
common. Cf. Lu. 6:39. Οὐκοῦν occurs once in the N. T. (Jo. 
18 : 37). The presence of μή shows that the answer “‘no”’ is an- 
ticipated (the only instance of μή with the indicative in a princi- 
pal sentence). Gildersleeve? calls οὐ ‘‘the masculine negative” 
and μή ‘“‘the feminine negative.’’? There is certainly a feminine 
touch in the use of μή by the woman at Jacob’s well when she 
came to the village. She refused to arouse opposition by using 
οὐ and excited their curiosity by μή. Thus μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ 
Χριστός; (Jo. 4: 29).2 The examples in the N. T. are very numer- 
ous. The shades of negative expectation and surprise vary very 
greatly. Each context supplies a slightly different tone. Cf. 
Wit (aioe Onion 2530265222" 25°*M ka 4 21 ΣᾺ]. 6 80: 05:6: 
Dini 05 80) 17 011.; 2120; Ro. 9:14: 11:12 Both:ot and yy 
may occur in contrast in the same sentence. So μὴ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον 
ταῦτα λαλῶ, ἢ Kal ὁ νόμος ταῦτα οὐ λέγει; (1 Cor. 9:8). Cf. Lu. 6: 
39 μήτι δύναται τυφλὸς τυφλὸν ὁδηγεῖν; οὐχὶ ἀμφότεροι εἰς βόθυνον ἐμπε- 

1 See ch. XV, Pronouns. 
2 Am. Jour. of Philol., Jan., 1910, p. 78. 8 Cf. also Jo. 4 : 33. 


918 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


σοῦνται; The use of μήτι is common (ef. οὐχί). The combination 
μὴ ov will be discussed in the chapter on Particles, but it may be 
noted here that οὐ is the negative of the verb while μή is the in- 
terrogative particle expecting the answer “πο. The English 
translation expects the answer ‘‘yes,” because it ignores μή and 
translates only οὐ Cf. 1 Cor. 9:4, 5; 11:22; Ro. 10:18, 19. 
The construction is in the LXX (πάρ. 6 : 18, etc.) and in classic 
Greek. It is a rhetorical question, not a simple interrogative.? 
The kinds of sentences overlap inevitably so that we have already 
transgressed into the territory of the next group. 

As already shown, the indicative is used indifferently with or 
without the negative in either declarative or interrogative sen- 
tences. The groups thus overlap. Cf., for instance, Jo. 1: 2-8. 
The negative of a declarative independent sentence with the in- 
dicative is od. This outright ‘‘masculine’” negative suits the 
indicative. With questions, however, it is different, as has already 


been shown. Thus it is true that μή made a “raid” into the in- 


dicative, as οὐ did in the early language into the subjunctive.’ 
The optative uses either od or μή, but that is another story. The 
indicative with οὐ makes a pointed denial. Note the progressive 
abruptness of the Baptist’s three denials in Jo. 1 : 20 f. 

3. SPECIAL UsEs OF THE INDICATIVE. 

(a) Past Tenses. 

(a) For Courtesy. It is true that the indicative “15 suited by 
its whole character only to positive and negative statements, and 
not to the expression of contingencies, wishes, commands or 
other subjective conceptions.’”’* That is perfectly true. The in- 
dicative is the normal mode for saying a thing. The other modes 
Gildersleeve® aptly terms ‘‘side moods.” I consider, as already 
explained, the indicative the mode par excellence, and I doubt the 
value of such language as “the modal uses of the indicative.’’® 
It is not so much that the indicative ‘encroached upon the other 
moods, and in so doing assumed their functions, especially in de- 
pendent sentences,’’? as that the indicative, particularly in de- 
pendent sentences, retained to some extent all the functions of 
all the modes. It is true, as already said, that the indicative was 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 254. 

? Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 179. 

3 Cf. Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., Jan., 1910, p. 78. 

4 Moulton, Prol., p. 199. 5 Synt. of Classic Gk., Pt. I, § 365. 
6 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 235. 

7 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 186. 








MODE (ΕΓ ΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 919 


always the most virile of all the modes and has outlived them all. 
But, after the other modes became fully developed, these less fre- 
quent uses of the indicative seemed anomalous. The courteous or 
polite use of the imperfect indicative is the simplest of these spe- 
cial constructions. Here the indicative is used for direct assertion, 
but the statement is thrown into a past tense, though the present 
time is contemplated. We do this in English when we say: “I was 
just thinking,” “1 was on the point of saying,” etc. So Ac. 25: 
22, ἐβουλόμην καὶ αὐτὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀκοῦσαι. Agrippa does not 
bluntly say βούλομαι (cf. Paul in 1 Tim. 2:8; 5:14) nor ἐβουλόμην 
av, which would suggest unreality, a thing not true. He does wish. 
He could have said βουλοίμην ἄν (cf. Ac. 26:29, where Paul uses 
the optative), but the simple ἐβουλόμην is better. The optative 
would have been much weaker.'' In 2 Cor. 1:15 ἐβουλόμην πρό- 
τερον has its natural reference to past time. Cf. ἐβουλήθην in 2 
Jo. 12 and Phil. 13, ἐβουλόμην, not ‘would have liked’ as Blass 
(Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 207) has it. In Gal. 4: 20, ἤθελον δὲ παρεῖναι 
πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἄρτι, Paul is speaking of present time (ef. ὅτι ἀποροῦμαι). 
He puts the statement in the imperfect as a polite idiom. The 
use of θέλω is seen in Ro. 16:19. The usual foree of the mode 
and tense appears in ἤθελον in Jo. 6:21. The negative brings out 
sharply the element of will (cf. Lu. 19:14; Mt. 22:3). In Ro. 
9:3, ηὐχόμην yap ἀνάθεμα εἶναι αὐτὸς ἔγὼ ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, the same 
courteous (even passionate) idiom occurs. It is not εὔχομαι as in 
2 Cor. 13:7 (he does not dare pray such a prayer), nor did he 
do it (cf. ηὔχοντο Ac. 27: 29). He was, however, on the verge of 
doing it, but drew back. With this example we come close to the 
use of the indicative for unreality, the so-called “unreal” indica- 
tive. See also chapter on Tense. 

(8) Present Necessity, Obligation, Possibility, Propriety in 
Tenses of the Past. This is the usual “potential” indicative. 
The imperfect of such verbs does not necessarily refer to the 
present.2 Thus in Jo. 4:4, ἔδει αὐτὸν διέρχεσθαι διὰ τῆς Σαμαρίας, it 
is simply a necessity in past time about a past event. So de? in 
Jo. 4:20, 24 expresses a present necessity. This use of the im- 
perfect ée thus differs from either the present or the ordinary 
imperfect. The idiom is logical enough.’ It was a necessity and 
the statement may be confined to that phase of the matter, though 
the necessity still exists. So Lu. 24:26, οὐχὶ ταῦτα ἔδει παθεῖν τὸν 
Xpicrov; Cf. also Mt. 18: 33; 23: 23; 25: 27; Lu. 11: 42; 13 : 16 (cf. 

1 W.-Th., p. 283. 
2 K.-G., Bd. I, p. 204 f. 3 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 206. 


920 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


δεῖ in verse 14); Ac. 27:21. It is an easy step from this notion to 
that of an obligation which comes over from the past and is not 
lived up to. The present non-fulfilment of the obligation is left 
to the inference of the reader or hearer. It is not formally stated. 
It happens that in the N. T. it is only in the subordinate clauses 
that the further development of this use of ἔδει comes, when only 
the present time is referred to. Thus in Ac. 24:19, ods ἔδει ἐπὶ 
σοῦ παρεῖναι. They ought to be here, but they are not. Our Eng- 
lish “ought” is likewise a past form about the present as well as 
about the past. So 2 Cor. 2:3, ad’ ὧν ἔδει με χαίρειν. In Heb. 
9 : 26, ἐπεὶ ἔδει αὐτὸν πολλάκις παθεῖν, there is an implied condition 
and ἔδει is practically an apodosis of the second-class ‘condition, 
which see. The same process is seen in the other words. Thus 
in 2 Cor. 12:11, ἐγὼ Sedov ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν συνίστασθαι, we have a simple 
past obligation. So in Lu. 7:41; Heb. 2:17. Note common use 
of the present tense also, as in Ac. 17:29. Cf. ὃ ὠφείλομεν ποιῆσαι 
πεποιήκαμεν (Lu. 17: 10), where the obligation comes on from the 
past. But in 1 Cor. 5:10, ἐπεὶ ὠφείλετε ἄρα ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἐξελθεῖν, 
we have merely present time under consideration and a practical 
apodosis of a second-class condition implied. I do not agree with 
Moulton? that ἄν in such instances has been ‘‘dropped.”’ It simply 
was not needed to suggest the unreality or non-realization of the 
obligation. The context made it clear enough. Χρή occurs only 
once inthe N. T. (Jas. 3 : 10), whereas προσήκει (Attic) is not found 
at all, nor ἔξεστι (but ἐξόν) nor ἐξῆν. But ἐδύνατο is used of the 
present time. So Jo. 11:37. Cf. the apodosis in the second-class 
condition without ἄν in Jo. 9:33; Ac. 26:32. The use of ὡς ἀνῆκεν 
(Col. 3:18) and ἃ οὐκ ἀνῆκεν (Eph. 5: 4) are both pertinent, though 
in subordinate clauses. Note in particular οὐ γὰρ καθῆκεν αὐτὸν ζῆν 
(Ac. 22 : 22), ‘He is not fit to live.’ In Mt. 26: 24, καλὸν ἦν αὐτῷ 
εἰ οὐκ ἔγεννήθη, we have the apodosis without ἄν of a condition of 
the second class (determined as unfulfilled). There is no condition 
expressed in 2 Pet. 2:21, κρεῖττον yap jv αὐτοῖς μὴ ἐπεγνωκέναι τὴν 
ὁδὸν τῆς δικαιοσύνης. Moulton? finds the origin of this idiom in the 
conditional sentence, but Winer’ sees in it merely the Greek way 
of affirming what was necessary, possible or appropriate in itself. 
So Gildersleeve.* The modern Greek preserves this idiom (Thumb, 


1 Our transl. therefore often fails to distinguish the two senses of ἔδει in Gk. 
Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 144f. Cf. chapter on Tense. 

2 Prol:, p. 200. 

3 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 206. 5 W.-Th., p. 282. 

4 Prol., p. 200. 6 Synt., Pt. I, p. 144. 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 921 


Handb., p. 128). The use of ἔμελλον in Rev. 3: 2 approaches this 
potential indicative. Cf. Thompson, Syntax, p. 274. For the use 
of the infinitive rather than the indicative see ἢ — πεσεῖν in Lu. 16: 
17. So also ἵνα and subjunctive as in Jo. 6:7. Cf. Viteau, Le 
Verbe, Ὁ. 21. The use of ὀλίγου or μικροῦ with an aorist does not 
occur in the N. T. Cf. Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 445. 

(y) The Apodosis of Conditions of the Second Class.. This 
matter has already been touched on slightly and is treated at 
length under Conditional Sentences. It can be merely sketched 
here. The condition is not always expressed and ἄν usually is 
present. The use of ἄν, however, in the apodosis is not obliga- 
tory.!. We know very little about the origin and meaning of ἄν 
anyhow. It seems to have a demonstrative sense (definite, then, 
in that case) which was shifted to an indefinite use. Cf. τὸν καὶ 
Tov, τὰ Kat Ta.” Gildersleeve interprets it as a particle ‘fused to 
colour the moods of the Greek language.’”’? With the past tenses 
of the indicative in independent sentences it is a definite particle. 
The effort to express unreality by the indicative was a somewhat 
difficult process. In Homer ‘the unreal imperfect indicative 
always refers to the past.”? So in Heb. 11:15. Nothing but 
the context can show whether these past tenses are used in oppo- 
sition to the past or the present. The κοινή received this idiom of 
the unreal indicative ‘‘from the earlier age as a fully grown and 
normal usage, which it proceeded to limit in various directions.’’4 
In Jo. 15:22 we have a good illustration of this construction. 
We know that ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ εἴχοσαν is in Opposition to the present 
reality because it is followed by viv δὲ πρόφασιν οὐκ ἔχουσιν. The 
same thing is seen in verse 24 when νῦν δὲ ἑωράκασιν follows. In 
verse 19 ἂν ἐφίλει is used, the usual construction. In Lu. 17:6 
ἐλέγετε ἄν and ὑπήκουσεν ἄν are used after the protasis εἰ ἔχετε (first- 
class condition). This is a mixed condition. So also the marginal 
reading in W. H. in Jo. 8:39 is ἐποιεῖτε after εἰ ἐστέ and is fol- 
lowed by νῦν δὲ ζητεῖτε (cf. above). The absence of ἄν seems more 
noticeable in John’s Gospel. Cf. Jo. 19:11, οὐκ εἶχες ἐξουσίαν Kar’ 
ἐμοῦ οὐδεμίαν εἰ μὴ Hv δεδομένον σοι ἄνωθεν" Paul has the same® 
idiom. Thus Gal. 4:15 εἰ δυνατὸν τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὑμῶν ἐξορύξαντες 
ἐδώκατέ μοι and Ro. 7: 7 τὴν ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἔγνων εἰ μὴ διὰ νόμου, τήν τε 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 205. 2 Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 168 f. 

3 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., Jan., 1909, p. 16. Cf. Stahl, Krit.-hist. 
Synt., p. 251 f. 

4 Moulton, Prol., p. 199. 5 Here δὰ read ἔχεις. 


6 But not in Acts. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 206. 


922 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


γὰρ ἐπιθυμίαν οὐκ ἤδειν εἰ μὴ ὁ νόμος. The MSS. vary in the support 
of ἄν as in Gal. 4:15, where EKLP (and X°D°*) have it. In Jo. 
18 : 36, B does not have ἄν, while in 8:19, D does not have it, 
and: the other MSS. differ in the position of ἄν. This particle 
comes near the beginning of the clause, though not at the begin- 
ning. It does not precede οὐκ (cf. Gal. 1:10). It is sometimes 
repeated in successive apodoses (cf. Jo. 4:10), but not always 
(cf. Lu. 12:39). Cf. Kiihner-Gerth, Bd. I, p. 247. On the use 
of ἄν in general see Thompson, Syntaz, pp. 291 ff. Hoogeveen 
(Doctrina Partic. Linguae Graecae, ed. sec., 1806, p. 35) makes 
ἄν mean simply debeo, a very doubtful interpretation. ‘The 
addition of ἄν to an indicative apodosis produced much the same 
effect as we can express in writing by italicizing ‘if.’ 2 This 
emphasis suggests that the condition was not realized. The 
papyri likewise occasionally show the absence of ἄν The condi- 
tion is not always expressed. It may be definitely implied in the 
context or left to inference. So κἀγὼ ἐλθὼν σὺν τόκῳ ἂν ἔπραξα αὐτό 
(Lu. 19 : 23) and καὶ ἐλθὼν ἔγὼ ἐκομισάμην ἂν τὸ ἐμὸν σὺν τόκῳ (Mt. 
25 : 27). Here the condition is implied in the context, a con- 
struction thoroughly classical. But, in principal clauses, there is 
no instance of ἄν with a past tense of the indicative in a frequent- 
ative sense.* It only survives in relative, comparative or tem- 
poral clauses (cf. Mk. 6 : 56; Ac. 2:45; 4 : 35; 1 Cor. 12 : 2; Mk. 
3:11; 11:19). So Din Mk. 15 : 6, ὃν ἂν ἠτοῦντο. Both the aorist 
and the imperfect tenses are used thus with ἄν in these subordinate 
clauses. There was considerable ambiguity in the use of the past 
tenses for this ‘‘unreal”’ indicative. No hard and fast rule could 
be laid down. A past tense of the indicative, in a condition with- 
out av, naturally meant a simple condition of the first class and 
described past time (cf. Heb. 12:25). But in certain contexts 
it was a condition of the second class (as in Jo. 15 : 22, 24). Even 
with ἄν it is not certain® whether past or present time is meant. 
The certain application to present time is probably post- 
Homeric. The imperfect might denote’? a past condition, as in 
Mt..23 £303) 24/43 (Lu. 12% 39); Jon4.210; 81221032 aie 

1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 206. 2 Moulton, Prol., p. 200. 

3 Ib. Cf. Moulton, Class. Quart., Apr., 1908, p. 140. Moulton (Prol., p. 
200) cites without ἄν O.P. 526 (i1/A.D.) οὐ wapéBevov, O.P. 530 (ii/A.D.) πάλιν σοι 
ἀπεστάλκειν, Rein. P. 7 (ii/B.c.) οὐκ ἀπέστηι, all apodoses of 2d class conditions. 
The mod. Gk. here uses the conditional θά (Thumb, Handb., p. 195). 

4 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 207. Cf. Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 170 f. 


5 Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., § 399. 
6 Monro, Hom. Gr., pp. 236 f. 7 Moulton, Prol., p. 201. 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 923 


19; Heb. 11:15, or, as commonly, a present condition (cf. Lu. 7: 
39). The aorist would naturally denote past time, as in Mt. 11: 
21. The two tenses may come in the same condition and con- 
clusion, as in Jo. 14: 28. The past perfect is found in the protasis, 
as in Mt. 12:7; Jo. 19:11. Once the real past perfect meets us 
in the conclusion (1 Jo. 2:19). And note ἂν ἤδειτε in Jo. 14: 7. 

(6) Impossible Wishes. ‘These impracticable wishes were in- 
troduced in Attic by εἴθε or εἰ yap, which used also Sedov with the 
infinitive. From this form a particle was developed ὄφελον (aug- 
mentless) which took the place of εἴθε and εἰ γάρ. The dropping 
of the augment is noted in Herodotus (Moulton, Prol., p. 201). 
As a matter of fact, this unfulfilled wish occurs only three times 
in the N. T.: once with the aorist about the past, ὄφελόν γε ἐβασι- 
λεύσατε (1 Cor. 4:8), and twice with the imperfect about the 
present (2 Cor. 11:1; Rev. 3:15). ”Odedov occurs once also with 
the future (Gal. 5:12). Many of the MSS. (D°EFGKL) read 
ὥφελον in 2 Cor. 11: 1, and a few do the same in 1 Cor. 4:8. The 
idiom occurs in the LXX and in the inscriptions. Cf. Schwyzer, 
Perg., Ὁ. 173. The modern Greek expresses such wishes by va or 
ἄς and imperf. or aorist (Thumb, p. 128). For ἔδραμον in Gal. 2: 
2, of unrealized purpose, see Final Clauses. Radermacher (N. 7’. 
Gr., p. 127) quotes ὄφελον ἔμεινας, Achilles Tatius, II, 24, 3, and 
ὥφελον ἔγὼ μᾶλλον ἐπύρεσσον, Epict., Diss., 22, 12. 

(b) The Present. In Mt. 12:38, διδάσκαλε, θέλομεν ἀπὸ σοῦ on- 
μεῖον ἰδεῖν, the present seems rather abrupt.! In Jo. 12 : 21, κύριε, 
θέλομεν τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν ἰδεῖν, this is felt so strongly that it is translated: 
‘Sir, we would see Jesus.’ See also Jo. 6:67. Cf. ἐβουλόμην in 
Ac. 25 : 22 and εὐξαίμην ἄν in 26:29. There does not seem to be 
the same abruptness in θέλω in 1 Cor. 7:7. Cf. also φείδομαι in 
7:28. There were probably delicate nuances of meaning which 
sufficiently softened these words, shadings which now escape us. 
There is no difficulty about ἀρκεῖ in 2 Cor. 12:9. In a case like 
ὑπάγω ἁλιεύειν (cf. ἐρχόμεθα) in Jo. 21:3, the suggestion or hint is 
in the fact, not in the statement. The indicative is a definite 
assertion. The nature of the case supplies the rest. In 1 Cor. 
10 : 22, ἢ παραζηλοῦμεν τὸν κύριον; the indicative notes the fact, 
while the surprise and indignation come out in the interrogative 
form. The question in Jo. 11:47, τί ποιοῦμεν; is very striking. 
It may be questioned? if the point is the same as τί ποιῶμεν; (cf. 
Jo. 6: 28), like the Latin Quid faciamus? ‘The subjunctive of de- 


1 Cf. Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 21. 
2 Against Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 210. 


924 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


liberation suggests doubt on the whole subject or expresses a 
wish to do something. Blass! cites the colloquial Latin for paral- 
lels for this idiom. But we do not need such parallels here. The 
inquiry of Caiaphas is rather indignant protest against the in- 
activity of the Sanhedrin than a puzzled quandary as to what 
they should do. The indicative suits exactly his purpose. He 
charges them with doing nothing and knowing nothing and 
makes a definite proposal himself. Winer sees the point clearly.? 
The same use of θέλω noted above appears in questions of delib- 
eration as in θέλεις συλλέξωμεν; (Mt. 13 : 28). So βούλεσθε ἀπολύσω; 
(Jo. 18:39). Cf. Lu. 18:41. Possibility or duty may be ex- 
pressed in questions also, as in πῶς δύνασθε ἀγαθὰ λαλεῖν πονηροὶ 
ὄντες; (Mt. 12 : 34); τί με de? ποιεῖν ἵνα σωθῶ; (Ac. 16:30). This is 
the analytical method rather than trusting to the mode. “1 is 
found possible, and more convenient, to show the modal character 
of a clause by means of particles, or from the drift of the context, 
without a distinct verbal form.’’4 

(c) The Future. The future indicative ‘‘was originally a sub- 
junctive in the main’’® and it has a distinct modal development. 
This fact comes out in the fact that the future tense of the indic- 
ative is a rival of the subjunctive, the optative and the impera- 
tive. Like the subjunctive and optative the future may be 
merely futuristic (prospective). or deliberative or volitive. This 
matter has been discussed at length under Tenses, which see. As 
an example of the merely futuristic note Mt. 11 : 28, of the voli- 
tive see Lu. 13 : 9, of the deliberative note Jo. 6 : 68. 

II. The Subjunctive Mode (ἡ ὑποτακτικὴ ἔγκλισις). 

Some of the Greek grammarians called it ἡ διστακτικῆ, some ἡ 
συμβουλευτική, Some ἡ ὑποθετικήῆ. But no one of the names is happy, 
for the mode is not always subordinate, since it is used freely in 
principal clauses, nor is it the only mode used in subordinate 
clauses. But the best one is ἡ διστακτική. 

1. RELATIONS TO OTHER Monks. 

The development of the modes was gradual and the differen- 
tiation was never absolutely distinct. 

(a) The Aorist Subjunctive and the Future Indicative. These 
are closely allied in form and sense. It is quite probable that 
the future indicative is just a variation of the aorist subjunctive. 
Cf. ἔδομαι, πίομαι, φάγομαι. The subjunctive is always future, in 

1 Ib. Cf. Thompson, Synt., p. 187. 4 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 235. 


2 W.-Th., p. 284. 5 Moulton, Prol., p. 199. 
2 Blass, Gr..ofN, πὸ Gian. 210; 6 Thompson, Synt., p. 218. 


MODE (ΒΓ ΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 925 


subordinate clauses relatively future. Hence the two forms con- 
tinued side by side in the language. There is a possible dis- 
tinction. ‘‘The subjunctive differs from the future indicative in 
stating what is thought likely to occur, not positively what will 
occur.”! But in the beginning (cf. Homer) it was probably not 
so. Brugmann (Griech. Gr., Ὁ. 499) pointedly contends that many 
so-called future indicatives are just “emancipated short-vowel 
conjunctives.’’ Cf. Giles, Manual, pp. 446-448; Moulton, Prol., 
p. 149. 

(b) The Subjunctive and the Imperative. These are closely al- 
lied. Indeed, the first person imperative in Greek, as in San- 
skrit,? is absent in usage and the subjunctive has to be employed 
instead. There is a possible instance of the subjunctive as im- 
perative in the second person in Sophocles, but the text is uncer- 
tain? The use of μή and the aorist subjunctive in prohibitions 
of the second and third persons is also pertinent. Thus the 
subjunctive is in close affinity with the imperative. 

(c) The Subjunctive and the Optative. They are really varia- 
tions of the same mode. In my Short Grammar of the Greek 
N.T.4 I have for the sake of clearness grouped them together. I 
treat them separately here, not because I have changed my view, 
but in order to give a more exhaustive discussion. The closeness 
of the connection between the subjunctive and the optative is 
manifest in the Sanskrit. ‘“Subjunctive and optative run closely 
parallel with one another in the oldest language in their use in 
independent clauses, and are hardly distinguishable in depen- 
dent.”> In the Sanskrit the subjunctive disappeared before the 
optative save in the imperatival uses. It is well known that the 
“Latin subjunctive is syncretistic, and does duty for the Greek 
conjunctive and optative.’’® Delbriick, indeed, insists that the 
two modes originally had the same form and the same meaning.’ 
Delbriick’s view has carried the bulk of modern opinion. But 
Giles? is justified in saying: “‘The original meaning of these moods 
and the history of their development is the most difficult of the 
many vexed questions of comparative syntax.” It is true that 


1 Thompson, Gk. Synt., 1883, p. 133. 

2 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 216. 

8 Cf. Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 149. 

4 Pp. 129-1381. 5 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 216. 
6 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., 1907, p. 191. 

7 Die Grundl. d. griech. Synt., p. 115 f. 

8 Comp. Philol., p. 502. 


926 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the subjunctive in Greek refers only to the future, while the 
optative is not bound to any sphere.!' But the optative is usually 
relatively? future like our “should,” “‘could,”’ etc. The use of the 
subjunctive was greater in Homer’s time than afterwards. The 
independent subjunctive in particular was more freely used in 
Epic than in Attic. In the modern Greek® the subjunctive has 
not only displaced the optative, but the future indicative and the 
infinitive. But even so in modern Greek the subjunctive is rela- 
tively reduced and is almost confined to subordinate clauses 
(Thumb, Handb., pp. 115, 126). The fut. ind. in modern Greek 
is really θά (avd) and subj. G. Hamilton‘ overstates it in say- 
ing: “This monarch of the moods, which stands absolute and 
alone, has all the other moods dependent on it.” It is possible 
that originally these two moods were used indifferently.2 Van- 
dacle® argues for a radical difference between the two moods, but 
he does not show what that difference is. There were distinctions 
developed beyond a doubt in actual use,’ but they are not of a 
radical nature. The Iranian, Sanskrit and the Greek are the 
only languages which had both the subjunctive and optative. 
The Sanskrit dropped the subjunctive and the Greek finally dis- 
pensed with the optative as the Latin had done long ago.§ 

2. ORIGINAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SUBJUNCTIVE. Delbriick® 
is clear that “will” is the fundamental idea of the subjunctive, 
while “wish”? came to be that of the optative. But this position 
is sharply challenged to-day. Goodwin" denies that it is possible 
“to include under one fundamental idea all the actual uses of 
any mood in Greek except the imperative.’”’ He admits that the 
only fundamental idea always present in the subjunctive is that 
of futurity and claims this as the primitive meaning from the 
idiom of Homer. Brugmann! denies that a single root-idea of 
the subjunctive can be found. He cuts the Gordian knot by three 
uses of the subjunctive (the volitive, the deliberative, the futur- 


1 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., Jan., 1909, p. 11. 

2 Cf. Baiumlein, Unters. iiber griech. Modi (1846, p. 25 f.). 

8 Cf. V. and D., Handb., p. 321 f. 

4 Latin of the Latins and Greek of the Greeks, p. 23. 

5 Bergaigne, De conjunctivi et optativi in indoeurop. linguis. 

6 L’optatif grec, p. xxiii. lbs 1" 

8 Jolly, Hin Kapitel d. vergl. Synt., Der Konjunktiv und Optativ, p. 119. 

9. Die Grundl., Ὁ. 116f. Cf. Synt., II, pp. 349 ff. 

10 M. and T., App., Relation of the Optative to the Subjunctive and other 
Moods, p. 371. 

11 Griech. Gr., p. 499. 


OT ὺδο Σιν». ν, τος αὶ, Ἄ» 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 927 


istic). W.G. Hale! identifies the deliberative and futuristic uses 
as the same. Sonnenschein? sees no distinction between volitive 
and deliberative, to which Moulton’ agrees. “The objection to 
the term ‘deliberative,’ and to the separation of the first two classes, 
appears to be well grounded.” He adds: “ἃ command may 
easily be put in the interrogative tone.”’ That is true. It is also 
true “that the future indicative has carried off not only the fu- 
turistic but also the volitive and deliberative subjunctives.”’ But 
for practical purposes there is wisdom in Brugmann’s division. 
Stahl* sees the origin of all the subjunctive uses in the notion of 
will. The future meaning grows out of the volitive. Mutzbauer® 
finds the fundamental meaning of the subjunctive to be the atti- 
tude of expectation. This was its original idea. All else comes 
out of that. With this Gildersleeve® agrees: “The subjunctive 
mood is the mood of anticipation,” except that he draws a sharp 
distinction between “anticipation” and ‘‘expectation.” ‘‘ Antici- 
pation treats the future as if it were present.”’ He thinks that 
the futuristic subjunctive is a ‘‘deadened imperative.”? But 
Monro’ on the whole thinks that the futuristic meaning is older 
than the volitive. So the grammarians lead us a merry dance 
with the subjunctive. Baumlein® denies that the subjunctive is 
mere possibility. It aims after actuality, “ὦ tendency towards 
actuality.”’ At any rate it is clear that we must seek the true 
meaning of the subjunctive in principal clauses, since subordinate 
clauses are a later development, though the futuristic idea best 
survives in the subordinate clause.#? In asense Hermann’s notion 
is true that three ideas come in the modes (Wirklichkevt, M dglich- 
keit, Notwendigkeit). The indicative is Wirklichkeit, the impera- 
tive is Notwendigkeit, while the subjunctive and the optative 
are Méglichkeit. I have ventured in my Short Grammar" to call 
the subjunctive and optative the modes of doubtful statement, 


1 The Anticipatory Subjunctive in Gk. and Lat., Stud. Class. Phil. (Chicago), 
I, p. 6. See discussion of these three uses of fut. ind. under ‘Tense. 


2 Cl. Rev., XVI, p. 166. § Synt.,. Pt; p. 147. 
3 Prol., p. 184.. 7 Ib., p. 148. 
4 Krit.-hist. Synt., p. 235 f. 8 Hom. Gr., p. 231. 


5 Konjunktiv und Optativ, p. 8 f. 

9. Unters. iiber die griech. Modi, p.35. Cf. Wetzel, De Conjunctivi et Op- 
tativi apud Graecos Usu, p. 7. 

10 Hammerschmidt, Uber die Grundb. von Konjunktiv und Optativ, p. 4. 

1 Pp. 129-131. As a matter of fact both Delbriick and Goodwin fail to 
establish a sharp distinction between the subjunctive and the optative. Cf. 
Giles, Man., p. 504. 


928 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


while the indicative is the mode of positive assertion and the im- 
perative that of commanding statement. The modes, as already 
seen, overlap all along the line, but in a general way this outline 
is correct. The subjunctive in principal sentences appears in both 
declarative and interrogative sentences. Cf. εἰρήνην ἔχωμεν πρὸς 
τὸν θεόν (Ro. 5:1), Τί εἴπω ὑμῖν; (1 Cor. 11: 22). It is found in 
both positive and negative statements. Cf. δῶμεν ἢ μὴ δῶμεν; (Mk. 
12:14), μὴ σχίσωμεν αὐτόν, ἀλλὰ λάχωμεν (JO. 19:24). It is the 
mood of doubt, of hesitation, of proposal, of prohibition, of anti- 
cipation, of expectation, of brooding hope, of imperious will. We 
shall, then, do best to follow Brugmann. 

3. THREEFOLD [[5468. The three uses do exist, whatever their 
origin or order of development.1 

(a) Futuristic. This idiom is seen in Homer with the negative 
ov as in οὐδὲ ἴδωμι, ‘I never shall see.’ It is an emphatic future.? 
This emphatic future with the subjunctive is common in Homer 
with ἄν or κεν and once without. Gildersleeve® calls this the “‘ Ho- 
meric subjunctive,” but it is more than doubtful if the usage was 
confined to Homer. Moulton (Prol., p. 239) quotes P. Giles as 
saying: “This like does for many dialects what the subjunctive 
did for Greek, putting a statement in a polite, inoffensive way, 
asserting only verisimilitude.’”’ Note the presence of the subjunc- 
tive in the subordinate clauses with ἐάν (εἶδ. The presence of ov 
here and there with the subjunctive testifies to a feeling for the 
futuristic sense. See ἥτις οὐ κατοικισθῇ (Jer. 6:8). In the modern 
Greek, Thumb (Handb., p. 195) gives ἂ δὲν πιστεύῃς, where δέν is 
for οὐδέν. The practical equivalence of the aorist subjunctive 
and the future indicative is evident in the subordinate clauses, 
particularly those with εἰ, ἵνα, ὅς and ὅστις. Cf. ὃ προσενέγκῃ (Heb. 
8:3). This is manifest in the LXX, the N. T., the inscriptions 
and the late papyri.® Blass® pronounces ὡς ἄνθρωπος βάλῃ (Mk. 
4 : 26) “quite impossible” against NBDLA. But Moulton? quotes 
ov τεθῇ from inscriptions 317, 391, 395, 399 al. in Ramsay’s Cities 
and Bishoprics of Phrygia, ii, 392. For the papyri, Moulton 
(Prol., p. 240) notes B. U. 808 (vi/a.D.) tapdoxw= ‘TI will furnish,’ 
A. P. 144 (v/a.D.) &0w=‘I will come.’ The itacisms in -σῃ and 
—ge prove less, as Moulton notes. The examples in the papyri 
of itacistic --σει, --σῃ are “innumerable.” In Ac. 5:16, W. H. 


1 Cf. Giles,.Man., p. 505. 5 Moulton, Prol., p. 240. 
2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 198. Si Griof NaF. Gkivp. 382i, 
3 Synt., Pt. I, p. 153. 7 Prol., p. 240. 


4 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 503. 


MODE (ΕΓ ΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 929 © 


print ἵνα — ἐπισκιάσει (B, some cursives). Radermacher (N. T. 
Gr., p. 136) is quite prepared to take πῶς φύγητε (Mt. 23 : 33) 
Ξε πῶς φεύξεσθε. This is probably deliberative, but he makes a 
better case for ἐν τῷ ξηρῷ τί γένηται (Lu. 23:31). Blass! notes 
that “the mixture of the fut. ind. and aorist conj. has, in com- 
parison with the classical language, made considerable progress.” 
He refers to Sophocles, Lexicon, p. 45, where εἴπω σοι is quoted as 
ΞΞ- ἐρῶ 00.2 In a principal clause in Clem., Hom. XI. 3, we have καὶ 
οὕτως — δυνηθῇ, and Blass has noted also in Is. 33 : 24 ἀφεθῇ γὰρ 
αὐτοῖς ἡ auaptria. We cannot, indeed, trace the idiom all the way 
from Homer. ‘But the root-ideas of the subjunctive changed 
remarkably little in the millennium or so separating Homer from 
the Gospels; and the mood which was more and more winning 
back its old domain from the future tense may well have come to 
be used again as a ‘gnomic future’ without any knowledge of the 
antiquity of such a usage.’”’? It was certainly primitive in its sim- 
plicity* even if it was not the most primitive idiom. The use of οὐ 
with the subj. did continue here and there after Homer’s day. 
We find it in the LXX, as in Jer. 6: 8 (above) and in the Phrygian 
inscription (above). In fact, in certain constructions it is common, 
as in μὴ οὐ after verbs of fearing and caution. Cf. 2 Cor. 12:20 
and MSS. in Mt. 25: 9 (μή ποτε οὐκ apxéon). It is even possible that 
the idiom οὐ μή is to be thus explained. Gildersleeve®> remarks 
on this point: “It might even seem easier to make οὐ belong to 
αἰσχυνθῶ, thus combining objective and subjective negatives, but 
it must be remembered that οὐ with the’subjunctive had died out 
(except in μὴ ov) before this construction came in.” The vernacu- 
lar may, however, have preserved οὐ with the subj. for quite a 
while. Jannaris® confidently connects οὐ in this idiom with the 
subj. and explains μή as an abbreviation of μήν. If either of these 
explanations is true, the N. T. would then preserve in negative 
principal sentences the purely futuristic subjunctive. Burton’ is 
clear that anyhow “the aorist subjunctive is used with οὐ μή in 
the sense of an emphatic future indicative.’”’ The ancient Greek 
sometimes employed the present subjunctive in this sense, but 
the N. T. does not use it. But the LXX has it, as in Jer. 1:19. 
So in Is. 11:9 we find οὐ μὴ κακοποιήσουσιν οὐδὲ μὴ δύνωνται. The 
future ind. with od μή is rare in the N. T., but od μή with the aorist 


1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 208. 5 Justin Martyr, p. 169. 
2 See also Hatz., Einl., p. 218. 6 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 449. 
8 Moulton, Prol., p. 186. CoN ele ΔΙ Ἀπ ΠΡ 78: 


4 Goodwin, M. and T., pp. 2, 372. 


930 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


subj. appears in the W. H. text 71 times.1_ It cannot be said that 
the origin of this οὐ μή construction has been solved. Goodwin? 
states the problem well. The two negatives ought to neutralize 
each other, being simplex, but they do not (cf. μὴ ov). The ex- 
amples are partly futuristic and partly prohibitory. Ellipsis is 
not satisfactory nor complete separation (Gildersleeve) of the two 
negatives. Perhaps οὐ expresses the emphatic denial and μή the 
prohibition which come to be blended into the one construction. 
At any rate it is proper to cite the examples of emphatic denial 
as instances of the futuristic subjunctive. Thus οὐ μή ce avd, οὐδ᾽ 
οὐ wh σε ἔγκαταλίπω (Heb. 18 : 5); οὐ μὴ ἀπολέσῃ (Mk. 9 : 41); οὐκέτι 
οὐ μὴ πίω (Mk. 14 : 25). Cf. Lu. 6:37 etc. See οὐ μή in both prin- 
cipal and subordinate clauses in Mk. 13:2. See also Tense. 

It is a rhetorical question in Lu. 18:7 (note also μακροθυμεῖ) 
rather than a deliberative one. In Rev. 15:4 we have the aor. 
subj. and the fut. ind. side by side in a rhetorical question, ris οὐ 
μὴ φοβηθῇ, κύριε, καὶ δοξάσει τὸ ὄνομα; See also the τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν ἕξει 
φίλον καὶ πορεύσεται πρὸς αὐτόν --- καὶ εἴπῃ αὐτῷ; (Lu. 11: δ). It is 
difficult to see here anything very “deliberative” about εἴπῃ as 
distinct from ἕξει. It may be merely the rhetorical use of the 
futuristic subj. in a question. Have the grammars been correct 
in explaining all these subjunctives in questions as ‘‘ deliberative’’? 
Certainly the future ind. is very common in rhetorical and other 
questions in the N. T. 

(b) Volitive. There is no doubt about the presence of the voli- 
tive subjunctive in the N. T. The personal equation undoubtedly 
cuts some figure in the shades of meaning in the moods, here as 
elsewhere.’ Gildersleeve* would indeed make this ‘imperative 
sense” the only meaning of the mood in the standard language 
after Homer. He does this because the deliberative subjunc- 
tive expects an imperative answer. But, as already seen, that 
is a mooted question. Brugmann® takes pains to remark that 
the element of “will” in the volitive subjunctive belongs to the 
speaker, not to the one addressed. It is purely a matter of the 
context. It occurs in both positive and negative sentences and 
the negative is always μή. The usage is common in Homer.® 
Monro interprets it as expressing “what the speaker resolves or in- 


1 Moulton, Prol., 3d ed., p. 190. But in the Germ. ed., p. 300, Moul- 
ton names 74. He had given 78 in the first Engl. ed. 

* M. and T., pp. 389 ff. See also pp. 101-105. 

3 Giles, Man., p. 505. 5 Griech. Gr., p. 500. 

4 Synt., Pt. I, p. 148. 6 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 197. 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 931 


sists upon.” In principle the hortatory subjunctive is the same as 
the prohibitive use with μή. It was a necessity for the first person, 
since the imperative was deficient there. Moulton! ventures to 
treat this hortatory use of the first person subj. under the imper- 
ative, since the Sanskrit grammars give the Vedic subjunctive of 
the first person as an ordinary part of the imperative. The other 
persons of the Sanskrit subj. are obsolete in the epic period. 
Thus bhardma, bharata, bharantu are compared with φέρωμεν, 
φέρετε, φερόντων (Attic for κοινή deperwoav). Moulton? appeals 
also to the combination of the first and second persons in con- 
structions like ἐγείρεσθε ἄγωμεν (Mk. 14:42). This example il- 
lustrates well the volitive idea in ἄγωμεν The first person is 
usually found in this construction. Cf. also ἄγωμεν (Jo. 11:7); 
φάγωμεν καὶ πίωμεν (1 Cor. 15:32); ἔχωμεν (Ro. 5:1, correct 
text); φρονῶμεν (Ph. 3:15); γρηγορῶμεν καὶ νήφωμεν (1 Th. 5: 6). 
Cf. Lu. 9 : 33 in particular (infinitive and subj.). In 1 Cor. 5: 
8, ὥστε ἑορτάζωμεν, the subjunctive is hortatory and ὥστε is an 
inferential particle. Cf. further Heb. 12:1;1 Jo.4:7. As ex- 
amples with μή see μὴ σχίσωμεν (Jo. 19: 24); μὴ καθεύδωμεν (1 Th. 
5:6). The construction continued to flourish in all stages of the 
language. We have δεῦτε ἀποκτείνωμεν (Mk. 12:7. Cf. δεῦτε 
ἴδετε, Mt. 28 : 6) and ἄφες ἴδωμεν (Mt. 27:49). In ἄφες the sin- 
gular has become stereotyped.® This use of ἄφες was finally 
shortened into ἄς in the modern Greek and came to be universal 
with the hortatory subjunctive of the first person and even for 
the third person imperative in the vernacular (as ἂς ἔχῃ for 
ἐχέτω). In the N. T. ἄφες is not yet a mere auxiliary as is our 
“let”? and the modern Greek ἄς. It is more like “do let me go.’’® 
Radermacher (N. 7’. Gr., p. 184) quotes ἄφες δείξωμεν, Epict. I, 
9,15. In the first person singular the N. T. always has ἄφες or 
δεῦρο with the hortatory subjunctive.’ Thus ἄφες ἐκβάλω (Mt. 7: 


1 Prol., p. 175. 2 Tb. 

3 See 1 Cor. 10: 7-9 for the change from first to second persons. 

4 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 447. 

5 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 208. But see ἄφετε ἴδωμεν (Mk. 15: 36), though 
ND here read ἄφες. 

6 Moulton, Prol., p. 176. Jannaris (Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 448) derives ἄς from 
ἕασε (ἔασον), aoe. 

7 It was rare in classic Gk. not to have ἄγε or φέρε or Some such word. Cf. 
Goodwin, M. and T., p. 88; Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 1481. The volitive 
subj. is common in mod. Gk. (Thumb, Handb., p. 126) both for exhortations, 
commands, prohibitions and wishes. It occurs in the late pap. for wish, as 
καταξιώσῃ, P.Oxy. I, 128, 9. So in the inscr. τοιαῦτα πάθῃ, Pontica III, 62, ὃ 


932 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


4); Lu. 6:42 and δεῦρο ἀποστείλω (Ac. 7:34, LXX). Moulton! 
cites ἄφες ἔγὼ αὐτὴν θρηνήσω from O. P. 413 (Roman period). We 
do not have to suppose the ellipsis of ἵνα, for ἄφες is here the 
auxiliary. In Jo. 12:7, ἄφες αὐτὴν iva τηρήσῃ, it is hardly prob- 
able that ἵνα is just auxiliary,? though in the modern Greek, as 
already stated, ἄς is used with the third person. 

In the second person we have only the negative construction 
in prohibitions with the aorist subjunctive, a very old idiom® 
(see Tenses, Aorist). ‘‘The future and the imperative between 
them carried off the old jussive use of the subjunctive in positive 
commands of 2d and 3d person. The old rule which in (‘Angli- 
cistic’) Latin made szleas an entirely grammatical retort dis- 
courteous to the Public Orator’s szleam? — which in the dialect 
of Elis” (to go on with Moulton’s rather long sentence) ‘pro- 
duced such phrases as ἐπιμέλειαν ποιήᾶται Νικόδρομορ — ‘let Nico- 
dromus attend to it,’ has no place in classical or later Greek, 
unless in Soph., Phil., 300 (see Jebb). Add doubtfully Ll. P. 1, vs. 
8 (iii/B.c.), Tb. P. 414 7°™ (ii/a.p.).”’ See Moulton, Prol., p. 178. 
In the LXX, Jer. 18:8, note καὶ ἐπιστραφῇ, parallel with ἀποστρα- 
φήτω in 18:11. In the modern Greek we have wishes for the fu- 
ture in the subj., since the opt. is dead. So ὁ θεὸς φυλάξῃ, ‘God 
forbid’ (Thumb, Handb., p. 127). Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 
135) finds the subj. for wish in late papyri and inscriptions. It is 
even in the LXX, Ruth 1:9 A, δῷ κύριος ὑμῶν καὶ εὕρητε ἀνάπαυσιν, 
but B has optative. In the Veda the prohibitive ma is found 
only with the conjunctive, thus seeming to show that the imper- 
ative was originally used only in positive sentences. This idiom 
of μή and the aorist subj. held its own steadily in the second 
person. This point has been discussed at some length under 
Tenses. Take as illustrations the following: μὴ φοβηθῆς (Mt. 1: 
20); μὴ νομίσητε (5:17); μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς (6:13). The use of dpa and 
ὁρᾶτε With μή and the aorist subj. is to be noted. Some of these 
are examples of asyndeton just like ἄφες. Thus ὅρα μηδενὶ μηδὲν 
εἴπῃς (Mk. 1:44; cf. Mt. 8:4). So also dpa un (Rev. 22: 9) where 
the verb ποιήσῃς is not expressed. Cf. also ὅρα ποιήσεις (Heb. 8 : 
δ) ὁρᾶτε μηδεὶς γινωσκέτω (Mt. 9 : 30), and ὁρᾶτε μὴ θροεῖσθε (24 : 6). 
With βλέπετε it is not always clear whether we have asyndeton 
(parataxis) or a subordinate clause (hypotaxis). In Lu. 21:8, 


(Anderson-Cumont-Grégoire). Radermacher (N.T. Gk., p. 128) cites also συντ 
μηθείησαν καὶ γένωνται, Acta Thomae, p. 129. 

1 Probe patio: a ite 

3 Delbriick, Synt., p. 120; Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 240. 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 933 


βλέπετε μὴ πλανηθῆτε, We Seem to have parataxis as is possible! in 
Heb. 12:25, βλέπετε μὴ παραιτήσησθες. Cf. Ac. 18:40; Gal. 5:15. 

These forms occur with the third person also, as βλέπετε μή τις 
ὑμᾶς πλανήσῃ (Mt. 24:4). But, per contra, see 1 Cor. 10 : 12 (μή 
ἔσται in Col. 2:8). In 1 Th. 5:15, ὁρᾶτε μή τις κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ 
τινὶ ἀποδῷ, parataxis is probable. But the third person aorist 
subj. occurs with μή alone as in μή τις οὖν αὐτὸν ἐξουθενήσῃ (1 Cor. 
16 : 11); μή τίς με δόξῃ ἄφρονα εἶναι (2 Cor. 11:16); μή τις ὑμᾶς ἐξα- 
πατήσῃ (2 Th. 2:3). Elsewhere μή and the aorist imperative 
occur in the third person. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 134) 
quotes μή and 3d person aor. subj. from κοινή writers, inser. and 
papyri. Careless writers even use μὴ οὖν ἄλλως ποιῇς, B. G. U. III, 
824,17. Even Epictetus (II, 22, 24) has μὴ αὐτόθεν ἀποφαίνῃ No 
less volitive is an example with οὐ μή, like οὐ μὴ ἐισέλθητε (Mt. 5: 
20), which is prohibitive. So οὐ μὴ νίψῃς (Jo. 13:8); οὐ μὴ πίῃ (Lu. 
1:15). There is an element of will in ἰῶτα ἕν ἢ μία κεραία ob μὴ 
παρέλθῃ (Mt. 5:18) in the third person. In Mt. 25:9, μή ποτε 
ov μὴ ἀρκέσῃ ἡμῖν καὶ ὑμῖν, the subj. is probably futuristic (or de- 
liberative). In a late papyrus, O. P. 1150, 6 (vi/A.p.), note δεῖξον 
τὴν δύναμίν cov καὶ ἐξέλθῃ Where the 3d pers. subj. = imperative like 
Latin. There are examples in the N. T. where ἵνα seems to be 
merely an introductory expletive with the volitive subjunctive. 
Thus ἵνα ἐπιθῇς (Mk. 5 : 23); ἵνα ἀναβλέψω (10 : 51); ἵνα περισσεύητε 
(2 Cor. 8:7); ἵνα μνημονεύωμεν (Gal. 2:10. Note present tense); 
ἵνα φοβῆται (Eph. 5 : 33) parallel with ἀγαπάτω. Cf. ἵνα--- δώῃ (δῷ) 
margin of W. H., Eph. 1:17. Moulton? finds in the papyri 
(B. U. 48, li/ili A.D.) ἐὰν ἀναβῇς τῇ ἑορτῇ ἵνα ὁμόσε γενώμεθα. So 
also he cites εἵνα αὐτὸν μὴ δυσωπήσῃς, F. P. 112 (99 a.p.), and ἵνα 
μηδὲ τῶν τόκων ὀλιγωρήσῃς (Cicero, Ait. vi. 5). The modern Greek 
uses νά and subj. as imperative for both second and third per- 
sons (Thumb, Handb., p. 127f.). Note also μὴ ἵνα ἀναστατώσῃς 
ἡμᾶς, B. G. U. 1079 (a.p, 41), not ἵνα μή. Moulton (Prol., p. 248) 
quotes Epict., IV, 1, 41, ἵνα μὴ μωρὸς ἢ, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα μάθῃ. The use of 
θέλω ἵνα (cf. Mk. 6 : 25; 10:35; Jo. 17: 24) preceded this idiom. 
Moulton’ even suggests that προσεύχεσθε ἵνα μὴ ἔλθητε εἰς πειρασμόν 
(Mk. 14 : 38) is as much parataxis as ὁρᾶτε καὶ φυλάσσεσθε (Lu. 12: 
15). This “innovation” in the κοινή takes the place of ὅπως and 
the future ind. Moulton (Prol., p. 177 note) cites ὅπως μοι μὴ 
ἐρεῖς, Plato, 337 B, ‘don’t tell me,’ where érws=‘in which case.’ 
The use of μή after words of caution and apprehension is probably 


1 But Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 278) holds the opposite view. 
2 Prol., p. 179. eelbitpe lis. 


934 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


paratactic in origin.!.- Moulton? notes the use of the present subj. 
with expressions of warning as well as the aorist. Thus in Heb. 
12 : 15, ἐπισκοποῦντες μή τις ῥίζα πικρίας ἐνοχλῇ. But this construc- 
tion borders so closely on subordinate clauses, if not clear over 
the line, that it will be best discussed there. 

Subordinate clauses show many examples of the volitive sub- 
junctive (as clauses of design, probably paratactic in origin, 
Moulton, Prol., p. 185). See δὲ ἧς λατρεύωμεν (Heb. 12:28); ὅπου 
φάγω (Lu. 22:11). See discussion of Sub. Clauses. 

(c) Deliberative. There is no great amount of difference be- 
tween the hortatory (volitive) subjunctive and the deliberative. 
‘The volitive is connected with the deliberative in Mk. 6: 24 f., 
Ti αἰτήσωμαι; θέλω ἵνα δῷς. Thus ποιήσωμεν, ‘suppose we do it,’ and 
τί ποιήσωμεν; ‘what are we to (must we) do?’ do not vary much. 
The interrogative’ is a quasi-imperative. Gildersleeve* notes in 
Plato (rare elsewhere in Attic) a “number of hesitating half- 
questions with μή or μὴ οὐ and the present subjunctive.” It is 
possible that we have this construction in Mt. 25:9, μή ποτε οὐ 
μὴ (W. H. marg. just οὐ) ἀρκέσῃ ἡμῖν καὶ ὑμῖν. Itis but a step to 
the deliberative question.> This is either positive or negative, 
as in Mk. 12:14, δῶμεν ἢ μὴ δῶμεν; So also od μή as in Jo. 18: 
11, ob μὴ πίω αὐτό; Cf. also Lu. 18:7; Rev. 15:4. The aorist 
or the present tense occurs as in Lu. 3:10, τί οὖν ποιήσωμεν; 
and in Jo. 6:28, ri ποιῶμεν; so λέγω in Heb. 11: 32. Cf. the 
indicative τί ποιοῦμεν; in Jo. 11:47 and the future τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; 
(Ro. 9:14). The question may be rhetorical (cf. Mt. 26 : 54; 
Lu. 14: 34; Jo. 6:68; Ro. 10:14) or interrogative (cf. Mt. 6: 
31; 18:21; Mk. 12:14; Lu. 22:49).6 The kinship between 
delib. subj. and delib. fut. ind. is seen in Mk. 6 : 37, ἀγοράσωμεν 
καὶ δώσομεν; The first person is the one of most frequent occur- 
rence (cf. Ro. 6: 1), τί αἰτήσωμαι (Mk. 6 : 24). But examples are 
not wanting for the second and third persons. Thus πῶς φύγητε 
ἀπὸ THs κρίσεως τῆς γεέννης; (Mt. 23 : 33); τί γένηται; (Lu. 23 : 31). 
See further Mt. 26:14; Ro. 10:14. It is sometimes uncertain 
whether we have the subjunctive or the indicative, as in ἕτερον 
προσδοκῶμεν; (Mt. 11:3) and ἐπαινέσω ὑμᾶς; (1 Cor. 11 : 22). But 
note τί εἴπω ὑμῖν; in the last passage. In Lu. 11:5 we have both 


1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 212 f. 

2 Prol., p. 178, 3 Monro, Hom. Gr., pp. 199, 229, 
4 Synt., Pt. I, p. 152. Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 92. 

δ Blass, GreofeNay TiGks ΠΤ 911 

6 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 77. 


Cet —— 


a Ὑ οΨυᾶν σιν... 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣῚ 935 


ris ἕξει and εἴπῃ. So τί doc (Mk. 8:37, ACD δώσει) may be com- 
pared with ri δώσει (Mt. 16 : 26)... This ambiguity appears in τί 
ποιήσω; and ἔγνω τί ποιήσω in Lu. 16:3 f. The deliberative subj. 
is retained in indirect questions. Cf. Mt. 6:31 with Mt. 6: 25. 
The kinship between the deliberative subj. in indirect questions 
and the imperative and the volitive subjunctive is seen in Lu. 
12 :4f., μὴ φοβηθῆτε --- ὑποδείξω δὲ ὑμῖν τίνα φοβηθῆτε" φοβήθητε κτλ. 
The deliberative subj., like the volitive, has various introductory 
words which make asyndeton (parataxis). These become set 


phrases like ἄφες, dpa. Thus ποῦ θέλεις ἑτοιμάσωμεν; (Mt. 26 : 17), 


θέλεις εἴπωμεν; (Lu. 9:54). In Lu. 18:41 we have τί σοι θέλεις 
ποιήσω; and iva ἀναβλέψω as the reply. But the ἵνα was not ne- 
cessary. Cf. further Mt. 13:28. In Jo. 18:39, βούλεσθε οὖν 
ἀπολύσω, we probably have the subj. also. Some MSS. have 
εἰ πατάξωμεν; in Lu. 22: 49.2 We may leave further discus- 
sion of the subj. to the subordinate clauses. We have no ex- 
amples in the N. T. of ἄν with the subj. in independent sentences 
(but see κέ and the subj. in Homer). In subordinate clauses ἄν 
is very common, though not necessary, as will be seen.’ (Cf. 
discussion of εἰ, ὅστις.) But Jannaris* gives instances of ἄν with 
the subj. in principal clauses (futuristic) in Polybius, Philo, Plu- 
tarch, Galen, etc. With the disappearance of the fut. ind., the 
opt. and the imper., the subj. has the field as the ‘prospective 
mood.”’ It is found in the modern Greek as in τί νὰ γίνῃ (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 126). 

III. The Optative Mode (ἡ εὐκτικὴ ἔγκλισις). It has already 
been shown that the optative does not differ radically from the 
subjunctive. Jannaris® calls the optative the “secondary sub- 
junctive.” 

1. History or THE OpTaTIvE. For the facts see chapter on 
Conjugation of the Verb. It is an interesting history and is well 
outlined by Jannaris® in his Appendix V, “The Moods Chiefly 
Since A. (Ancient Greek) Times.” It retreated first from de- 
pendent clauses and held on longest in the use for wish in inde- 
pendent sentences like yévo.ro. But even here it finally went 
down before the fut. ind. and subj. The optative was a luxury 


Blass, Gr. of N. ΤΠ Gk., p.210. Cf. K.-G., TL I, p. 221. 

2 Ib. 

3 Cf. Paley, The Gk. Particles, p. 5. See IXoppin, Beitr. zu Entwick. und 
Wiird. der Ideen iiber die Grundb. d. griech. Modi (1880). 

4 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 564. On the subj. see further Earle, Cl. Papers, p. 221. 

δ᾽ ΤΡ,, p. 450. 6 Ib., pp. 860-367. . 


—_— 


936 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


of the language and was probably never common in the vernacu- 
lar. Certainly it is very rare in the vernacular κοινή (both inserip- 
tions and papyri). It is a literary mood that faded before the 
march of the subj. In a hundred pages of the Memorabilia of 
Xenophon the optative occurs 350 times. He had a “hyperor- 
thodox love of the mood.”! Plato’s Phaedo shows it 250 times 
in a corresponding space, but Strabo has it only 76, Polybius 37, 
Diodorus Siculus 13 times in a hundred pages.?, The 67 examples 
in the N. T. are in harmony with the κοινή usage. Gildersleeve 
pithily says: “The optative, which starts life as a wish of the 
speaker, becomes a notion of the speaker, then a notion of some- 
body else, and finally a gnomon of obliquity” (A. J. of Phil., 1908, 
p. 264). In the LXX the optative is rare, but not so rare as in 
the N. T., though even in the LXX it is replaced by the subj. 
(Thackeray, Gr., p. 193) as in the late papyri and inscriptions 
(Radermacher, N. 7. Gr., pp. 128, 135). 

2. SiaNrFIcCANCE. There is no definite distinction between 
the subjunctive and the optative in the Sanskrit. The Latin put 
all the burden on the subj., as the Greek finally did. The San- 
skrit finally made the optative do most of the work. In a word, 
the optative is a sort of weaker subjunctive. Some writers make 
the opt. timeless and used definitely of the past.® It is rather 
a “softened future’’® sometimes flung back into the past for a 
Standpunkt. We do not’ know ‘whether the opt. originally ex- 
pressed wish or supposition.’”’ The name does not signify anything. 
It ‘““was invented by grammarians long after the usages of the 
language were settled.’’§ They just gave it the name εὐκτική be- 
cause at that time the only use it had without ἄν was that of 
wishing. The name is no proof that wishing was the primitive or 
the only function or the real meaning of the mode. We have 
precisely the same difficulty as in the subjunctive. Indeed, the 


1 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Phil., Jan., 1909, p. 19. According to Vandacle 
(L’Optatif Grec, p. 251) Plato et Xén. “ont donné ἃ, l’optatif la plus grande 
extension possible; Xénophon marque l’apogée.” The optative he also de- 
scribes as “un instrument d’une délicatesse infinie.”’ See further Kupff, Der 
Gebr. ἃ. Opt. bei Diod. Sic. (1903); Reik, Der Opt. bei Polyb. und Philo (1907). 

2 Schmid, Der Gebr. des Optativs bei Diod. Sic., 1903, p. 2. 

3 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 218. In the original speech there was no clear 
distinction between the subj. and the opt. (Curtius, Temp. und Modi, 1846, 
p. 266). 

4 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 384. 

5 Biumlein, Griech. Modi, p. 177. 7 Jb. p..231. 

§ Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 229. 8 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 375. 


-MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 937 


optative has three values, just like the subjunctive, viz. the 
futuristic (potential), the volitive (wishes) and the deliberative.! 
In the first and third kinds ἄν is usually present, but not always. 
Brugmann? notes only two, omitting the deliberative as some 
scholars do for the subj. He does reckon a third use in indirect 
discourse, but this is merely the opt. in subordinate sentences 
and may be either of the three normal usages. The rare fut. 
opt. in indirect discourse illustrates the point (not in the N. T.). 
There is no doubt of the distinction between the futuristic (po- 
tential) with negative ov (cf. futuristic sub]. in Homer) and the 
volitive use with μή (cf. subj. again). But there was also a “neu- 
tral sense” that can hardly be classed either as futuristic or voli- 
tive.4 Gildersleeve?® calls this the “optative in questions,’ usually 
with av. This is the deliberative use. 

3. THE THREE USEs. 

(a) Futuristic or Potential. We begin with this whether it is 
the first in time or not. Delbriick® has taken several positions on 
this point. The use of the negative οὐ here shows its kinship with 
the future (cf. fut. ind. and aorist subj. in Homer).’? The ἄν was 
not always present in Homer and it is not the ἄν that gives the 
potential idea to the mode. In poetry the use without ἄν con- 
tinued. ‘The optative is the ideal mood of the Greek language, 
the mood of the fancy.”’® Moulton® puts it clearly: “It was used 
to express a future in a milder form, and to express a request in 
deferential style.’”’ Radermacher cites from Epictetus, II, 23, 1, 
ἂν ἥδιον ἀναγνῴη — ἄν τις ῥᾷον ἀκούσει, Showing clearly that the opt. 
and the fut. ind. are somewhat parallel. Moulton (Prol., p. 194) 
cites Deut. 28 : 24 ff., where the opt. and fut. ind. alternate in 
translating the same Hebrew. I do not agree with Radermacher 
(N. T. Gr., p. 128) in seeing in ἤθελον παρεῖναι (Gal. 4 : 20) a mere 
equivalent of θέλοιμι ἄν. See imperfect ind. The presence of ἄν 
gives “a contingent meaning’! to the verb and makes one think 
of the unexpressed protasis of the fourth-class condition. The 


1 Giles, Man., p. 510. 3 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 375. 

2 Griech. Gr., pp. 504 ff. + Ibs, pas: 

5 Synt., Pt. I, p. 154. Stahl (Krit.-hist. Synt., p. 236 f.) notes a “concessive 
opt.,”’ which is an overrefinement. It is merely a weakened form of wish 
(K.-G., Bd. I, p. 228) or of the potential use. 

6 Cf. his Konjunktiv und Optativ, Syntaktische Forschungen, Att.-indische 
Synt. In the last of these he suggests that the potential and wishing functions 
are distinct in origin. 

7 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 219. 9 ῬγοΙ., Ρ. 197. 

8 Gildersl., Synt., ‘Pt. I, p. 153. 10 ΠΡ Ρ 00: 


938 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


idiom has vanished as a living form from the vernacular κοινή in 
the N. T. times.! It appears only in Luke’s writings in the N. T. 
and is an evident literary touch. The LXX shows it only 19 
times outside of 4 Maccabees and 30 with it.2 Moulton® notes 
one papyrus which does not have ἄν (cf. Homer), though he would 
suspect the text and read as Mahaffy does οὐθὲν ἂ[ν] ἐπείπαιμι, Par. 
P. 63 (ii/B.c.).. But curiously enough Luke has only one instance 
of this “‘softened assertion”’ apart from questions. That is in Ac. 
26 : 29 (critical text) εὐξαίμην av. This fact shows how obsolete 
the idiom is in the κοινή. The use of av here avoids the passion- 
ateness of the mere optative (Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 157). The 
other examples in Luke’s writings are all in questions and may 
be compared with the subj. in deliberative questions. Only two 
examples appear of the opt. with ἄν in direct questions. They 
are πῶς yap ἂν δυναίμην ἐὰν μή τις ὁδηγήσει με; (Ac. 8:31. The 
only instance of a protasis in connection with an optative apod- 
osis in the N. T.) and τί ἂν θέλοι ὁ σπερμολόγος οὗτος λέγειν; (Ac. 
17:18). Both are rhetorical questions and the second has a de- 
liberative tone; see (c). In Ac. 2:12, E has τί ἂν θέλοι. Moulton 
(Prol., p. 198) cites ris ἂν δῴη from Job 31:31 and holds that it 
does not differ from ris δῴη elsewhere (Num. 11:29). The other 
instances of ἄν and the opt. are all in indirect questions, but the 


construction is not due to the indirect question. It is merely re-- 


tained from the direct. The use of the optative in an indirect 
question when the direct would have the indicative or the sub- 
junctive is not the point. This is merely the classic sequence of 
modes in indirect questions. See Lu. 8:9, ἐπηρώτων τίς εἴη. So 
Lu. 22 : 23 (cf. δοκεῖ in 24). Cf. Ac. 21:33. In Lu. 1:29, D adds 
ἄν and MSS. vary with some of the other examples (cf. Lu. 
18 : 36). So ἄν is correct in Lu. 15:26. Moulton (Prol., p. 198) 
cites Esth. 13:3 πυθομένου --- πῶς ἂν ἀχθείη and inser. Magnes. 
215 (i/A.D.) ἐπερωτᾷ — τί ἂν ποιήσας ἀδεῶς διατελοίη. Moulton 
(Prol., p. 198) argues for “a minimum of difference’ in the 
examples of indirect questions with and without ἄν. The differ- 
ence is in the direct question. The examples with ἄν ΟὟ. H.’s 
text) in indirect questions are Lu. 1:62; 6:11; 9:46; 15:26; 
Ac. 5:24; 10:17.4 In all of these instances the deliberative ele- 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 197 f.; Blass, Gr. of N.T. Gk., p. 220. ΣΦΡΙΟΙ Data 7. 
3. Ib., p. 198, He notes also 4 Mace. 5 : 13, συγγνώσειεν without ἄν. In the 
pap. ἅν is usually present with the potential opt. (Radermacher, N. T. Gk., p. 
129). Sometimes tows occurs with the opt., as tows — ἀπορήσειεν in Joh. Philop. 
4 Burton, M. and T., p. 80; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 220. 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 939 


ment is undoubtedly present; see (c). The same thing is true of 
Lu. 3:15 (μή ποτε); Ac. 17:27 (ei), but Ac. 25:16 (τρὶν ἢ in 
indirect discourse for subj. of the direct) is futuristic. 

(Ὁ) Volitive. Moulton! calls this use the “Optative Proper,” a 
curious concession to the mere name. It has been the most per- 
sistent construction of the optative, and (in independent clauses) 
thirty-eight of the sixty-seven examples of the N. T. come under 
this category.” Fifteen of the thirty-eight instances belong to μὴ 
γένοιτο, once in Lu. 20:16, and the other fourteen in Paul’s 
Epistles (10 in Romans, 1 in 1 Cor., 3 in Gal.). Thumb considers 
the rare use of μὴ γένοιτο in modern Greek (the only relic of 
the optative) a literary phenomenon, but Moulton® notes that 
Pallis retains it in Lu. 20:16. Moulton compares the persistence 
of the English optative in the phrase “be it so,’”’ ‘so be it,” “‘be 
it never so humble,” οὐ... So he notes it in the papyri for oaths, 
prayers and wishes. O. P. 240 (i/a.p.) εὖ εἴη, O. P. 715 (ji/a.p.) 
ἔνοχοι εἴημεν, O. P. 526 (ii/A.D.) χαίροις, L. Ph. (ii/B.c.) ὃς διδοίη 
σοι, B. M. 21 (ii/B.c.) σοὶ δὲ γένοιτο. The N. T. examples are all 
in the third person except Phil. 20, ἔγὠ σου ὀναίμην. One is a 
curse μηκέτι μηδεὶς φάγοι (Mk. 11:14) and is equivalent to the im- 
perative. ‘There is a strong inclination to use the imperative 
instead of the optative, not only in requests, where the impera- 
tive has a legitimate place in classical Greek as well, but also in 
imprecations, where it takes the place of the classical optative: 
avabena éorw, Gal. 1:8f. Cf. 1 Cor. 16:22.”8 Only in Mk.11: 
14 and Ac. 8 : 20, τὸ ἀργύριόν σου σὺν σοὶ εἴη, do we have the opta- 
tive in imprecations in the N. T. The opt. comes very near the 
imper. in ancient Greek sometimes (Gildersleeve, p. 155). Cf. 
γίνοιτο, P. Par. 26 (B.c. 163). In Ac. 1:20, where the LXX (Ps. 
109 : 8) has λάβοι, Luke gives λαβέτω. There are only 23 exam- 
ples of the volitive optative in independent clauses outside of μὴ 
Wevorrom raul nas lo-or unis 23° (Ro. 15:5, 13 ΕΠ ΟΣ; 2)Tim. 
1:16, 18; 4:16, and the rest in 1 and 2 Th.), while Mark, Luke, 
Acts, Hebrews, 1 Peter and 2 Peter have one apiece, and Jude 
two.’’8 They are all examples of the aorist optative except the 
present in Ac. 8:20. The negative is μή and ἄν is not used. In 


' Prol., Ὁ. 194. 

2 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 79; Moulton, Prol., p. 194. 

3 Tb., p. 240. 

4 Cf. Sweet, New Eng. Gr.: Synt., pp. 107 ff. 

5 Moulton, Prol., p. 195 f. 7 Tb. 

6 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 220. 8 Moulton, Prol., p. 195. 


940 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


2 Th. 3:16 δῴη is opt., not the subj. δώῃ. In 1 Th. 3:12 the 
context shows that περισσεύσαι is opt. (not aor. inf. nor aor. 
middle imperative).1 The rare use of the volitive opt. with ei 
(twelve cases in the N. T., but four belong to indirect questions), 
will be discussed under Conditional Sentences. If ἵνα δῴη is the 
correct text in Eph. 1:17, we probably have a volitive optative, 
the ἵνα being merely introductory (cf. examples with the subj.). 
It is hardly a case of final iva with the optative.. Blass* reads 
δῷ here subj. after B. In modern Greek Dr. Rouse finds people 
saying not μὴ γένοιτο, but ὁ θεὸς va φυλάξῃ (Moulton, Prol., p. 
249), though va is not here necessary (Thumb, Handb., p. 127). 
The ancient idiom with εἴθε and εἰ yap is not found in the N. T., 
as stated already several times. "Ὄφελον with the future ind. 
occurs for a future wish (Gal. 5:12). 

(ὦ Deliberative. There is little more to add here. The LXX*4 
gives instances of ris δῴη; (Num. 11:29; Judg. 9:29; 2 Sam. 
18 : 33, etc.) without ἄν as in Homer, where a deliberative subj. 
would be admissible. See also Ps. 120 (119): 3, τί δοθείη σοι καὶ τί 
προστεθείη cot; In Lu. 6:11 Moulton® remarks that τί ἂν ποιή- 
σαιεν in the indirect question is “‘the hesitating substitute for the 
direct τί ποιήσομεν; Why not rather suppose a “hesitating” 
(deliberative) direct question like τί ἂν θέλοι ὁ σπερμολόγος οὗτος 
λέγειν; (Ac. 17:18). As already remarked, the context shows 
doubt and perplexity in the indirect questions which have ἄν and 
the opt. in the N. T. Cou. 1625 6511579 =465315 3 263Acr 524: 
10:17). The verbs (ἐνένευον, διελάλουν, εἰσῆλθεν διαλογισμός, Ervv- 
θάνετο, διηπόρουν) all show this state of mind. See indirect question 
εἰ βούλοιτο in Ac. 25:20 after ἀπορούμενος. Cf. 27:39. The de- 
liberative opt. undoubtedly occurs in Lu. 3:15, διαλογιζομένων μή 
ποτε αὐτὸς εἴη 6 Χριστός. It is not therefore pressing the optative 
unduly to find remnants of the deliberative use for it (οἴ. subj. 
and fut. indicative). 


1 They are all exx. of the third person save Phil. 20. Here is the list 
(with Burton’s errors corrected by H. Scott): Mk. 11:14; Lu. 1:38; 20: 
16; Ac.:8 220; Ro.3 24,67 91. 65 25 10: πὴ el ee ee eee 
5, 13..}1 Cor. 62,15; Galo Ὁ ΙΕ 914 Ue ee es es 
bis; 2 ΠῊ 2.717) bis; 335.7167) 2 lime 1 10. 15. ΠΟ ee ile eee 
15. 1: ΠΡΟ ΡΟ eee, 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 196. 

δ᾽ τ ΟΝ olan Deeks 

4 Moulton, Prol., p. 194. 

5 Ib., p. 198. On the “development principle” of the opt. see Mutzbauer, 
Konj. und Opt., p. 155. 


MODE (ΕΓ ΆΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 941 


IV. The Imperative (ἡ προστατικὴ ἔγκλισις). 

1. ORIGIN OF THE IMPERATIVE. See chapter on Conjugation 
of the Verb for discussion of the various devices used by this 
latest of the modes in order to get a foothold. Giles,! after 
giving the history of the imperative forms (five separate strata), 
curtly dismisses it as not properly a mode and declines to discuss 
it under syntax. So Radermacher passes it by in his N. 7’. Gr. 
Moulton,” on the other hand, takes it up “‘first among the moods”’ 
because “‘it is the simplest possible form of the verb.’”’ It is the 
simplest in one of its forms like the interjectional aye, but it is 
also the latest of the modes and is without a distinct set of end- 
ings. Besides, it never dislodged the aorist subj. from the second 
person in prohibitions and finally gave up the fight all along the 
line. ‘The modes were slower than the tenses in making sharp dis- 
tinctions anyhow, and in the Sanskrit ‘‘no distinction of meaning 
has been established between the modes of the present-system and 
those (in the older language) of the perfect- and aorist-systems.’’? 
The ambiguity of the imperative persists in the second person 
plural present where only the context can decide the mode. Thus 
ἐραυνᾶτε (JO. 5:39); πιστεύετε (14:1); ἀγαλλιᾶσθε (1 Pet. 1:6); 
οἰκοδομεῖσθε (2: 5); τελεῖτε (Ro. 18 : 6); καθίζετε (1 Cor. 6:4); ef. 
Jo. 12:19. The perfect form ἴστε (Jas. 1 : 19; Heb. 12 : 17) shows 
the same situation. 

2. MEANING OF THE IMPERATIVE. In its original significance it 
was demand? or exhortation. But, as will be shown, it was not 
confined to this simple idea. Besides, the notion of command 
(or prohibition) was expressed in various ways before the impera- 
tive was developed. These uses of the other modes continued to 
exist side by side with the imperative till the N. T. time. Ex- 
amples of this will be given directly. The imperative itself was 
extended to include various shades of the future ind., the subj. 
and the opt. There is a general sense in which the imperative is 
distinct, as is seen in ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν (Mt. 5 : 44), but 
this idea of command easily softens to appeal as in κύριε, σῶσον, 
ἀπολλύμεθα (Mt. 8 : 25). 

3. DISAPPEARANCE OF THE IMPERATIVE Forms. It was the 
last mode to get on its feet. It followed the optative into ob- 
livion save in the second person (Thumb, Handb., p. 154). There 
the forms held on in the main, but the present subjunctive with 
μή came also into use instead of μή and the present imper., and 


1 Man., pp. 464-473, 502. 3 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 220. 
ΞΕ ῬΤΟΙ͂ Ὁ. 171: 4 Delbriick, Die Grundl., p. 120. 


942 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


finally the hortatory (positive) subj. also appeared as imper. In 
the third person (both positive and negative with μή) ἄς and 
the subj. drove out the imperative. Thus the imperative forms 
in modern Greek present a wreck, if indeed they were ever much 
else.! The imperative, like the subjunctive, is always future 
in time, though it may apply to the immediate future as in 
“quit that.” 

4. ALTERNATIVES FOR THE IMPERATIVE. ‘These, under all the 
circumstances, can be logically treated before the imperative 
itself. Indeed, they have already been discussed in the preceding 
remarks on tense and mode, so that little in addition is required. 

(a) The Future Indicate. See ch. XVIII, Tense, where it is 
shown that the Volitive Future is the equivalent of the impera- 
tive. The fut. ind., like the subj. and the opt., may be merely 
futuristic or volitive, or deliberative. The volitive future is a 
matter of context and tone of voice, to be sure, but that is true 
also of the subj. and opt., and, in truth, of the real imperative. 
But more of the ‘‘tone of the imperative” further on. English, 
as well as Greek, continues to use this volitive future. Both posi- 
tive and negative (οὐ) commands are given by the fut. ind. The 
negative is sometimes μή as in μὴ βουλήσεσθε εἰδέναι (Demosthenes), 
μὴ ἐξέσται (B. U. 197, i/A.D.), μηδένα μισήσετε (Clem., Hom., III, 69).? 
So also οὐ μή with the fut. ind. is sometimes prohibition, as in οὐ 
μὴ ἔσται σοι τοῦτο. (Mt. 16:22). Cf. also Gal. 4:30. But it is 
commonest in the simple future like od ὄψῃ (Mt. 27:4); ὑμεῖς 
ὄψεσθε (27: 24); ἐκκόψεις (Lu. 13 : 9); οὐκ ἔσεσθε (Mt. 6: 5), ete. It 
is true that this use of οὐ proves the origin of this idiom to be “a 
purely futuristic form,’’? as is the case with the question οὐ παύσῃ 
διαστρέφων; (Ac. 13:10), but the tone of this future is volitive 
(imperatival). The Latin use of the volitive future coincides 
with that of the Greek. Gildersleeve‘ says: “It is not a milder 
or gentler imperative. A’ prediction may imply resistless power 
or cold indifference, compulsion or concession.” The exact 
shade of idea in this volitive future must be watched as closely 
as in the imperative itself. Cf. καλέσεις (Mt. 1:21) with σὺ ὄψῃ 
(Mt. 27:4). Blass® denies that this is a “classical” idiom (against 


1 Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 449, 451, 555 ff.; V. and D., Handb. (Jebb), p. 
322 f.; Thumb, Handb., p. 127. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 177. Cf. Gildersl., Synt., p. 117. 

8. Moulton, Prol., p. 177. 

4 Synt., Pt.:I, p.'116.. Cf. .W.-Th.; p. 316. 

5 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 209. 





MODE (EPKAI=I2>) 943 


Gildersleeve) and rather minimizes its use in the N. T. Many 
of the examples do come from the O. T. (LXX) legal language. 
Certainly in the LXX the fut. ind. often replaces the imperative 
under the influence of the Hebrew (Thackeray, Gr., p. 194). But 
examples occur where the two are equivalent. Cf. ἀγαπήσεις in 
Mt. 5:48, with ἀγαπᾶτε in 5: 44, ἐρεῖτε in Mt. 21: 3, with! εἴπατε 
in Mk. 11:3. Some MSS. have ἔστω rather than ἔσται in Mt. 
20 : 26. . 

(b) The Subjunctive. The volitive subjunctive is quite to the 
point. In the first person this use of the subj. held its own al- 
ways in lieu of the imperative. It is needless to repeat the dis- 
cussion of this matter (see Subjunctive in this chapter). The use 
of ἵνα with the subj. in an imperatival sense is seen in Mk. 5 : 23 
(6: 25); Eph. 5:33 is there discussed also. Cf. Tit. 2:4. Let μὴ 
σχίσωμεν αὐτόν, ἀλλὰ λάχωμεν (Jo. 19 : 24) serve as an example. So 
in the second person the aorist subj. held its place in prohibitions 
past κοινή times to the practical exclusion of the aor. imper. with 
un. The two constructions existed in the κοινή side by side with 
the third person. Thus μὴ γνώτω (Mt. 6:3) and μή τις ἐξουθενήσῃ 
(1 Cor. 16:11). Cf. δός and μὴ ἀποστραφῇς in Mt. 5:42. The 
final triumph of the subj. over the imperative (save in the second 
person) has been shown. Cf. the fate of the opt. before the subj. 

(c) The Optative. There is only one example, μηκέτι μηδεὶς φάγοι 
(ΜΚ. 11:14), in the N.T. The distinction between a curse and 
a prohibition is not very great. The parallel passage in Mt. 21: 
19 has! οὐ μηκέτι ἐκ σοῦ καρπὸς γένηται (volitive subj.). 

(d) The Infinitive. The idiom is very frequent in Homer.’ It 
occurs chiefly after an imperative. The command is carried on 
by the infinitive. There is no need for surprise in this construc- 
tion, since the probability is that imperative forms like δεῖξαι (like 
the Latin legimini, Homeric \eyé-wevac) are infinitive in origin.’ It 
is true that the accent of the editors for the aorist active optative 
is different from the aorist active inf. in forms like κατευθύναι, περισ- 
σεύσαι (1 Th. 3:11 f.), but the MSS. had no accent. We could 
properly print the infinitive if we wished.t So as to παρακαλέσαι 
(2 Th. 2:17) where the accent is the same for both infinitive 
and optative (the imper. form aor. mid. sec. singl. is παρακά- 
λεσαι). Cf. βάπτισαι and βαπτίσαι, one and the same form. The 
idiom is less frequent in the Attic® outside of laws and maxims, 

1 Moulton, Prol., p. 179. 4 Moulton, Prol., p. 179. 


2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 162. 5 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 222. 
3. Giles, Man., p. 468. 


944. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


but happens to be the one infinitive construction that is alive in 
the Pontic dialect to-day.!. Moulton? expresses surprise at the 
rarity of this use of the inf. in the N. T., since it is common in 
the papyri. Cf. ἐξεῖναι, μισθῶσαι, A. P. 86 (i/A.D.). Moulton 
(Prol., p. 248) notes that Burkitt (Hvang. da-Mepharr. 1i, 252 1.) 
reads ταῦτα δὲ ποιῆσαι κἀκεῖνα μὴ ἀφεῖναι in Mt. 23:23. Blass? 
notes also a revival of the simple inf. or the accusative and in- 
finitive in the later language in legal phraseology. He explains 
the idiom as an ellipsis, but Moulton is undoubtedly correct in 
rejecting this theory. There is no need of a verb of command 
understood in view of the etymology of a form like βάπτισαι. The 
use of χαίρειν as greeting in epistles (with the nominative) is ex- 
plained in the same way. Cf. Ac. 15:28; 23: 26; Jas. 1:1. It 
is the absolute use of the infinitive as often. It is very common 
in the papyri, as Πολυκράτης τῶι πατρὶ χαίρειν, P. Petr. II, xi, 1 
(iii/B.c.). So Moulton (Prol., p. 180) denies the necessity of the 
ellipsis of a verb of command. In Ro. 12:15 χαίρειν and κλαίειν 
are clearly parallel with εὐλογεῖτε καὶ μὴ καταρᾶσθε. So in Ph. 3:16 
στοιχεῖν is to be compared with the hortatory φρονῶμεν. Blass4 
needlessly wishes to emend the text in 2 Tim. 2 : 14, so as not to 
read μὴ λογομαχεῖν. This use of the inf. occurs also in Tit. 2:9. 
We probably have the same construction in μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι 
(2 Th. 8 : 14), though it may be explained as purpose. In 1 Cor. 
5:12 κρίνειν is the subject inf. In Lu. 9:3 after εἶπεν the quo- 
tation begins with Μηδὲν αἴρετε and is changed to μήτε ἔχειν (indi- 
rect command). In Mk. 6:8 f. both forms are indirect (one with 
iva μηδὲν aipwow, the other with μὴ ἐνδύσασθαι). The marg. in 
W.H. has μὴ ἐνδύσησθες The MSS. often vary between the middle 
inf. and imper..or subj. Winer® thinks that expositors have been 
unduly anxious to find this use of the infinitive in the N.T. But 
it is there. See further chapter XX, Verbal Nouns. 

(ὁ The Participle. Winer® found much difficulty in the abso- 
lute use of the participle in the N. T. The so-called genitive ab- 
solute is common enough and the participle in indirect discourse 
representing a finite verb. It would seem but a simple step to 
use the participle, like the infinitive, in an independent sentence 
without direct dependence on a verb. Winer admits that Greek 
prose writers have this construction, though “seldom.”’ He ex- 


1 Hatz., Einl., Ὁ. 192. Cf. Thumb, Hellen., p. 130 f. 
2 Prol., p..179 f. 

* Gr. of Nia. Gkip.e222: SOW. = Lhe pas] 6: 
ari: ° Ib. pp. 350 ff. 


MODE (ΕΓ ΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 945 


plains it on the ground of ellipsis of the copula as is so common 
with adjectives (cf. Mt. 5: 3-11). He passes the poets by (often 
the truest index of the vernacular) and admits “the Byzantine 
use of participles simply for finite verbs.”’ T. S. Green! says: 
“The absolute use of the participle as an imperative is a marked 
feature of the language of the N. T.’’ He explains it as an “ Ara- 
maism.’”’ To this W. F. Moulton? expresses surprise and admits 
only “‘the participial anacoluthon,” which, by the way, is very 
much the same thing. But J. H. Moulton’ has found a number 
of examples in the papyri where the participle is fairly common 
for the indicative. The instances in the papyri of the participle 
in the sense of the imperative are not numerous, but one of them 
seems very clear. Thus Tb. 59 (i/B.c.) ἐν οἷς ἐὰν προσδέησθέε μου 
ἐπιτάσσοντές μοι προθυμότερον. It is preceded by a genitive abso- 
lute. Moulton gives another equally so: G. 35 (i/B.c.) ἐπιμελόμενοι 
ἵν᾽ ὑγιαίνητε. Moulton‘ cites also the Latin form sequimini (= 
ἑπόμενοι) for the second middle plural present indicative. The 
similar looking form sequimini imperative has an_ infinitive 
origin, as already shown. See chapter XX, Verbal Nouns, for 
other examples and further discussion. On the whole, therefore, 
we must admit that there is no reason per se why the N. T. 
writers should not use the participle in lieu of the imperative. 
It is, of course, a loose construction, as ellipsis is and anaco- 
luthon is, but it is not the mark of an uneducated person. 
In the papyrus example given above Grenfell and Hunt call the 
writer ‘‘an official of some importance.” Moulton® also trans- 
lates Thumb ® concerning the ‘‘hanging nominative”? (common in 
classical and κοινή Greek) as saying that the usage “is the pre- 
cursor of the process which ends in modern Greek with the dis- 
appearance of the old participial construction, only an absolute 
form in —ovtas being left.’”’ In the ellipsis of the copula it is not 
always clear whether the indicative or the imperative is to be 
supplied. Cf. εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεός (2 Cor. 1:3). Shall we supply 
ἐστιν or ἤτω (ἔστω) as we have it in 1 Cor. 16:22? Ina case like 
1 Pet. 3:8 f. it is plain that the unexpressed ἔστε would be im- 
perative, but Moulton notes the curious fact that ἔστε (impera- 
tive) does not appear in the N. T. at all, though we have ἴσθι five 
times, ἔστω or ἤτω fourteen, and ἔστωσαν twice.’ There are in- 


1 Gr., p. 180. § Prol., p. 223. Pali pace. 

2 W.-Moulton, p. 732, n. 5. 4 ΤΌ. 6 Hellen., p. 131. 

7 Mr. H. Scott notes the absence of ἔστε in the H. R. Conc. of the LXX, 
in Veitch, in Kihner-Bl., Mayser, Helbing, Thackeray. In Goodspeed’s 


946 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


stances more or less doubtful, as ἐπιρίψαντες (1 Pet. 5: 7), which is 
naturally taken with ταπεινώθητε as Moulton! now admits. He 
evidently reacted too strongly against Winer. This use of the 
participle should not be appealed to if the principal verb is pres- 
ent in the immediate context. Sometimes it is a matter of punc- 
tuation as in Lu. 24:47, where W. H. give in the margin 
ἀρξάμενοι ἀπὸ ᾿Ιερουσαλὴμ ὑμεῖς μάρτυρες τούτων, instead of ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ᾽ 
ὑμεῖς. The marginal punctuation takes the participle as an im- 
perative. The MSS. sometimes vary, as when NC give ἐνδείξασθε 
in 2 Cor. 8:24, while B, etc., have ἐνδεικνύμενοι But a num- 
ber of unmistakable examples appear both in Paul and Peter, 
though “Paul was not so fond of this construction as his brother 
apostle.” Thus ἔχοντες (1 Pet. 2 : 12) must be so explained or 
taken as anacoluthon (cf. ἀπέχεσθαι). So ὑποτασσόμενοι (1 Pet. 2: 
18; 3:1) reminds one of Eph. 5:22, an “echo” according to 
Moulton. Other examples occur in 1 Pet. 3:7, 9, possibly 16 
also; 4:8 ff. Besides ἀνεχόμενοι and σπουδάζοντες (Eph. 4: 2 f.) and 
ὑποτασσόμενοι (5 : 2 f.) in Paul the most outstanding example is in 
Ro. 12:9 f., 16f. These participles occur in the midst of impera- 
tives or infinitives as imperatives (12 : 15). The asyndeton makes 
it impossible to connect with any verb. In verse 6 ἔχοντες ap- 
pears as a practical indicative. Moulton‘ adds to these 2 Cor. 
9:11f. and Col. 3:16. See also Heb. 13:5. But Lightfoot® 
put in a word of caution when he said: ‘The absolute participle, 
being (so far as regards mood) neutral in itself, takes its colour 
from the general complexion of the sentence.’”’ The participle is 
not technically either indicative, subjunctive, optative or im- 
perative. The context must decide. In itself the participle is 
non-finite (non-modal) like the infinitive, though it was some- 
times drawn out into the modal sphere. 

5. Uses OF THE IMPERATIVE. 

(a) Command or Exhortation. In general the imperative keeps 
within the same limits observed in the classical language, but 
that is not a narrow groove.® It is the mood of the assertion of 
one’s will over another or the call of one to exert his will. Thus 


Index Pat. he finds it only in 1 Clem. 45:1, and the accent is doubtful here. 
He finds it also in Test. XII Pat. Reub. 6:1. It could have been used in 
Napht. 3: 2 and in Ign. Eph. 10: 2. 

! Prol., p. 181, against his former view in Expositor, VI, x. 450. 

2 Tb. 

3 Tb. 5 On Col. 3 :16f. 

4 Tb. 6 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk.; p. 221. 


“MODE (ΕΓ ΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 947 


ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν (Mt. 5 : 44); εἴσελθε εἰς τὸ ταμιεῖόν cov Kal 
πρόσευξαι (6:6); πάντοτε χαίρετε (1 Th. 5:16). Moulton! finds 
the imperatives ‘‘normal in royal edicts, in‘ letters to inferiors, 
and among equals when the tone is urgent, or the writer indis- 
posed to multiply words.’”’ The imperatives in Rey. 22:11 are 
probably hortatory. 

(b) Prohibition. This is just a negative command and differs 
in no respect save the presence of the negative μή. Thus μὴ κρί- 
vere (Mt. 7:1), μὴ φοβεῖσθε (Jo. 6 : 20). Often the presence of the 
imperative in the midst of indicatives is shown by μή as in μὴ 
πλανᾶσθε (1 Cor. 6:9). We do, indeed, have οὐ with the impera- 
tive in marked contrast, where the force of the negative is given 
to that rather than to the mode. Thus in 1 Pet. 3:3, ἔστω οὐχ ὁ 
— κόσμος, ἀλλ᾽ 6 κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας ἄνθρωπος. The same explana- 
tion applies to οὐ μόνον --- ἀλλὰ καί in 1 Pet. 2:18, but μὴ μόνον is 
regular in Jas. 1 : 22, etc., because of the absence of ἀλλά. In 
cases of contrast with οὐ — ἀλλά (with participles and impera- 
tives) the reason for οὐ is thus apparent (H. Scott). In Mt. 
5 : 37 od οὔ (like vai vai) is the predicate (like a substantive), not 
the negative of ἔστω. In 2 Tim. 2:14 én’ οὐδὲν χρήσιμον (a 
parenthetical expression of μὴ λογομαχεῖν used as an imperative), 
the negative goes specifically with the single word χρήσιμον. Cf. 
also 1 Cor. 5:10. The upshot is that μὴ remains the negative 
- of the imperative. Cf. μή μοι κόπους πάρεχε (Lu. 11:7). 

(ὦ Entreaty. A command easily shades off into petition in 
certain circumstances. The tone of the demand is softened to 
pleading.2 Moulton* notes that the imperative has a decided 
tone about it. ‘‘The grammarian Hermogenes asserted harsh- 
ness to be a feature of the imperative; and the sophist Protagoras 
even blamed Homer for addressing the Muse at the beginning 
of the Ziad with an imperative.’’* The N. T. shows a sharp de- 
parture in the use of the imperative in petitions (rare in the older 
Greek and in the κοινή). The prophet pleads with the imperative, 
not with potential optative or future indicative. Jesus spoke 
with authority and not as the scribes.’ ‘Moreover, even in the 
language of prayer the imperative is at home, and that in its 
most urgent form, the aorist. Gildersleeve observes (on Justin 
Martyr, p. 137), ‘As in the Lord’s Prayer, so in the ancient Greek 
liturgies the aorist imper. is almost exclusively used. It is the 

ΤΟΡγΏ] ped to: 4 Tb. 


2 Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 158. 5 Mt. 7: 29. 
$e rol, p. 172: 


948 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


true term for instant prayer.’’’! Gildersleeve? denies that the 
N. T. shows ‘‘the absolute indifference that some scholars have 
considered to be characteristic of Hellenistic Greek” in the use 
of the imperative. He credits Mr. Mozley with the observation 
that ‘‘the aorist imperative is regularly used in biblical Greek 
when the deity is addressed; and following out this generalization 
Herr Krieckers, a pupil of Thumb’s, has made a statistical study 
of the occurrences of the two tenses in Homer, Hesiod, Sappho, 
Aischylos, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, with the result 
that in prayers addressed by men to men both present and aorist 
are often used, whereas in prayers addressed by men to gods the 
aorist largely predominates.’ Examples* of the imperative in 
petitions appear in Mk. 9 : 22, βοήθησον ἡμῖν, (Lu. 17: 5) πρόσθες 
ἡμῖν πίστιν, (Jo. 17:11) τήρησον αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί cov. 

(d) Permission. All this is in strict line with the ancient Greek.* 
A good illustration is seen in Mt. 26 : 45, καθεύδετε λοιπὸν Kal ἀνα- 
παύεσθε. ‘This is not a question nor necessarily irony. It is too 
late to do Christ any good by keeping awake. He withdraws his 
plea for watchfulness. There is irony in πληρώσατε (Mt. 23 : 32), 
though it is the permissive use of the imperative. The note of 
permission is struck in ἐλθάτω and ἐπιστραφήτω (Mt. 10:13). Cf. 
the fut. ind. in Lu. 10:6. See further χωριζέσθω (1 Cor. 7:15); 
ἀγνοείτω (14:38, W. H. marg.). In 2 Cor. 12:16 ἔστω δέ is like 
our ‘Let it be so’ or ‘Granted.’ In Mt. 8:31 ἀπόστειλον is en- 
treaty, while ὑπάγετε is permissive. In 1 Cor. 11:6 κειράσθω is 
probably hortatory. 

(e) Concession or Condition. It is an easy step from permis- 
sion to concession. This also is classical. Take Jo. 2:19, λύσατε 
τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον, Kal ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἔγερῶ αὐτόν. This is much the 
same as ἐὰν λύσητε. It is ποῦ a strict command. We have para- 
taxis with καί, but it is equivalent in idea to hypotaxis with ἐάν. 
So with ἀντίστητε τῷ διαβόλῳ, καὶ φεύξεται ad’ ὑμῶν (Jas. 4:7 f.); 
ἀνάστα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν (LXX), καὶ ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ Χριστός (Eph. 5 : 14). 
See also μὴ κρίνετε, καὶ οὐ μὴ κριθῆτε᾽ καὶ μὴ καταδικάζετε, καὶ οὐ μὴ 
καταδικασθῆτε' ἀπολύετε, καὶ ἀπολυθήσεσθε: δίδοτε, καὶ δοθήσεται ὑμῖν 
(Lu. 6:37 f.). Then again μακροθύμησον ἐπ᾽ ἐμοί, καὶ πάντα ἀποδώσω 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 173. 

2 Am. Jour. of Philol., Apr., 1909, p. 235. 

8 Cf Burton Ν. 1. Mandel. Ῥ. 80. 

* Cf. Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 158; Miller, The Limitation of the Imperative 
in the Attic Orators, Am. Jour. of Philol., 1892, pp. 399-436. 

Cf. K-Ge Bdslapacou: 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 949 


σοι (Mt. 18 : 26). So also τοῦτο ποίει καὶ ζήσῃ (Lu. 10 : 28); ἔρχεσθε 
καὶ ὄψεσθε (Jo. 1:39). Cf. δεῦτε καὶ ποιήσω (Mt. 4:19). Sometimes 
two imperatives are connected by καί when the first suggests con- 
cession. Thus Eph. 4 : 26, ὀργίζεσθε καὶ μὴ auaptavere. So also 
ἐραύνησον καὶ ἴδε (Jo. 7:52). Cf. ἔρχου καὶ ἴδε (Jo. 1:46). This 
seems simple enough. 

(f) In Asyndeton. It is a regular classic idiom! to have ἄγε, 
φέρε with another imperative. “Aye with κλαύσατε (Jas. 5:1) is 
an interjection like δεῦρο ἀκολούθει μοι (Mt. 19 : 21) and δεῦτε ἴδετε 
(Mt. 28:6). See also Jo. 4:29; 21:12; Rev. 19:17. More 
common is ὕπαγε and ὑπάγετε with another imperative. So ὕπαγε 
πρῶτον διαλλάγηθι (Mt. 5 : 24); ὑπάγετε ἀπαγγείλατε (28:10). See 
further Mt. 8:4; 18:15; 21 : 28; 27:65; Mk. 1 : 44; 6: 38, etc. 
In Mt. 16:6 we have ὁρᾶτε καὶ προσέχετε. Cf. also Lu. 12:15. 
But asyndeton occurs in Mt. 24:6, ὁρᾶτε μὴ θροεῖσθε. So ὁρᾶτε 
βλέπετε (Mk. 8:15). In Mt. 9:30 the persons and numbers are 
different, ὁρᾶτε μηδεὶς γινωσκέτω. In Rev. 19:10, dpa μή, the verb 
with μή is not expressed. For ὅρα ποιήσεις see also Heb. 8:5 
({LXX). The simplest form of asyndeton is seen in Ph. 3:2, 
βλέπετε, βλέπετε, βλέπετε. 

(g) In Subordinate Clauses. The reason for treating this sub- 
ject here is that it is so rare that one may not catch it in the dis- 
cussion of subordinate clauses. It is well established, though 
rare, in Demosthenes, Lysias, Plato, Thucydides and the tragic 
poets.2. The case of ὥστε at the beginning of a clause is not perti- 
nent, for there it is a mere inferential conjunction, as, for in- 
stance, 1 Cor. 3:21, ὥστε μηδεὶς καυχάσθω. Here ὥστε is not a 
hypotactic conjunction. Neither is the recitative ὅτι in point, as 
in 2 Th. 3:10, τοῦτο παρηγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν, ὅτι εἴ Tis οὐ θέλει ἐργάζε- 
σθαι, μηδὲ ἐσθιέτω. In 1 Cor. 1: 91 there is probably an ellipsis of 
γένηται after iva, and the imperative καυχάσθω is in the direct quo- 
tation after γέγραπται. In 1 Pet. 1:6, ἐν ᾧ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε (probably 
_ imperative), W. H. begin a new sentence, but @ points back di- 
rectly to καιρῷ as its antecedent. The same situation occurs 
in 1 Pet. 3:3 with ὧν ἔστω. In both examples the imperative 
appears with the relative. Two other instances of this construc- 
tion are found in 1 Peter (a peculiarity of this Epistle). They 
are @ ἀντίστητε (5:9) and els ἢν στῆτε (5:12). We see it also in 
Heb. 18 : 7, dv — μιμεῖσθε, and in 2 Tim. 4:15, ὃν καὶ od φυλάσσου. 
Cf. O. P. 1125, 19 (ii/a.p.), ὧν θέμα καθαρὸν ἀπὸ πάντων ἀναδότω. 


1 Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 162. 
ΤΟ palo. 


950 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Διό at the beginning of the sentence was hardly felt as a rela- 
tive (inferential particle), but see 1 Cor. 14 : 13, διὸ προσευχέσθω.ἷ 

(h) The Tenses. This matter received adequate discussion 
under Tenses. It may simply be noted here that in positive 
sentences the aorist imperative is naturally common, especially 
frequent in the N. T. Cf. εἴσελθε --- πρόσευξαι (Mt. 6:6). The 
distinction between the present and the aorist is well seen in ἄρον 
τὸν κράβαττόν σου καὶ περιπάτει (Jo. 5:8). See also Jo. 2:16 and 
Ac. 12:8. As an example of the periphrastic present note ἴσθι 
éxwv (Lu. 19:17). The perfect is almost non-existent, but note 
πεφίμωσο (Mk. 4:39). The present imper. second person alone 
occurs in prohibitions which are forbidden as in course of action 
or as a present fact (‘quit doing it’).2 Cf. Ro. 6:13 for sharp 
differences in idea between μὴ παριστάνετε (course of action) and 
παραστήσατε (at once and for all). In the third person a prohibi- 
tion may be either in the aorist imperative or the aorist subj. 
See the subj. mode for further remarks concerning the failure of 
the second person imperative aorist in prohibitions. 

(ὃ In Indirect Discourse. This subject will receive adequate 
treatment under this head (see below). All that is attempted 
here is to indicate that, when the imperative is not quoted 
directly (cf. 2 Th. 3:10), it may be expressed in an indirect 
command either by the infinitive (cf. λέγων μὴ περιτέμνειν μηδὲ 
περιπατεῖν in Ac. 21:21) or by a conjunction like ἵνα as in Mk. 
6:8, or thrown into a deliberative question as in ὑποδείξω τίνα 
φοβηθῆτε (Lu. 12 : δ). 


B. DEPENDENT OR HYPOTACTIC SENTENCES (YIIOTAKTIKA 
"ABIOMATA) 

Introductory. 

(a) Use of Modes in Subordinate Sentences. There is no essen- 
tial difference in the meaning of the modes in subordinate clauses 
from the significance in independent sentences. The division is 
not made on the basis of the modes at all. Leaving out the 
imperative because of its rarity in subordinate sentences, the other 
three modes occur in almost all the subordinate clauses. The 
same mode-ideas are to be sought here as there. The subor- 
dinate clauses make no change in the meaning of mode, voice or 
tense. Burton® does say: “Others, however, give to the mood or 

1 Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 511. 


2 Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 164. See also Thompson, Synt., p. 190 f. 
ΠΝ Το ΝΜ ΡΠ pao 





MODE (ΕΓ ΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 951 


tense a force different from that which they usually have in prin- 
cipal clauses. Hence arises the necessity for special treatment of 
the moods and tenses in subordinate clauses.”’ I cannot agree to 
this as the reason for the separate treatment. Sometimes in in- 
direct discourse after secondary tenses there may be a sequence 
of modes (true also in ancient Greek with final clauses after sec- 
ondary tenses), but that is so slight a matter that it bears no 
sort of proportion to the subordinate clauses as a whole. Gilder- 
sleeve (A. J. of Phil., XX XIII, 4, p. 489) regards the subordinate 
sentence as ‘‘the Ararat in the flood of change” and parataxis and 
hypotaxis as largely a matter of style. Some of the modal uses 
have survived better in the subordinate clauses, as, for instance, 
the futuristic aorist subj. (ef. ὅστις ἀρνήσηται in Mt. 10 : 33), but 
the subordinate clause did not create the idiom. Originally 
there were no subordinate sentences.! ‘In dependent clauses the 
choice of the mood is determined by the nature of each individual 
case’? as is true also of independent sentences. The qualifica- 
tion made above about the sequence of modes was always op- 
tional and is absent from the N. T. except a few examples in 
Luke. The great wealth of subordinate clauses in Greek with 
various nuances demand separate discussion. But we approach 
the matter with views of the modes already attained. 

(b) The Use of Conjunctions in Subordinate Clauses. In chap- 
ter XXI, Particles, full space will be given to the conjunctions 
(co-ordinating, disjunctive, inferential, subordinating). Here it is 
only pertinent to note the large part played in the Greek language 
by the subordinating conjunctions. It must be admitted that 
the line of cleavage is not absolute. The paratactic conjunctions 
were first on the field.? Popular speech has always had a fondness 
for parataxis.4 In the modern Greek vernacular “the propensity 
for parataxis has considerably reduced the ancient Greek wealth 
of dependent constructions’? (Thumb, Handb., p. 185). Hence 
long periods are rare. So the Hebrew used 1 both as paratactic 
and hypotactic. In the Greek καί we see a partial parallel.’ In 
Mt. 26 : 15, ri θέλετέ μοι δοῦναι κἀγὼ ὑμῖν παραδώσω, the καί is almost 
equivalent to ἐάν. So often in Luke, as in 9: 51, ἐγένετο δὲ--- καί, the 
καί clause is (like ὅτι) the logical subject of éyévero. The common 
use of the recitative ὅτι illustrates well the close connection be- 
‘tween subordinate and independent sentences. The ὅτι shows 


1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 552. 4 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 451. 
2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 452. 5 Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 194. 
8 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 552. 


952 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


that the clause is the object of the preceding verb, but the clause 
is preserved in the direct (co-ordinate) form. Cf. λέγετε ὅτι βλα- 
σφημεῖς (Jo. 10 : 36). Thus again a subordinate clause may be so 
loosely connected with the principal clause as to be virtually in- 
dependent.! Thus the relative, as in Latin, often introduces a 
principal sentence, a paragraph, forsooth, as ἐν οἷς (Lu. 12: 1) 
and ἀνθ’ ὧν (12:3). But, on the whole, we can draw a pretty 
clear line between the independent and the dependent clause by 
means of the conjunctions. The case of asyndeton, treated else- 
where (cf. The Sentence), concerns chiefly parataxis, but some 
examples occur in hypotaxis, as in καὶ ἐγένετο --- εἶπέν τις (Lu. 
11:1) where the εἶπέν τις clause is the logical subject of ἐγένετο. 
(c) Logical Varieties of Subordinate Clauses. Each subordinate 
clause sustains a syntactical relation to the principal clause after 
the analogy of the case-relations. The normal complete sen- 
tence has subject, predicate, object. Each of these may receive 
further amplification (see chapter X, The Sentence). The pred- 
icate may have a substantive (as subject or object). This sub- 
stantive may be described by an adjective. An adverb may be 
used with predicate, adjective or substantive. Thus the sen- 
tence is built up around the predicate. In the same way each 


subordinate sentence is either a substantive (subject or object Ὁ 


like an ὅτι clause), an adjective like ὅστις or an adverb like ὅπου. 
This is therefore a point to note about each subordinate clause 
in order to get its exact syntactical relation to the principal 
clause. It may be related to. the predicate as subject or object, 
or to the subject or object as adjective, or to either as adverb. 
A relative clause may be now substantive, now adjective and 
now adverb. In simple truth most of the conjunctions have their 
origin as relative or demonstrative pronouns. In Kiihner-Gerth? 
the subordinate clauses are all discussed from this standpoint 
alone. Thumb (Handb., pp. 186 ff.) follows this plan. One 
questions the wisdom of this method, though in itself scientific 
enough. Burton® has carefully worked out all the subordinate 
clauses from this standpoint, though he does not adopt it. Then, 
again, one may divide these clauses according to their form or 
their meaning. Viteau®’ combines both ideas and the result is 
rather confusion than clarification. There may be a series of 
subordinate clauses, one dependent on the other. So in 1 Cor. 


2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 194. 3 N. T. M. and T., p: 82. 
2) Tl. 11, 2/Bd.; pp.354-459: 4 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 194 f. 
5 Le Verbe: Syntaxe des Propositions, pp. 41-144. 





MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 953 


1:14, εὐχαριστῶ ὅτι οὐδένα ὑμῶν ἐβάπτισα εἰ μὴ Κρίσπον καὶ Γαῖον, ἵνα 
μή τις εἴπῃ ὅτι εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα ἐβαπτίσθητες. See also Mk. 6:55 
and section 10 in this chapter. The infinitive and the participle 
are used also in subordinate clauses, but they do not directly con- 
cern the problem of the modes save in indirect discourse. They 
are so important and partake of the functions of both noun and 
verb to such an extent that they demand a separate chapter 
— XX. 

1. RELATIVE SENTENCES. 

(a) Relative Sentences Originally Paratactic. The relative ὅς, 
as is well known, was first an anaphoric substantive pronoun.! At 
first the relative clause was paratactic, a principal sentence like 
the other.? Cf. ὃς yap in Homer, where és may be taken? as de- 
monstrative or relative. In its simplest form the relative was 
unnecessary and was not even a connective. It was just a rep- 
etition of the substantive.4 “The relative force arises where 
ds (and its congeners) connects and complements.’”’® Indeed, the 
relative sentence is probably the oldest form of parataxis.® It is 
only by degrees that the relative clause came to be regarded as a 
subordinate clause.’ As a matter of fact, that was not always 
the case, as has been seen in such examples as ἐν οἷς, ἀνθ᾽ ὧν (Lu. 
12:1,3). But it is not true that this subordination is due to the 
use of the subjunctive mode.’ The effect of case-assimilation (cf. 
gender and number) and of incorporation of the antecedent was 
to link the relative clause very close to the principal sentence.? 
Cf. Heb. 13: 11. | 

(b) Most Subordinate Clauses Relative in Origin. This is true 
not merely of ὅτι and ὅτε which are accusative forms!® of 6, but 
also of other adverbs, like the ablative as, ὅπως, ἕως. These sub- 
ordinating conjunctions therefore are mostly of relative origin." 


1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 556. 2. ΤΌΣ; Ῥ- 559. 

3 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 180. Stahl, Hist.-krit. Synt., p. 523, points out that 
the relative sentence is either “synthetic or parathetic.” - 

4 Schmitt, Uber den Ursprung des Substantivsatzes mit Relativpartik. im 
Griech., 1889, p. 12. 

5 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 383. 

6 Frenzel, Die Entwick. des relat. Satzb. im Griech., 1889, p. 4. a 

7 Thompson, Synt., p. 383. 

8 Baron, Le Pronom Relat. et la Conj. en Grec, 1892, p. 61. 

9 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 557. It was not always done (attraction) either in 
Herod. or Thuc. Cf. Reisert, Zur Attraktion der Relativsitze in der griech. 
Prosa, p. 30 f. 

10 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 561. 1 ‘Thompson, Synt., p. 384. 


954 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Cf. iva, ὁπότε and perhaps εἰ. Πρίν, ἐπεί, ἄχρι, μέχρι are not relative. 
Thus the subordinate clauses overlap. Burton,! indeed, includes 
éws under relative sentences. That is not necessary, since thus 
nearly all the subordinate clauses would properly be treated as 
relative sentences. See the relative origin of various conjunctions 
well worked out by Schmitt,? Weber’ and Christ. These clauses 
are mainly adverbial, though objective (and subject-clause also) 
_ ὅτι (indirect discourse) is substantive simply. The word ὡς occurs 
in Homer with the three values of demonstrative, relative and 
conjunction (cf. English “that’’).5 But here we pass by these 
conjunctions from relative or demonstrative roots. The relative 
pronoun alone, apart from the adverbial uses, introduces the 
most frequent subordinate clause, probably almost equal in some 
authors to all the other classes put together. In 1 Peter the rela- 
tive construction is very common. Cf. 1 Pet. 1 :6—12; 2 : 21-24. 
At any rate it is the chief means of periodic structure.’ Take as 
an instance the period in Ac. 1:1-2. Note ὧν, ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας, οὕς, 
ois, all the subordinate clauses in the sentence except infinitive 
and participles. See also 1 Cor. 15: 1-2, where four relatives 
occur and τίνι λόγῳ is almost like a relative. Cf. further Ro. 9: 
Af. The relative sentence may be repeated indefinitely with or 
without καί. 

(c) Relative Clauses Usually Adjectival. They are so classed 
by Kihner-Gerth.2 The descriptive use followed the original 
substantive idiom just as the relative itself was preceded by the 
demonstrative. Thus the use of the relative clause as subject 
or object like 6 and the participle is perfectly consistent. So 
ὃς ἂν ἐμὲ δέξηται δέχεται τὸν ἀποστείλαντά με (Lu. 9:48). Cf. also 
Mk. 9:37; Ac. 16:12. The descriptive character of the relative 
clause is well shown in τὴν μάχαιραν Tod πνεύματος 6 ἐστιν ῥῆμα θεοῦ 
(Eph. 6:17). Cf. és in 1 Tim. 3:16. The adjectival use of the 
relative sentence is accented by the use of the article with it in 
Ro. 16:17, σκοπεῖν τοὺς τὰς διχοστασίας Kal τὰ σκάνδαλα παρὰ τὴν 
διδαχὴν ἣν ὑμεῖς ἐμάθετε ποιοῦντας. Here the relative clause is ad- 
jectival, but in itself a mere incident between τούς and ποιοῦντας. 

ΝΥΝ and sleep. Laci 

2 Uber den Ursprung des Substantivsatzes mit Relativpartik. im Griech. 

3 Entwickelungsgesch. der Absichtsiitze. 

4 Der Substantivs. und das Rel. ὡς. 

5 Baron, Le Pronom Rel. et la Conjonction en Gree, p. 130. 

6 Frenzel, Die Entw. des rel. Satzb. im Griech., p. 4. 

7 


J. Classen, Beob. iiber den homerischen Sprachgeb., 1867, p. 6. 
§ Bd. II, pp. 420 ff. 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 955 


The clause is simply adjectival with πᾶς és in Lu. 12:8. That 
comes to be its most usual character. So with δι’ ἧς in Heb. 
12 : 28. 

(d) Modes in Relative Sentences. There is nothing in the rela- 
tive pronoun or the construction of the clause per se to have any 
effect on the use of the mode.!. The relative, as a matter of fact, 
has no construction of its own.? In general in dependent clauses 
the choice of the mode is determined by the nature of the indi- 
vidual case.? Outside of relative clauses the choice in the N. T. 
is practically confined to the indicative and the subjunctive. 
The optative holds on in one or two examples. With the relative 
some examples of the imperative occur, as has already been shown. 
Ore ieGonnl4 tos litvelelas2eTimi 415; 1) Pets 5 29; Hebi 
13:7. Cf. ὅθεν κατανοήσατε (Heb. 3:1). But the mode is not due 
at all to the relative. In a word, the relative occurs with all the 
constructions possible to an independent sentence. The indica- 
tive is, of course, the natural tense to use if one wishes to make 
a direct and clear-cut assertion. Thus οὐδεὶς ἔστιν ὃς ἀφῆκεν τὴν 
οἰκίαν (Mk. 10 : 29). Cf. Jo. 10:12. The various uses of the sub- 
junctive occur with the relative. The deliberative sub]. is seen 
in ποῦ ἐστὶν TO κατάλυμά μου ὅπου TO πάσχα μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν pov 
φάγω; (ΜΚ. 14:14; Lu. 22 : 11). Prof. Earle, in a fine paper 
on ‘The Subj. of Purpose in Relative Clauses in Greek” (Class. 
Papers, 1912, pp. 213 ff.) shows how Xenophon, Soph., Eurip., 
Plato and other Attic writers use the idiom. Cf. Xen., Anab., 11, 
4, 20, οὐχ ἕξουσιν ἐκεῖνοι ὅποι φύγωσιν. See also Tarbell, Class. Re- 
view, July, 1892, ‘The Deliberative Subj. in Relative Clauses in 
Greek.”? The subj. may be volitive as in Ac. 21: 16, ἄγοντες παρ᾽ 
ᾧ ξενισθῶμεν Μνάσωνί τινι, and in Heb. 8:3, ὅθεν ἀναγκαῖον ἔχειν τι 
καὶ τοῦτον ὃ προσενέγκῃ (cf. ὃ προσφέρει in Heb. 9:7). In Heb. 12: 
28, δι’ ἧς λατρεύωμεν, the subj. may be conceived as either volitive 
(hortatory) or merely futuristic, more probably volitive like ἔχω- 
μεν. Clearly futuristic is the subj. in Mt. 16 : 28, οἵτινες οὐ μὴ 
γεύσωνται θανάτου. These examples appear isolated. The subj. 
with ὥστε may be noted as in 1 Cor. 5:8, ὥστε ἑορτάζωμεν (de- 
liberative). But the futuristic subj., so rare in the independent 
sentence after Homer, is very common in the relative clause with 


1 See, per contra, Baron, Le Pronom Rel. et la Conjonction en Gree, pp. 61 ff. 

2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 189. 

3. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 452. 4 Thompson, Synt., p. 383. 

5 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 217, explains this subj. as due to a “final mean- 
ing.’ Din Mk. reads φάγομαι. 


956 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ἄν and sometimes without av. It is not the ἄν that determines 
the subj., but the subj. usually has av. Thus ὃς yap ἐὰν θέλῃ and 
ὃς δ᾽ ἂν ἀπολέσῃ (Mk. 8: 35). Cf. ὅστις τηρήσῃ (Jas. 2 : 10), though 
AKLP read τηρήσει (itacism). Cf. Mt. 10:33 and 38. In such 
relative sentences the future indicative is also very common, the 
two forms being closely allied in form and sense. Cf. ὃς ἂν ὁμο- 
Noynoe (Lu. 12:8). See also ὅστις ὁμολογήσει and ὅστις ἀρνήσηται 
(Mts 10332103 

(e) Definite and Indefinite Relative Sentences. Goodwin! has 
made popular the custom of calling some relative sentences “‘con- 
ditional relatives.”’ He has been followed by Burton.? Jannaris? 
considers conditional relative clauses ‘‘ virtually condensed clauses 
capable of being changed into conditional protases.”” Almost any 
sentence is capable of being changed into some other form as a 
practical equivalent. The relative clause may indeed have the 
resultant effect of cause, condition, purpose or result, but in it- 
self it expresses none of these things. It is like the participle in 
this respect. One must not read into it more than is there. Cf. 
ds ἔχει ὦτα (Mk. 4:9) and ὁ ἔχων ὦτα (Mt. 13.:9). Cf. εἴ τις in 
Mk. 4:28. One might as well say that ὁ λαμβάνων (Jo. 13: 20) is 
the same thing as ὃς λαμβάνει (cf. Mt. 10:38). There is a change 
from participle to relative clause in Mt.10:37f.,41 f. Cf. Mt. 12: 
30, 32; Lu. 9:50. So then ἄν τινα πέμψω (Jo. 13 : 20) is a condi- 
tional clause. It is true that ὅν τινα does not occur in the N. T., 
but εἴ τις and ὅστις differ in conception after all, though the point 
is a fine one. The MSS. sometimes vary between εἴ τις and ὅστις 
as in Mk; 6.522 £3) 8% 34-01.Corsa7 13) ΠΟ ἘΠ = faite note 
ὅτι ἂν αἰτήσητε and ἐάν τι αἰτήσητε. Note the distinction between 
ὃ κεχάρισμαι and εἴ τι κεχάρισμαι in 2 Cor. 2:10. In Mk. 8 : 84 (. 
note εἴ τις θέλει --- ὃς ἐὰν θέλῃ. What is true is that the relative 
sentences are either definite or indefinite. It is not a question of 
mode nor of the use of ἄν, but merely whether the relative de- 
scribes a definite antecedent or is used in an indefinite sense. 
The definite relative is well illustrated by 2 Th. 3:3, πιστὸς δέ 
ἐστιν ὁ κύριος Os στηρίξει, or Mk. 1: 2, τὸν ἄγγελόν μου ὃς κατασκευάσει 
τὴν ὁδόν pov. So also χάριν δι᾿ ἧς λατρεύωμεν (Heb. 12 : 28). Cf. ὃ 
προσενέγκῃ (Heb. 8:3). But indefinite is ὃς ἔχει, δοθήσεται αὐτῷ 
(Mk. 4: 25). In the same verse καὶ ὃς οὐκ ἔχει is indefinite, but καὶ 
ὃ ἔχει is definite. Indefinite also is ὅσοι ἥψαντο (Mt. 14:36) and 


1 Moods and Tenses, p. 197. 
2. Te Mitand ΠΡ 108 3 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 470. 
4 Cf. Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 169. 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 957 


ὅσοι ἂν ἥψαντο (Mk. 6: 56). So also with πᾶς ds ἐρεῖ (Lu. 12 : 10) 
and πᾶς ὃς ἂν ὁμολογήσει (12:8). Cf. ὃς ἔσται (17:31) with ὃς ἐὰν 
ζητήσῃ (17: 88) and ὃς 6’ ἂν ἀπολέσει. Cf. Ac. 7:3, 7; Gal. 5:17. 
That it is not a question of mode is thus clear. Cf. ὃς ἐὰν θέλῃ 
with ὃς ἂν ἀπολέσει (Mk. 8:35). Thus note in Mk. 4:25 ὃς yap 
ἔχει δοθήσεται αὐτῷ, but in Lu. 8:18 ὃς ἂν yap ἔχῃ δοθήσεται αὐτῷ. 
So in Lu. 12:8 we have πᾶς ὃς ἂν ὁμολογήσει ἐν ἐμοί, but in Mt. 
10 : 32 πᾶς ὅστις ὁμολογήσει ἐν ἐμοί. The use of ὅστις is pertinent. 
It is either indefinite, as’ here, from the sense of 71s=‘any one’ or 
definite from the sense of ts =‘somebody in particular,’ as in Lu. 
9:30, ἄνδρες δύο συνελάλουν αὐτῷ οἵτινες ἦσαν Mwions καὶ ᾿Ηλείας. 
Examples of the definite use οἵ ὅστις may be seen in Mt. 7: 26; 
16 ; 28; 22 : 2; 27:55, 62, etc. The indefinite use is seen in πᾶς 
ὅστις ἀκούει (Mt. 7:24), ὅστις ἔχει (Mt. 18 : 12), ὅστις ὑψώσει (Mt. 
28 : 12), but apparently no instance of ὅστις ἄν and the future 
ind. occurs. The indefinite use of ὅστις with the subj. and ἄν is 
rather frequent, as in ὅστις ἐὰν ἢ (Gal. 5:10), ὅστις ἂν ποιήσῃ (Mt. 
12:50). Cf. Col. 3:17. We also find ὅστις ἀρνήσηται (Mt. 10: 
33), ὅστις τηρήσῃ (Jas. 2:10) and οἵτινες οὐ μὴ γεύσωνται (Mk. 9: 
1). In 2 Cor. ὃ : 12, εἰ ἡ προθυμία πρόκειται, καθὸ ἐὰν ἔχῃ, εὐπρόσδεκ- 
τος, οὐ καθὸ οὐκ ἔχει, there is a pointed distinction between the sub- 
junctive and the indicative modes.2. Thus the indicative occurs 
with either the definite or the indefinite and the subjunctive like- 
wise, though usually the subjunctive comes with the indefinite 
relative. One may make a positive statement about either a 
definite or an indefinite relative or a doubtful assertion about 
either. The lines thus cross, but the matter can be kept distinct. 
The distinction is clearly perceived by Dawson Walker. The 
subjunctive with the indefinite relative, like that with ὅταν and 
éav, is futuristic (cf. also future indicative). Moulton (Prol., p. 
186) argues that, since this subj. is futuristic and the aorist 
describes completed action, the aorist subj. here is really a fu- 
ture perfect. ‘Thus Mt. 5:21, ὃς av φονεύσῃ, ‘the man who has 
committed murder.’’’ But this seems rather like an effort to in- 
ο troduce the Latin idiom into the Greek and is very questionable. 
(f) The Use of av in Relative Clauses. This is the place for 
more discussion of ἄν, though, sooth to say, the matter is not 
perfectly clear. See also Conditions. It is probably kin to the 
Latin an and the Gothic an, and had apparently two meanings, 
1 Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 139. 


2 Cf. W.-Th., p. 307. 
8 Elem. Gk. Synt., 1897, p. 7. Cf. Baiumlein, Unters. etc., p. 315. 


958 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


‘else’ and ‘in that case rather.’ Monro! argues that the pri- 
mary use of ἄν and κέν is with particular and definite examples. 
Moulton (Prol., p. 166) translates Homeric ἔγὼ δέ κεν αὐτὸς ἕλωμαι 
by the Scotch ‘I’ll jist tak her mysel’.’ There was thus a limi- 
tation by circumstance or condition. The use of av with relative, 
temporal and conditional clauses ‘‘ties them up to particular 
occurrences” (Moulton, Prol., p. 186). It is not always quite so 
easy as that. This use of modal ἄν appears rarely in modern 
Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 188). “It is a kind of leaven in a 
Greek sentence; itself untranslatable, it may transform the 
meaning of a clause in which it is inserted’? (Moulton, Prol., p. 
165). That is putting it a bit strong. I should rather say that it 
was an interpreter of the sentence, not a transformer. Moulton 
counts 172 instances of modal ἄν (ἐάν) in the N. T. (p. 166). Mat- 
thew leads with 55, then Mark 30, Gospel of Luke 28 and Acts 
only 10, Paul’s Epistles 27, the Johannine writings only 20, He- 
brews 1, James 1. Mr. H. Scott fears that these figures are not 
correct, but they are approximately so. The MSS. vary very 
much. These examples occur with ind. or subj. Moulton finds 
739 cases of modal ἄν in the LXX (Hatch and Redpath). Of 
these 40 are with opt. (26 aorist), 56 with ind. (41 aorist, 6 
imp., 1 plup., 1 pres., 7 fut. ind.), the rest with subj. Rader- 
macher (N. T. Gr., p. 165) finds modal ἄν in the κοινή decreas- 
ing and unessential with ind., subj. or opt. in relative, temporal, 
final or conditional clauses. The use with indefinite or general 
statements was rare in Homer, but gradually came to be more 
frequent. But in the N. T. some examples of the definite use 
of ἄν survive especially in temporal clauses. So in Rev. 8:1, 
ὅταν ἤνοιξε. But ὅταν στήκετε (Mk. 11:25) may be general. 
There is doubt also about ὅταν ὀψὲ éyévero (11:19). But in Mk. 
6:56, ὅσοι ἂν ἥψαντο, the construetion is rendered more definite 
by av, though ὅπου ἂν εἰσεπορεύετο in the same verse is indefinite. 
In Mt. 14:36 we have ὅσοι ἥψαντο, which is not more definite 
than Mark’s construction? In Rev. 14:4, ὅπου ἂν ὑπάγει, the 
construction is indefinite. In Ac. 2:45 and 4:35, καθότι ἄν τις 
εἶχεν, we have repetition and so a general statement to that ex- 
tent. In Mk. 3:11, ὅταν αὐτὸν ἐθεώρουν, it is general. In most in- 
stances in the N. T., therefore, the use of ἄν is clearly in indefinite 
relative clauses whether with the indicative or subjunctive. It 


1 Hom. Gr., p. 263 f. 2 Per contra see W.-Th., p. 306. 
3 Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 217) quotes ἂς ἂν συντελέσουσιν from an inser. in 
Viereck’s Sermo Graecus, p. 38. 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 959 


cannot be said that ἄν is necessary with the indefinite relative 
and the indicative. It does not occur in the N. T. with ὅστις and 
the future ind., but we have both ὅστις ὁμολογήσει (Mt. 10 : 32) 
and ὃς ἂν ὁμολογήσει (Lu. 12:8); ὃς ἔσται (Lu. 17:31) and ὃς ἂν 
ἀπολέσει (ΜΚ. 8:35). For ὃς ἄν and fut. ind. see Compernass, De 
Sermone Pis., p. 38. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 145) cites ὃς 
δ᾽ ἂν ἀδικήσει, Inscr. Petersen-Luschan, Reisen, Ὁ. 174, N. 223, 
21. As already seen, the relative with the subj. usually has ἄν, 
as εἰς ἣν ἂν πόλιν εἰσέρχησθε (Lu. 10:8); ὅτι ἂν προσδαπανήσῃς (10: 
35). Cf. ᾧ ἂν βούληται (10:22). In a few examples the best 
MSS. do not have ἄν, as in ὅστις ἀρνήσηται (Mt. 10:33); ὅστις 
τηρήσῃ — πταίσῃ δέ (Jas. 2:10). The use of ἐάν like ἄν has been 
shown (cf. Orthography) to be very common with relatives at 
this period. It is immaterial which is found. So és ἐὰν λύσῃ and 
ds av ποιήσῃ (Mt. 5:19). The MSS. often vary between ἐάν and 
ἄν, as in Mt. 10:14; Ac. 7:7. So also ὅσα ἐὰν θέλητε (Mt. 7: 12) 
and ὅσα ἂν αἰτήσητε (Mt. 21:22). But in the N. T., as in the 
papyri, ἐάν is more common in relative clauses. Radermacher 
(N. T. Gr., p. 145) quotes ὅσοι — ἐγλίπωσι, Inser. Perg. 249, 26, 
and ὃς ἀνασπαράξῃ (or ἂν dor.) I. Gr. XII, 1, 671. Moulton (Prol., 
p. 169) cites C.P.R. 237 (ii/a.D.), ὅσα αὐτῷ προστέκηται. He (ib., 
p. 168) quotes ὅσ᾽ ἂν πάσχετε F.P. 136 (iv/A.D.), ὅσα ἐὰν παρε- 
AaBounv B.M. 331 (ji/a.p.). The ἄν is not repeated with the 
second verb. So és ἂν ποιήσῃ καὶ διδάξῃ (Mt. 5:19). There is no 
instance of ἄν in a relative clause with an optative in the N. T. 
But in Gen. 33:10 the LXX has ὡς ἄν ris ἴδοι πρόσωπον θεοῦ. So 
ois ἐὰν τύχοι, F.P. (see Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 32). Rader- 
macher (N. Τ΄., Gr., p. 131) cites καθ᾽ ὃ ἂν μέρος στρέφοιτο from 
Philo. There is one instance of ἄν with the infinitive in the 
N. T. (2 Cor. 10:9), ἵνα μὴ δόξω ὡς ἂν ἐκφοβεῖν ὑμᾶς, but ἄν is here 
probably the same as ἐάν and ὡς av=‘as if.’ The upshot of it all 
is that ἄν has no peculiar construction of its own. It is more 
frequent with the subjunctive than with the indicative in rela- 
tive sentences, but is not absolutely essential with either mode.! 
In the Attic the subj. is invariable with ἄν, but “in the less cul- 
tured Hellenistic writers’? (Moulton, Prol., p. 166) it occurs with 
the ind. also. Curiously in the Gospel of John ἄν occurs with 
ὅστις Only in the neuter (Abbott, Johannine Grammar, Ὁ. 304). 
Always in the N. T. ὅτι ἐάν Ξ-- ὅτι ἄν unless in Mk. 6: 23 the correct 
text is ὅτι ὃ ἐάν as in margin of W. H. The text is probably correct 
(crn 0:35; Ac.:3.: 23, etc.). 
1 Cf. K.-G., Bd. II, pp. 421, 424. 


960 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(g) Special Uses of Relative Clauses. As in Latin,! the relative 
clause may imply cause, purpose, result, concession or condition, 
though the sentence itself does not say this much. This is due 
to the logical relation in the sentence. The sense glides from 
mere explanation to ground or reason, as in ὃ καὶ ἐσπούδασα αὐτὸ 
τοῦτο ποιῆσαι (Gal. 2:10). In 1 Cor. 3:17, ὁ ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἅγιός 
ἐστιν οἵτινές ἐστε ὑμεῖς, there is an argument in οἵτινες. This is 
clearly true? in Ro. 6:2, οἵτινες ἀπεθάνομεν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, πῶς ἔτι 
ζήσομεν ἐν αὐτῇ; Cf. also Ac. 10:41, οἵτινες συνεφάγομεν καὶ συνε- 
πίομεν αὐτῷ: See Gal. 5:4, οἵτινες ἐν νόμῳ δικαιοῦσθε. Cf. Latin 
qui, quippe qui. A good example is seen in Ro. ὃ : 32, ὅς γε τοῦ 
ἰδίου υἱοῦ οὐκ ἐφείσατο. Cf. also ἃ ἔμελλον (Rev. 3 : 2) and the com- 
mon ἀνθ᾽ av (Lu. 1: 20). Cf. Ac. 10: 47; Ro. 1: 25, 32; Ph. 2: 
20; Col. 3:5. Only the ind. mode occurs in the N. T. in this 
construction.’ Purpose is also found in relative clauses (cf. Latin 
qui=ut is). Either the future ind. or the subj. is used for this 
- construction. When the subj. occurs it is probably volitive.t So 
Burton® would explain all the cases of subj. of purpose with rela- 
tives, but wrongly. The use in Mk. 14:14 is analogous to the 
retention of the subj. of deliberation in an indirect question. 
Cf. the subj. of purpose with relative clause in Attic Greek.® 
But the subj. construction is Homeric (like Latin also). The Attic 
idiom is the future ind., and the future ind. also appears in the 
N. T. So ὃς Κατασκευδσοεὶ (Mk. 1:2; Mt. 11:10; Lu. 7:27), 
ὃς ὑμᾶς ἀναμνήσει (1 Cor. 4:17) which may be contrasted with 
the merely explanatory relative ὅς ἐστίν μου τέκνον in the same 
sentence. So οἵτινες ἀποδώσουσιν αὐτῷ (Mt. 21:41); οἱ προπορεύ- 
σονται (Ac. 7:40; Ex. 32 : 1); οὐκ ἔχω ὃ παραθήσω (Lu. 11 : 6) where 
the Attic Greek would’ have ὅτι. Sometimes ἵνα occurs where a 
relative might have been used. So 2 Cor. 12:7 ἐδόθη μοι σκόλοψ 
— ἵνα pe κολαφίζῃ, (Jo. 5:7) οὐκ ἔχω ἄνθρωπον iva βάλῃ με, (9:36) 
ἵνα πιστεύσω εἰς αὐτόν. Cf. 6]. 4: δ; Rev. 19:15. Viteau® stri- 
kingly compares Mt. 10 : 26, ὃ οὐκ ἀποκαλυφθήσεται and ὃ οὐ γνωσθή- 
σεται, With ΜΚ. 4: 22, ἐὰν μὴ ἵνα φανερωθῇ and ἵνα ἔλθῃ εἰς φανερόν. 
The variety of construction with ὅς is illustrated by Mt. 24 : 2 
(Lu. 21:6), ὃς ob καταλυθήσεται, and Mk. 18 : 2, ds οὐ μὴ καταλυθῇ. 


1 Draeger, Hist. Synt., Bd. II, p. 527. 

2 Cf. Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 118. 

5:0 1 Ga bas LL peas ΕΝ ΓΝ ἘΠ ἢ ΡΟ] 

4 Moulton, Prol., p. 185. 6 Goodwin, M. and T.., p. 217. 
7 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 218. 

8 See Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 135. 


MODE (ΒΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 961 


The classic idiom preferred the fut. ind. for purpose with the 
relative (Schmid, Atticismus, IV, p. 621), but Isocrates (IV, 44) 
has ἐφ᾽ οἷς φιλοτιμηθῶσιν. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 138) cites 
for the κοινή Diod. XI, 21, 3, δι᾿ οὗ τρόπου --- ἀνέλῃ; XIV, 8, 3, δι᾽ 
ὧν ἐξέλωσιν; Ach. Tatius, IV, 16, 18, ὅσον --- λάβῃ, etc. 

Purpose is often contemplated result so that the consecutive 
idea follows naturally that of design. Only the ind. future is used 
in the N. T., unless one follows Blass! in taking ὃ προσενέγκῃ (Heb. 
8 : 3) as result. A good instance of the future ind. is in Lu. 7:4, 
ἄξιός ἐστιν ᾧ παρέξῃ, Which may be profitably compared? with the 
non-final use of ἵνα in Jo. 1:27, ἄξιος ἵνα λύσω. Burton? prefers 
to call this a ‘complementary limitation of the principal clause,” 
a sort of secondary purpose. But the notion is rather that of 
contemplated result. The relative denotes a kind of consequence 
from a particular quality or state.t See also Ph. 2 : 20 οὐδένα 
ἔχω ἰσόψυχον doris — μεριμνήσει, Mk. 10: 29 οὐδεὶς ἔστιν ὃς ἀφῆκεν 
τὴν οἰκίαν, Lu.7:49 τίς οὗτός ἐστιν ὃς καὶ ἁμαρτίας ἀφίησιν; Cf. 2 Th. 
3:3 πιστὸς ὅς With 1 Jo. 1:9 πιστὸς ἵνα. 

An example3.of the concessive use of οἵτινες is seen in Jas. 4 : 14, 
οἵτινες οὐκ ἐπίστασθε τῆς αὔριον ποία ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶν. 

The conditional use of the relative clause is only true in a 
modified sense, as already shown. The relative és and ὅστις, 
whether with or without ἄν, does not mean εἵ τις or ἐάν τις, though 
the two constructions are very much alike. There is a similarity 
between εἴ τις θέλει (Mk. 9:35) and ds ἂν θέλῃ (10:48). But I 
do not agree to the notion of Goodwin® and Burton’ that in the 
relative clauses we have a full-fledged set of conditional sentences 
on a par with the scheme with the conditional particles. That 
procedure is entirely too forced and artificial for the Greek free- 
dom and for the facts. There is a general sort of parallel at some 
points, but it is confusion in syntax to try to overdo it with care- 
ful detail as Viteau® does. "Av is not confined to the relative and 
conditional sentences, but occurs with ἕως, πρίν, ὡς, ἵνα, ὅπως 
(temporal and final clauses). The indefinite relative like és ἐὰν 
θέλῃ (Mk. 8 : 35) or ὅστις ὁμολογήσει (Mt. 10 : 32) is quite similar 
in idea to a conditional clause with ἐάν τις or εἴ τις. But, after 
all, it is not a conditional sentence any more than the so-called 


SS (τ ΠΟΙ Nai ehak. oD. 218, 

2 Blass, ib., cites also ἱκανὸς λῦσαι in Mk. 1: 7. 

ot ad ΔΙ ΠΡ 120: 6 M. and T., pp. 198 ff. 

4 Cf. K.-G., Bd. II, p. 422. 7 N.T. M. and T., pp. 119 ff. 
® Burton, N. T; M. and T., p. 118. 8 Le Verbe, pp. 196 ff. 


962 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


causal, final, consecutive relative clauses are really so. It is only 
by the context that one inferentially gets any of these ideas out 
of the relative. All that is true about the indefinite relative 
clauses has already been explained under that discussion. I there- 
fore pass by any treatment of the kinds of conditional sentences 
in connection with the relative clauses. 

(h) Negatives in Relative Clauses. When the subj. occurs the 
negative is μή, as in ὃς ἂν μὴ ἔχῃ (Lu. ὃ : 18), but od μή is found in 
Mk. 13:2, ds οὐ μὴ καταλυθῇ. So in Mk. 9:1 and Mt. 16:28 
we have οὐ μή. With the indicative the negative is οὐ, as in ὃς ov 
λαμβάνει (Mt. 10 : 88); ὃς yap οὐκ ἔστι καθ᾽ ὑμῶν (Lu. 9:50). Oc- 
casionally when the relative is indefinite the subjective negative 
μή occurs with the indicative. So @ μὴ πάρεστιν ταῦτα (2 Pet. 1: 
9); ὃ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ (1 Jo. 4:3); ἃ μὴ δεῖ (Tit. 1:11). So also D in Ac. 
15:29. Moulton (Prol., p. 171) calls this use of μή a survival of 
literary construction. He gives also some papyri examples (2b., p. 
239) of μή in relative clauses: B.U. 114 (ii/A.D.) ἣν ἀποδέδωκεν αὐτῷ 
μήτε δύναται λαβεῖν, C.P.R. 19 (iv/A.D.) ἃ μὴ συνεφώνησα. The use of 
μή in relative clauses is more common in the κοινή than in the clas- 
sic Greek (Radermacher, N. 7.Gr., p. 171). He cites examples 
from late Greek writers. There is nothing gained by explaining 
οὐ in relative clauses after the fashion of εἰ οὐ in conditional sen- 
tences as is done by Burton.! 

2. CAUSAL SENTENCES. 

(a) Paratactic Causal Sentences. These do not properly be- 
long here, but there are so many of them that they compel 
notice. The common inferential particle yap introduces an in- 
dependent, not a dependent, sentence. Paul uses it usually to 
introduce a separate sentence as in Ro. 2:28; 1 Cor. 15:9. In 
1 Cor. 10:17 both ὅτι and yap occur. It will be treated in the 
chapter on Particles. Phrases like ἀνθ᾽ ὧν (Lu. 12:3), διό (Mt. 
27:8), διόπερ (1 Cor. 8:13), ὅθεν (Ac. 26:19), δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν (2 
Tim. 1:6, 12), οὗ χάριν (Lu. 7:47) are not always regarded as 
formally causal. The construction is sometimes paratactic. In- 
deed, the subordination of the ὅτι and διότι clauses is often rather 
loose.2 Thus there is very little difference between ὅτι (begins 
the sentence with W. H.) in 1 Cor. 1:25 and γάρ in 1:26. Cf. 
also ἐπειδή in 1:22. See further ὅτι in 2 Cor. 4:6; 7:8, 14, and 
διότι in Ro. 3:20; 8:7. The causal sentence is primarily para- 

1 N. T. M. and T., p. 180. 


2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 274. Cf. also Burton, N. T. M. and T., 
p. 98. 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) | 963 


tactic. See Mt. 6:5; Lu. 11:32;.1 Cor. 15:29; Heb. 10: 2. 
The subordinate relative is a later development.! 

(b) With Subordinating Conjunctions. One may say at once 
that in the N. T. the mode is always the indicative. There is no 
complication that arises save with ἐπεί when the apodosis of a 
condition of the second class is used without the protasis as in 
Heb. 10:2, ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἂν ἐπαύσαντο. Here the construction is not 
due at all to ἐπεί. In the same way we explain ἐπεὶ ἔδει in Heb. 
9 : 26 and ἐπεὶ ὠφείλετε ἄρα in 1 Cor. 5:10. There is ellipsis also 
in the rhetorical question in 1 Cor. 15 : 29, ἐπεὶ τί ποιήσουσιν; But 
in Ac. 5:38f. two complete conditional sentences (ἐάν and εἰ, 
protasis and apodosis) occur with ὅτι. In a word, it may be said 
that the indicative is used precisely as in the paratactic sentences. 
Cf. Jo. 14:19, ὅτι ἔγὼ ζῶ καὶ ὑμεῖς ζήσετε. 

The negative is usually οὐ as 1η.1 Jo.2:16. Once in the Ν. T., 
Jo. 3:18, ὅτι μὴ πεπίστευκεν, we have μή, but οὐ is seen in 1 Jo. 
5:10, ὅτι οὐ πεπίστευκεν. ‘The former states the charge, quod 
non crediderit, the latter the simple fact, quod non credidit”’ 
(Moulton, Prol., p. 171). Cf. ὅτί μή in Epictetus IV, 4, 11; IV, 
5, 8-9. Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., pp. 162, 535. The distinction is 
subtle, μή being more subjective and ideal. In Heb. 9 : 17, ἐπεὶ 
μὴ τότε (Or μή ποτε) ἰσχύει, we likewise meet μή. In B. G. U. 530 
(i/A.D.), ἐπὶ μὴ ἀντέγραψας αὐτῇ --- ὅτι οὐκ ἔπεμψας πρός ce, note ἐπὶ (el) 
μή and ὅτι οὐκ with true distinction. With οὐ we have the objec- 
tive fact, with μή the element of blame (μέμφεται) appears. ‘‘The 
comparison of Plutarch with the N. T. shows a great advance in 
the use of ὅτι μή᾽᾽ (Moulton, Prol., p. 239). Cf. also E. L. Green, 
Gildersleeve Studies, pp. 471 ff.; Radermacher, N. 7. Gr., p. 171. 
He cites ὅτι μὴ ἔχεις, Epictetus IV, 10, 34. It is making inroads on 
ὅτι οὐ. 

We sometimes have ἀνθ᾽ ὧν in a truly causal sense as in Lu. 1: 
20, and that is true also of ὅθεν in Mt. 14:7. In Heb. 2 : 18 ἐν ᾧ 
is practically causal. So also ἐφ᾽ @ is causal in Ro. 5: 12; 2 
Cor. 5:4; Ph. 4:10. Cf. ἐφ" @ δώσει, P. Oxy. 38 (a.p. 49). 
The classical ἐφ᾽ 6 re does not occur in the N. T. See ἐφ᾽ ᾧ δώσει, 
‘on condition that he give,’ P. Oxy. 275 (A.p. 66). 

Then ὡς has almost the force of a causal particle in Mk. 9 : 21; 
ΠΟ 0} oo; Mt. 6212" (cf, Lu. 11:4, xali-yap)3°2°Fim: 1:3. The 
same thing is true of καθώς in Jo. 17:2. Καθ’ ὅσον is causal in 
Heb. 7:20 (9 : 27) and ἐφ᾽ ὅσον in Mt. 25:40, 45. So καθότι in 
Lu. 19:9 (cf. 1:7). In Ac. 17:31 HLP. read διότι. None of these 


1 Cf. Nilsson, Die Kausalsiitze im Griech. bis Arist. I, Die Poesie. 


964 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


particles are strictly causal, but they come to be so used in cer- 
tain contexts in the later Greek. We have as ὅτι in 2 Cor. 5:19; 
ws ὅτι θεὸς ἦν ἐν Χριστῷ κόσμον καταλλάσσων ἑαυτῷ (cf. our “since 
that’”’). Here the Vulgate has quoniam. But in 2 Cor. 11:21 the 
Vulgate renders ws ὅτι by quasi, as in 2 Th. 2: 2, ws ὅτι ἐνέστηκεν. 
Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 821 f. It is found also in Esther 
4:14 and is post-classical.! 

Διότι is found in the Lucan writings, the Pauline Epistles, 
Hebrews, James and 1 Peter. In the modern Greek? it takes the 
form γιατί. Once (Ro. 8:21) some MSS. ΟΥ̓́. H. read ὅτι) have 
διότι in the sense of objective ὅτι (‘that’) as in later Greek (cf. 
late Latin quia =quod). Instances of causal διότι may be seen in 
Lu. 1:13; Ro. 1:19, ete. It is compounded of διά and ὅτι (cf. 
English “for that”). In Ph. 2 : 26 διότι is causal and ὅτι is de- 
clarative. In modern Greek διότι survives in ἡ καθαρεύουσα. The 
vernacular has ἀφοῦ, ἐπειδή, γιατί (Thumb, Handb., p. 194). 

But all other causal particles are insignificant beside ὅτι which 
grew steadily in use.’ It was originally merely relative and para- 
tactic.4 In 1 70. 4: 8 note 6— ὅτι and ὅτι 6 in Ro. 4:21. It is 
accusative neuter ὅτι (οἷ. ὅτι ἂν προσδαπανήσῃς in Lu. 10 : 35) and 
is more common as the objective particle in indirect discourse 
(subject or object clause) than as a causal conjunction. In 1 
Jo. 5:9 ὅτι occurs twice, once as causal and once as objec- 
tive particle. In 2 Th. 3:7f. exegesis alone can determine the 
nature of ὅτι. In Jo. 3:19 Chrysostom takes ὅτι = ‘because.’ 
Cf. also Jo. 16 : 8-11 (see Abbott, Johannine Gr., p. 158). The 
English ‘‘the reason that” (vernacular ‘‘the reason why’’) is simi- 
lar. It is very common in 1 John in both senses. In Jo. 1:15 ff. 
causal ὅτι occurs three times in succession. In Lu. 9:49, éw- 
λύομεν αὐτὸν ὅτι οὐκ ἀκολουθεῖ μεθ’ ἡμῶν, the present is used because 
of a sort of implied indirect discourse. In Mk. 9:38 W. H. 
read ὅτι οὐκ ἠκολούθει. A good example of causal ὅτι is seen in Ro. 
5:8. The precise idea conveyed by ὅτι varies greatly. In Jo. 


9:17, τί ob λέγεις περὶ αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἠνέῳξέν σου τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς; the use. 


of ὅτι wavers between objective and causal. Cf. also Mk. 6 : 17. 
But we need not appeal to the Hebrew® for a justification of 
this balancing of two ideas by ὅτι. So in Jo. 2:18, τί σημεῖον δει- 
κνύεις ἡμῖν, ὅτι ταῦτα ποιεῖς; Akin to this construction is that in 


1 Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 98. 3 Ib. 
2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 454. 4 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 189. 
® As Viteau does in Le Verbe, p. 100. The LXX does show the idiom, as in 


1 Ki. 1:8, τί ἔστι σοι ὅτι κλαίεις; 


ee 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 965 


Jo. 14 : 22, τί γέγονεν ὅτι, which is shortened into τί ὅτι in Ac. 5: 
4. There is a correspondence sometimes between διὰ τοῦτο and 
ὅτι (Jo. 10:17); οὕτως and ὅτι (Ro. 9:31f.). Οὐχ ὅτι may be 
either objective or causal as in Ph. 4: 11, 17;2 Th. 3:9. In 
the ancient Greek it meant ‘not only do I say that, but I also 
say.’ But in the N. T. it either means ‘I say this not because’ 
or ‘I do not mean to say that,’ and usually the latter according 
to Abbott. 

We must have a word about ἐπεί, ἐπειδή, ἐπειδήπερ. ΑΒ a matter 
of fact ἐπει-δή-περ (note the composition) appears in the N. T. 
only in Lu. 1:1 (Luke’s classical introduction). This is un- 
doubtedly a literary touch ᾿Επειδή is read by W. H. in Lu. 7:1 
and Ac. 13:46, but ἐπεὶ δέ is put in the margin. Eight other 
examples remain, all in Luke (Gospel and Acts) and Paul (1 Co- 
rinthians and Philippians). Cf. Lu. 11:6; 1 Cor. 1:21 f. ’Emei, 
obsolescent in the late Greek,’? is almost confined to Luke, Paul, 
the author of Hebrews. Elsewhere in Matthew, Mark and John. 
Two of these are examples of the temporal use (Mk. 15:42; Lu. 
7:1W.H. marg.). The ordinary causal sense is well illustrated in 
Mt. 21:46, ἐπεὶ εἰς προφήτην εἶχον. The classical idiom of the el- 
lipsis with ἐπεί has already been mentioned and is relatively fre- 
quent in the N. T. Cf. Ro. 3:6; 11:22; 1 Cor. 14:16; 15: 29; 
Heb. 9:26; 10:2. It occurs in the simplest form in ἐπεὶ πῶς 
(Ro. 3 : 6) and ἐχεὶ τί (1 Cor. 15: 29). In 1 Cor. 14: 16, ἐπεὶ ἐάν, 
it is equivalent to ‘otherwise’ and in Ro. 11:22 to ‘else,’ ἐπεὶ καὶ 
σὺ ἐκκοπήσῃ. The apodosis of a condition of the second class oc- 
curs in 1 Cor. 5:10; Heb. 9 : 26; 10: 2. 

Verbs of emotion in classical Greek sometimes used ei (con- 
ceived as an hypothesis) rather than ὅτι (a direct reason).4 The 
N. T. shows examples of θαυμάζω εἰ in this sense (Mk. 15 : 44; 1 Jo. 
3:13), though θαυμάζω ὅτι is found also* (Lu. 11:38; Gal. 1: 
6). Ὅτι is the N. T. construction® with ἀγανακτέω (Lu. 18 : 14); 
ἐξομολογέομαι (Mt. 11 : 25); εὐχαριστέω (Lu. 18 : 11); μέλει (Mk. 4: 
38); χαίρω (Lu. 10 : 20); χολάω (Jo. 7 : 23). Cf. ὅτι and éd’ ᾧ in 
Ph. 4:10. On the possible causal use of ὅτε and ὅταν see article 
by Sheppard, The Cl. Rev., Sept., 1913. 

(c) Relative Clauses. This matter received sufficient discussion 
under Relative Clauses. For examples of és take Ro. 8 : 32; 


1 Joh. Gr. p. 162. 2 Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 101. 
8 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 454. 

Ὁ (0 0 

5 Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 101. 


966 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Heb. 12:6. For ὅστις note Mt. 7:15; Ro. 6:2. See also od 
χάριν (Lu. 7:47) and δι᾽ ἣν αἰτίαν (8 : 47). 

(ὦ) Ava τό and the Infinitive. The construction is common in 
the N. T., occurring thirty-two times according to Votaw! as 
compared with thirty-five for the O. T. and twenty-six for the 
Apocrypha. It is particularly frequent in Luke. Cf. Lu. 2:4; 
8:6; Ac. 4:2; 8:11, etc. It is not in John except in 2 : 24, διὰ 
τὸ αὐτὸν γινώσκειν. Blass? rejects it here because the Lewis MS. 
and Nonnus do not have the passage. Here note that ὅτι is 
used side by side with διὰ τό. So in Jas. 4:2 f. we have διὰ τὸ μὴ 
αἰτεῖσθαι ὑμᾶς and διότι κακῶς αἰτεῖσθε on a parity. Cf. Ph. 1:7, 
καθώς and διὰ 76. In Mk. 5:4, διὰ τὸ δεδέσθαι καὶ διεσπάσθαι καὶ 
συντετρίφθαι, note the perfect tense and the repetition of the in- 
finitive. Burton® thinks that here διά gives rather the evidence 
than the reason. Why not both? There is one example of the. 
instrumental use of the infinitive to express cause, τῷ μὴ εὑρεῖν pe 
(2 Cor. 2:13). The text of B has six examples in the LXX4 
(cf. 2 Chron. 28 : 22, τῷ θλιβῆναι αὐτόν). No examples of ἐπὶ τῷ 
occur.® 

(ὁ) The Participle. We do not have ἅτε, οἷον, ofa, as in classical 
Greek, to give the real reason. That is given simply by the parti- 
ciple as in δίκαιος ὧν καὶ μὴ θέλων αὐτὴν δειγματίσαι (Mt. 1:19). It 
is “exceedingly common” (Moulton, Prol., p. 284). Cf. Jas. 2: 
25; Ac. 4:21. But ὡς occurs with the participle to give the al- 
leged reason, which may be the real one or mere assumption. 
Thus in Mt. 7 : 28 f., as ἐξουσίαν ἔχων καὶ οὐχ ὡς of γραμματεῖς, the 
first ὡς gives the ostensible (and true ground) of the astonishment 
of the people. Cf. also Lu. 16:1; Ac. 2:2. But in Lu. 23 : 14, 
ὡς ἀποστρέφοντα τὸν λαόν, Pilate does not believe the charge against 
Jesus to be true. So also with ws μελλόντων in Ac. 27: 30. 

3. COMPARATIVE CLAusES. The discussion in my Short Gram- 
mar® forms the basis of this section. The conjunctions employed 
are all of relative origin, but the construction deserves separate 
treatment. ; 

(a) The Relative ὅσος. This is a classic idiom and occurs only 
in Hebrews, except once in Mark. In Heb. 1:4 the correlative 
is expressed and the comparative form of the adjective is found 


1 The Use of the Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 20. Mr. H. Scott notes pres. 24, 
aor. 1 (Mt. 24: 12), perf. 7 times. : 
2 Blass, Gr. of N. T..Gk;, p. 236. ΣΈΝΑ ΒΟΥ Ρ.:101: 

4 Votaw, The Use of the Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 29. 
5 Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 101. 6 Chapter XXVIII. 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 967 


in both clauses. Both correlative and relative are here in the 
instrumental case, τοσούτῳ κρείττων γενόμενος τῶν ἀγγέλων ὅσῳ δια- 
φορώτερον παρ᾽ αὐτοὺς κεκληρονόμηκεν ὄνομα. The same phenomena 
are present in 8 : 6, save that the correlative is absent. In 10 : 25 
there is no comparative in the relative clause. The others are 
examples of καθ’ ὅσον. In 3:3 there is no correlative, but the 
comparative appears in both clauses. In 7: 20 f. the correlative 
is κατὰ τοσοῦτο, but there is no comparative in the relative clause. 
This is probably causal in idea, as is true of καθ᾽ ὅσον in 9: 27, 
where there is no comparative, though we have the correlative 
οὕτως kai. The example in Mk. 7:36, ὅσον δὲ αὐτοῖς διεστξλλετο 
αὐτοὶ μᾶλλον περισσότερον ἐκήρυσσον, lacks the correlative and has no 
comparative with the relative, but has a double comparison in 
_ the principal clause. In Jo. 6:11 and Rev. 21 : 16, ὅσον is simply 
relative, not a conjunction. The causal and temporal uses of 
ὅσον are discussed elsewhere. 

(Ὁ) Relative ὅς with κατά. The singular καθό is found only in 
Ro. 8 : 26 καθὸ δεῖ, 1 Pet. 4:13 καθὸ xowwvetre, and 2 Cor. 8:12 
καθὸ ἐὰν ἔχῃ εὐπρόσδεκτος, οὐ καθὸ οὐκ ἔχει, Where a good distinction 
is drawn between the subjunctive and the indicative. Cf. O. P. 
1125, 14 (ii/A.D.) καθὸ μισθοῖ μέρος. The construction with ἐάν is 
like that of the indefinite relative with ἐάν (ἄν) and the subj. The 
plural καθά is found only once in the N. T. (Mt. 27:10). Καθάπερ, 
however, is found seventeen times (three doubtful as compared 
with xafos, Ro. 9:13; 10:15; 2 Cor. 3:18) and all in Paul’s 
writings save in Heb. 4:2 (without verb). It is thoroughly 
Attic and a slight literary touch. Cf. 1 Cor. 10:10. The mode 
is always indicative, but cf. καθὰ ἀρέσκῃ in Gen. 19:8. In Ro. 
12 : 4 the correlative is οὕτως. 

(c) Καθότι in a Comparative Sense. It occurs only twice (Ac. 
2:45; 4:35) and the same idiom precisely each time, καθότι ἄν τις 
χρείαν εἶχεν. Here ἄν seems to particularize each case from time 
to time (note imperfect tense), the iterative use of ἄν (Moulton, 
Prol., p. 167). This usage approaches the temporal in idea. The 
classic idiom of the aorist ind. with ἄν no longer appears with 
these conjunctions. 

(d) ‘Qs and its Compounds. These are the most common com- 
parative particles. The most frequent of all is os itself which has 
various other uses as exclamatory (ὡς ὡραῖοι of πόδες in Ro. 10: 
15), declarative like ὅτι (Ac. 10 : 28), causal (Mt. ὁ : 12), temporal 
(Lu. 12 : 58), with the infinitive (Lu. 9 : 52; Heb. 7:9), as a final 
particle (ὡς τελειώσω, Ac. 20:24, W. H. text), with superlative 


968 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


adverbs (ws τάχιστα, Ac. 17:15), with the sense of ‘about,’ as ὡς 
δισχίλιοι (Mk. 5:13) and with participles (as μέλλων, Ac. 23: 
20). The richness of this particle is thus illustrated. But the 
comparative relative adverb is the origin of them all. In Heb. 
3:11; 4:3 ὡς may be consecutive ‘so,’ but ὡς is more often com- 
parative than anything else. Usually ws has a correlative. Thus 
οὕτως — ws (1 Cor. 4 : 1); ὡς — οὕτως (Ac. 8 : 32); ὡς — οὕτως καί (2 
Cor. 7:14); ὡς — καί (Gal. 1:9); ἴσος --- ὡς καί (Ac. 11:17); καί --- 
ὡς καί (Mt. 18:33). But often no correlative is expressed (οἵ. 
Mt. 8:13).!. The verb is not always expressed. Thus ὡς of ὑποκρι- 
ταί (Mt. 6:5). This predicate use of ws is very extensive. Cf. 
ὡς καί (1 Cor. 7:7). The mode is usually the indicative, as in 
Mk. 10:1, but the subj. occurs in Mk. 4: 26, ὡς ἄνθρωπος βάλῃ 
(cf. ὡς οὐκ ofdev). Blass? considers this “quite impossible,” but it is 
read by NBD. Some late MSS. add ἐάν and others read ὅταν, but 
surely ἐάν (ἄν) is not “indispensable” to the subj. (cf. Mt. 10 : 33). 
In Gal. 6:10, ὡς καιρὸν ἔχωμεν, the temporal ὡς is likewise minus 
av. See Relative Clauses and discussion of av which is by no 
means necessary in these subj. clauses. Cf. Radermacher, Ν. 7. 
Gr., p. 164. In 1 Th. 2:7, as ἐὰν τροφὸς θάλπῃ τὰ ἑαυτῆς τέκνα, 
we do have ἐάν, but the construction in Mark is not lawless. Καθώς 
comes next to ws in frequency (chiefly with Luke and Paul). It 
sometimes has the correlative. So οὕτως καθώς (Lu. 24 : 24); 
καθώς — οὕτως (Jo. 8:14); καθώς --- οὕτως καί (2 Cor. 8:6); καθὼς 
καί --- οὕτως καί (Col. 3 : 18); καί --- καθὼς καί (Ro. 1:13); καθώς — καί 
(Jo. 15: 9); ὁμοίως καθώς (Lu. 17: 28), and note κατὰ τὰ αὐτά in verse 
30. The correlative is not always expressed (Mt. 21:6). So in 
Col. 1:6, καθὼς καί. Sometimes the principal clause is unex- 
pressed as in 1 Tim. 1:3, or only οὐ occurs, as οὐ καθώς (1 Jo. 3: 
12; Jo. 6:58). It is a late word but is abundant in the papyri. 
In the N. T. it occurs only with the indicative. The word, as 
already noted, sometimes has a-causal sense (Ro. 1: 28). It may 
have a temporal signification in Ac. 7:17. It occurs in indirect 
question in Ac. 15 : 14, and is epexegetical in 3 Jo. 8. Καθώσπερ is 
read only once in the N. T. (Heb. 5:4), though W. H. put it in 
the margin in 2 Cor. 3:18 (text καθάπερ). ‘Qcoei is classical, but 
has no verb (cf. Mt. 3: 16; Mk. 9 : 26, etc.) in the N. T., though 
it occurs with the participle ὡσεὶ πρόβατα μὴ ἔχοντα ποιμένα (Mt. 
9:36). Cf. also Ro. 6:13. It is used in the sense of ‘about’ as 
in Lu 9: 14, 28, ete. It is commonest in the Gospels and Acts. 


1 In general correlatives are rare in the LXX. Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 142. 
2 Gri of Ni TsGks pst. 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 969 


In 2 Cor. 10:9 we have ὡς ἂν ἐκφοβεῖν (here alone in the N. T. 
with infinitive) =‘as if to frighten.’ “Ὥσπερ occurs with the in- 
dicative as in Mt.6:2. In Mt. 25:14 a parable is thus intro- 
duced, but with no correlative. But we have the correlative in 
Ro. 5:19 (6:4), ὥσπερ --- οὕτως καί. So Jo. 5:21. So ὥσπερ -- 
ὡσαύτως (Mt. 25 : 14-18); ὥσπερ — οὕτως (18 : 40). We find ὥσπερ 
also with the participle (cf. Ac. 2:2). Often the verb is wholly 
wanting as in Mt.6:7. We meet ὡσπερεί only once (1 Cor. 15 : 8) 
and that without a verb. 

4. Locau Cuauses. These are all relative adverbial sentences 
and are usually treated with relative sentences, but they are 
worthy of a separate note. The adverbs (conjunctions) used are 
ὅθεν, ov, Orov. With ὅθεν only the indicative is found as in Lu. 
11:24, ὅθεν ἐξῆλθον. More common than ὅθεν is οὗ as in Mt. 2: 
9, οὗ ἦν τὸ παιδίον. Cf. past perfect in Ac. 20:8. It occurs mainly 
in Luke’s writings and. always with the indicative save once in 
1 Cor. 16 : 6, οὗ ἐὰν πορεύωμαι. Here the indefinite relative natu- 
rally has ἄν and the subjunctive. Οὗ is used with verbs of motion 
as well as with those of rest as this passage shows. Cf. also Lu. 
10:1, οὗ ἤμελλεν αὐτὸς ἔρχεσθαι. But ὅπου is the usual local con- 
junction in the N. T., particularly in Matthew, Mark and John 
(Gospel and Revelation). It occurs with verbs of rest as in Mk. 
2:4, ὅπου ἦν, and of motion as in Jo. 7:34, ὅπου ὑπάγω. The 
indicative is the usual mode. Once, Mk. 6:56, ὅπου ἂν εἰσεπο- 
pevero, we find ἄν to emphasize the notion of repetition in the im- 
perfect tense, but this is not necessary. Cf. ὅπου ἤθελες (Jo. 21: 
18). Note the emphatic negative in ὅπου οὐ θέλεις (10.). Cf. also 
ὅπου av brayes (Rev. 14:4) where ἄν occurs with the present ind. 
(indefinite relative). In ὅπου φάγω (Mk. 14:14; Lu. 22:11), as 
already explained, the subj. is probably deliberative, answering to 
ποῦ φάγω in the direct question. Cf. οὐκ ἔχει ποῦ τὴν κεφαλὴν κλίνῃ 
(Lu. 9:58). But the subj. with ἐάν in ὅπου ἐὰν ἀπέρχῃ (Lu. 9: 
57) is the common futuristic subj. So in the parallel passage in 
Mies 219. See further’ Mt.. 24:28; 26:13; Mk. 6:10;:9 : 18; 
14:9,14. Curiously enough all the N. T. instances of ὅπου with 
the subj. are found in the Synoptic Gospels. There is ellipsis of 
the copula in Rev. 2:18, as is not infrequent with relatives. 
Ὅπου is used also in metaphorical relations, as in Heb. 9:16. The 
correlative adverb ἐκεῖ occasionally appears with ὅπου as in Lu. 
Poel: or. 30. 12:26. Kal is a correlative in Jo. 17: 24. 
The use of ὅπου in classical Greek is confined to indefinite sen- 
tences, but the N. T. shows a frequent use (especially in John) 


970 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


where there is a definite antecedent.!. Cf. Jo. 1:28; 4:46; 7: 
42; 10:40; 12:1, ete. 

5. TEMPORAL CLAUSES. 

(a) Kin to Relative Clauses in Origin and Idiom. Blass? 
bluntly says that temporal clauses introduced by ὅτε and ὅταν 
‘“‘are generally only a special class of relative sentence, and ex- 
hibit the same constructions.’ The same thing is true of local 
sentences. Burton® carries this conception to such a point that 
he has no separate treatment of temporal sentences at all. This 
is surely going too far. Thompson‘ sees the matter rightly when 
he says: ‘The vague original relative import becomes specialized.” 
Hence we expect to find both definite and indefinite temporal 
clauses as with other relative (and local) clauses. Definite tem- 
poral clauses may be illustrated by Mt. 7:28, ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ ’In- 
σοῦς τοὺς λόγους τούτους, ἐξεπλήσσοντο of ὄχλοι. The indefinite is 
shown in Jo. 15 : 20, ὅταν ἔλθῃ ὁ παράκλητος. The temporal clause 
may be indefinite in its futurity, frequency and duration.® In- 
definite futurity is the most common, indefinite duration the least 
common. ‘The modes used in temporal clauses in the N. T. are 
the indicative and the subjunctive. These uses conform to the 
historical development of the two modes. ‘There is one example 
of the optative in a temporal clause (Ac. 25 : 16, πρὸς ods ἀπεκρί- 
θην ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἔθος Ῥωμαίοις χαρίζεσθαί τινα ἄνθρωπον ἠρὶν ἢ ὁ κατη- 
γορούμενος κατὰ πρόσωπον ἔχοι τοὺς κατηγόρους τόπον τε ἀπολογίας 
λάβοι περὶ τοῦ ἔγκλήματος). Here, 85 15 evident, the optative is due 
to indirect discourse, not to the temporal clause. The subjunc- 
tive with ἄν (πρὶν ἢ ἂν ἔχῃ — λάβῃ) occurs rather than the opta- 
tive according to sequence of modes. This sequence was optional 
and a classic idiom, and so is found in the N. T. only in Luke’s 
writings. Observe that ἔστιν is retained in the indicative. This 
sentence is a fine illustration of the Greek subordinate clauses. 
In the context in Acts it is seen that four dependent clauses pre- 
cede the πρὶν 7 clause in the long sentence. The use of ἄν or ἐάν 
in temporal clauses has very much the same history as in other 
relative clauses. The usage varies with different conjunctions 
and will be noted in each instance. The point of time in the 
temporal clause may be either past, present or future. It is a 
rather complicated matter, the Greek temporal clause, but not 
so much so as the Latin cum clause, “in which the Latin lan- 


1 Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 152 f. 4 Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 329. 


ΟΝ bak pHele: 5 Ib., p. 328. 
8 N. T. M. and T., pp. 118, 126 ff. 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 971 


guage is without a parallel.’”’! The different constructions may 
be conveniently grouped for discussion. Just as the optative 
with temporal clauses vanished, so there came a retreat of va- 
rious temporal conjunctions. As a result in the later Greek the 
construction is much simpler.? 

᾿ς (δ) Conjunctions Meaning ‘When.’ The classic use of the op- 
tative for repetition with such clauses has been effectually side- 
tracked in the vernacular κοινή (Radermacher, N. 7. Gr., p. 130). 
Only the ind. and subj. modes occur in these clauses. ’Ezei has 
vanished in this sense, save in Lu. 7: 1 where it is a variant (mar- 
gin in W. H. and Nestle) for ἐπειδή, the correct text. Curiously 
enough this is also the only instance of the temporal use of ἐπειδή 
in the N. T., ἐπειδὴ ἐπλήρωσεν. It is a definite point of time in 
the past and naturally the indicative occurs. There are three 
examples of ἐπάν with the subjunctive (Mt. 2:8, ἐπὰν εὕρητε; 
Lu. 11:22, ἐπὰν νικήσῃ; 11:34, ἐπὰν 7 where it is parallel with 
ὅταν 7). There are only two instances of ἡνίκα (2 Cor. 3:15, 
16, ἡνίκα ἂν ἀναγινώσκηται, ἡνίκα ἐὰν ἐπιστρέψῃ). It is the indefi- 
nite idea as the subjunctive shows. Note ἄν and ἐάν (indefi- 
nite also and with notion of repetition). Nestle (AEH) reads 
ὁπότε ἐπείνασεν in Lu. 6: 3, but W. H. and Souter (NBCD) 
have ὅτε. Ὁπόταν does not occur in the N.T. “Ore and ὅταν 
are both common and in all parts of the N. T. The connec- 
tion between ὅτε (cf. ὅτθεν, Brugmann, Griech. Gr., Ὁ. 254) and 
Homeric ὅτε and ὅς τε (Monro, Hom. Gr., Ὁ. 191) is disputed.‘ 
Cf. the conjunction 6 from ὅς and ὅτι from ὅστις. Homer used 
ὅτε as a causal conjunction like ὅτι. Only the indicative (see be- 
low) mode appears with ὅτε in the N. T., but it occurs with past, 
present and future. Usually the events are definite, as in Mt. 
21:1, ὅτε ἤγγισαν eis ᾿Ιεροσόλυμα. The present time is rare, as in 
ὅτε γέγονα ἁνήρ in 1 Cor. 18:11; ὅτε ζῇ in Heb. 9:17. In Mk. 
11:1 ἔγγίζουσιν is the historic present. The great bulk of the 
examples are in the past with the aorist indicative, though the 
imperfect occurs for custom or repetition, as in Jo. 21:18; Col. 
3:7. The future indicative is naturally indefinite even when 
ὅτε is preceded by a word like ὥρα (Jo. 4 : 21, 23) or ἡμέρα (Ro. 2: 
16. Incorporated in W. H.). Souter’s Rev. Text (so W. H.) has 


1 W. G. Hale, Stud. in Class. Philol., The Cwm Constructions, 1887, p. 259. 

2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 466. 

3 ᾿Ἐπεί was rare in Homer. Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 226. 

4 Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., pp. 189 ff.; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 561; Riem. and 
Goelzer, Synt., p. 444 f. 


972 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ἕως εἴπητε in Lu. 13:35, but Nestle still reads ἕως ἥξει ὅτε εἴπητε. 
The text is in much confusion, but at any rate here is manuscript 
evidence for the subjunctive with ὅτε without ἄν. This is in har- 
mony with what we saw was true of és and ὅστις. It is also a 
well-known Homeric idiom.!. Radermacher (N. 7. Gr., p. 164) 
cites ὅτε ἄρξηται (Vettius, pp. 106, 36). “Ὅταν naturally occurs 
more frequently with the subjunctive for indefinite future time. 
It is usually the aorist tense, as in Mt. 24 : 33, ὅταν ἴδητε. The 
present subj. does occur when the notion of repetition is implied, 
as in Mt. 15 : 2, ὅταν ἄρτον ἐσθίωσιν. Cf. Mt. 6:2. Once the idea 
of duration seems manifest (Jo. 9:5, ὅταν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ὦ), but usu- 
ally it is future uncertainty simply. It is not necessary to take 
the common aorist subj. here as the Latin futurum exactum.? 
Cf. ὅταν παραδοῖ in Mk. 4:29. The ἄν (ὅτε ἄν) is always present ~ 
save in the doubtful ὅτε εἴπητε of Lu. 13:35. “Ore with the subj. 
is found in poetry and in the Byzantine writers. So Test. XII 
Pat. Levi 2 : 10 ὅτε ἀνέλθῃς ἐκεῖ. On the other hand a number of 
examples occur of ὅταν with the indicative (cf. ἐάν and ὅπου ἄν 
with the indicative). Homer, Iliad, 20, 335, has ὅτε κεν ξυμβλή- 
cea. αὐτῷ. Soin Rey. 4:9 we find ὅταν δώσουσιν. The close affin- 
ity in form and meaning of the aorist subj. with the future 
indicative should cause no surprise at this idiom. In Lu. 18: 
28 BD read ὅταν ὄψεσθε, though W. H. put ὄψησθε in the text. 
A good many manuscripts likewise have ὅταν with the future 
ind. in Mt. 10:19 and 1 Tim. 5:11. Cf. 6rav ἔσται in Clem., 
Cor. 2, 12, 1. Moulton (Prol., p. 168) notes in the papyri only 
a small number of examples of ἄν with temporal clauses and the 
ind. Thus ὅταν ἔβημεν in Par. P. 26 (ii/B.c.); ἐπὰν ἐπυθόμην in 
B. U. 424 (11 A.D.); ὁπόταν ἀναιροῦνται in B. U. 607 (ii/a.p.). It 
is common in the LXX, Polybius, Strabo, ete. See Jannaris, 
Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 463; Radermacher, NV. 7. Gr., p. 164. Ramsay 
(Cit. and B., ii, p. 477, no. 348) gives ὅταν ἔζων ἔγώ a ‘curious 
anti-Christian inscription”? (Moulton, Prol., p. 239). A few in- 
stances occur of ὅταν with the present indicative. So ὅταν στή- 
kere in Mk. 11:25. Here* some MSS. have the subj., as in Ro. 
2:14 some read ὅταν ποιεῖ. Cf. also various readings in Mk. 
13:4, 7. This construction is not unknown in earlier writers, 
though more common in the κοινή. Cf. Ex. 1:16; Ps. 101 :3; 


1 Cf. Mutzbauer, Konjunktiv und Optativ, p. 97. 

2 W.-M., p. 387. 

8. Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 125. Cf. Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 463. 
4 Cf. W.-M., p. 388. 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 973 


Prov. 1:22; Josephus, Ant., xii; 2, 3; Strabo, I, 1, 7; Act. Apoer., 
126. In2Cor. 12:10, ὅταν ἀσθενῶ, we probably have the present 
subj. Cf. 1 Th. 3:8, ἐὰν στήκετε. The examples of ὅταν with the 
aorist or imperfect indicative are more numerous. In Thucyd- 
ides ὅτε was always definite and ὁπότε indefinite. Ὅταν with 
the optative appears in Xenophon. The Atticists have ἐπειδάν 
and ὁπόταν (sic) with the opt. (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 165). 
In the κοινή the field of ὅταν is widened, as already shown. Aga- 
thias uses ὅταν with the aorist indicative. It is common in the 
Septuagint to have ὅταν with past tenses (Gen. 38:11; 1 Sam. 
17:34, ὅταν ἤρχετο; Ps. 119: 7, ὅταν ἐλάλουν; Num. 11:9; Ps. 
118 : 32; Dan. 3:7).4 The usual notion is that of indefinite re- 
petition. Thus we note it in Polybius 4, 32, 5, ὅταν μὲν οὗτοι ἦσαν, 
“γένετο τὸ δέον. Strabo I, 1, 7 has ὅταν φησίν. Cf. also 13, 7, 10. 
In Tobit 7:11 observe ὁπότε ἐάν. In Mk. 3:11 we have ὅταν 
αὐτὸν ἐθεώρουν, προσέπιπτον αὐτῷ. Cf. ὅπου ἄν and ὅσοι ἄν in Mk. 6: 
56. But the κοινή writers used ὅταν with the aorist indicative for 
a definite occurrence. This is common in the Byzantine? writers. 
In the modern Greek ὅταν is freely used with the indicative.’ See 
Philo II, 112, 28, ὅταν εἰς ἔνοια ἦλθεν. Blass’ calls this quite in- 
correct, though the LXX has ὡς ἂν ἐξῆλθεν ᾿Ιακὠβ (Gen. 27: 30; 
cf. 6:4) of “a single definite past action.’’’ There are two ex- 
amples in the Ν. T., Mk. 11:19, ὅταν ὀψὲ ἐγένετο, ἐξεπορεύοντο ἔξω 
τῆς πόλεως (possible to understand it as repetition), and Rev. 8: 
1, ὅταν ἤνοιξεν τὴν σφραγίδα τὴν ἑβδόμην. But, as Moulton (Prol., 
p. 248) observes, it is possible to regard ἐξεπορεύοντο in Mk. 11]: 
19 as pictorial rather than iterative and the papyri examples of 
ὅταν, aS seen above, allow either usage. Simcox® explains this 
“lapse” on the ground that Mark and the author of the Apoca- 
lypse are the least correct of the N. T. writers. But the idiom 
belonged to the vernacular κοινή. See Ex. 16:3, ὄφελον ἀπεθάνο- 
μεν — ὅταν ἐκαθίσαμεν ἐπὶ TOV λεβήτων Kal ἠσθίομεν ἄρτους. Ὁσάκις 15 
only used with the notion of indefinite repetition. It occurs 


1 Winifred Warren, A Study of Conjunctional Temp. Clauses in Thucydides, 
1897, p. 73. Ὅτε is found twice in1 Thue. with the optative, but Miss Warren 
reads ὁπότε. 

2 Baumlein, Unters. iiber die griech. Modi und die Partik. κέν und ἄν, 1846, 
p. 322. 

3 Reffel, Uber den Sprachgebr. des Agathias, p. 24. 

4 Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 123; W.-M., p. 388 f. 

5 W.-M., p. 389. 

6 Ib.; Mullach, Vulg., p. 368. 8 W.-M., p. 389. 

mor oN. Gk. Ρ. 218: 9. Lang. of the N. T., p. 111. 


974 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


three times in the N. T. (1 Cor. 11: 25 f.; Rev. 11:6), each time 
with ἐάν and the subjunctive. These points are all obvious. 

‘Qs is rather common in the N. T. as a temporal conjunction. 
It is originally a relative adverb from és and occurs in a variety 
of constructions. The temporal use is closely allied to the com- 
parative. Cf. ὡς ἐλάλει ἡμῖν ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ (Lu. 24:32). So Jo. 12: 
36. The temporal aspect is sharp in Mk. 9:21 where ὡς means 
‘since.’ The examples in the N. T. are usually in the aorist 
or imperfect indicative as in Jo. 6:12, 16; Ac. 8:36 and chiefly 
refer to definite incidents. In 1 Cor. 12 : 2, ὡς av ἤγεσθε, we have 
the imperfect ind. with ἄν for the notion of repetition (cf. ὅταν). 
So in Artsteas 7, 34, ὡς ἂν ηὔξαντο. In modern Greek σάν (from 
ὡς ἄν) is used for ‘when’ (Thumb, Handb., p. 192). The use of 
ὡς av=‘as if? is that of conditional, not modal, ἄν, and is very 
common in the papyri (Moulton, Prol., p. 167). See Conditions. 
As early as i/B.c. the papyri show examples of ὡς ἄντε ὅταν (orig- 
inally ws dv=‘as soon as’). Cf. Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 164; 
Rhein. Mus., 1901, p. 206; Hib. P. I, 44, 45. Radermacher (WN. T. 
Gr., p. 164) gives ὡς ἂν οἶμαι, Dion. Hal. and Dio Chrys., ὡς ἂν 
ἄμεινον ἔδοξεν, Luc. Alex. 22. But ὡς is used a few times with the 
subjunctive, thrice with ἄν (Ro. 15:24; 1 Cor. 11:34; Ph. 2: 
23), once without ἄν (Gal. 6:10), ὡς καιρὸν ἔχωμεν. In classical 
Greek this futuristic subj. would have ἄν (Moulton, Prol., p. 
248 f.). With the last construction compare Mk. 4:26. In the 
temporal use ws ἄν is not common in Attic. In Mk. 9:21 note 
πόσος xpovos — ws. In Ac. 17:15 we have ὡς τάχιστα, a remnant 
of the rather frequent use of ws with superlative adverbs. It is 
possible that καθώς has a temporal sense in Ac. 7: 17 (cf. 2 Mace. 
Ἰ 2 ἽΝ τ 

(c) The Group Meaning ‘Until’ (‘While’). The words in this 
list have a more complex history than those in the preceding one. 
They are ἄχρι, μέχρι, ἕως and πρίν. “Axper (twice in the N. T., 
ἄχρις, Gal. 3:19 and Heb. 3:13) is more frequently a preposi- 
tion (cf. ἄχρι καιροῦ, Lu. 4:18) than a conjunction. It is rare in 
Greek prose and ἄχρι ἄν only in poetry.!. But Philo (I, 166, 20) 
has ἄχρις av — σβέσει. But the simple conjunction is less fre- 
quent than the compound form (preposition and relative), as ἄχρι 
ov (Lu. 21:24) and ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας (Mt. 24:38). Sometimes the 
MSS. vary between ἄχρι, μέχρι, and ἕως, as in Mt. 13:30 (prepo- 
sition). Cf. Ac. 1:22. Past tenses of the indicative are used of 
an actual historical event. No example of the simple ἄχρι ap- 

1 Meisterh.-Schwyzer, Gr. d. attisch. Inschr., p. 251. 


MODE (ΕΓ ΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 975 


pears in this construction in the N. T., but we have ἄχρι οὗ ἀνέστη 
(Ac. 7:18) and ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας εἰσῆλθεν (Lu. 17:27). The only 
instance of the present ind. is in Heb. 3:13, ἄχρις οὗ τὸ σήμερον 
καλεῖται. Here the meaning is ‘so long’ (linear) or ‘while’ (cf. 
éws). The more common use is with reference to the indefinite 
future. In two instances (Rev. 17:17, ἄχρι τελεσθήσονται, and 
2 : 25, ἄχρι οὗ ἂν ἥξω. This latter could be aorist subj.) the future 
indicative is read. Elsewhere we meet the subjunctive, either 
without ἄν (ἄχρι σφραγίσωμεν in Rev. 7:3 and ἄχρι τελεσθῇ in 
20:3, 5; ἄχρι οὗ ἔλθῃ in 1 Cor. 11: 26; ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας γένηται in 
Lu. 1:20) or with ἄν (ἄχρις ἂν ἔλθῃ in Gal. 3:19, though W. H. 
put just ἄχρις οὗ in the margin). Here the time is relatively fu- 
ture to the principal verb προσετέθη, though it is secondary. The 
subj. is retained instead of the optative on the principle of indi- 
rect discourse. As a matter of fact ἄν occurs only twice, the other 
instance being Rev. 2:25 above. Cf. ἄχρις ὅταν πληρωθῇ, O. P. 
1107, 3 (v/a.p.). Μέχρις (so twice, Mk. 13:30; Gal. 4:19, and 
once μέχρι, Eph. 4:13) occurs only three times as a conjunc- 
tion. In Eph. 4:13 it is μέχρι simply, in the other examples 
μέχρις ov. In all three instances the aorist subj. is used without 
ἄν for the indefinite future. The use as a preposition is more 
frequent. Cf. μέχρι Iwavov (Lu. 16:16) and μέχρις αἵματος (Heb. 
12:4). It means ‘up to the point οἱ. The κοινή writers show 
a rather varied use of μέχρι (ef. Diodorus, Strabo, Polybius, 
Josephus, Justin Martyr). They, like the papyri, have μέχρι 
and μέχρις ov with and without ἄν (Radermacher, N. 7. Gr., 
p. 140). Ἕως is much more frequent in the N. T. both as 
preposition (cf. ἕως οὐρανοῦ, Mt. 11: 23) and as conjunction. The 
prepositional use is illustrated also in ἕως rod ἐλθεῖν (Ac. 8 : 40). 
The prepositional use (more frequent than the conjunctional) 
goes back as far as Aristotle and denotes the terminus ad quem. 
“Ews is Attic for Homeric jos and Doric ἅς. As with ἄχρι and 
μέχρι, we find ἕως alone as a conjunction (Mt. 2 : 9), ἕως οὗ (Mt. 
14 : 22) and ἕως ὅτου (5:25). It is used both with the in- 
dicative and the subjunctive. When an actual event is re- 
corded in the past only the aorist indicative is used. This is the 
usual classic idiom. So ἕως ἦλθεν (Mt. 24:39), ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν (1: 
25), ἕως ὅτου ἐφώνησαν (Jo. 9:18). When the present ind. appears 
with ἕως the notion is ‘while,’ not ‘until,’ and it is either a con- 
temporaneous event, as in ἕως αὐτὸς ἀπολύει τὸν ὄχλον (Mk. 6 : 45. 


1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 563. 
2 Ib., p. 200. 8 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 235. 


976 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Note dependence on ἠνάγκασεν, like indirect discourse), or a lively 
proleptic future in terms of the present, as in ἕως ἔρχομαι πρόσεχε 
τῇ ἀναγνώσει (1 Tim. 4:18) and in Jo. 21:22f. It is possible to 
take Mk. 6:45 as this proleptic future... Indeed some MSS. 
here give also ἀπολύσῃ and --οπἰἼ. In Mt. 14: 22 the reading (in the 
parallel passage) is ἕως οὗ ἀπολύσῃ. Cf. the construction with the 
Latin dum. In Lu. 19:13 W. H. read ἐν ᾧ ἔρχομαι instead of 
ἕως ἔρχομαι. Instead of ἕως ἡμέρα ἐστίν (Jo. 9:4) W. H. have ὡς 
in the margin, though keeping éws in text (as does Nestle). If 
ἕως is genuine, it is clearly ‘while,’ not ‘until.’ In Jo. 12: 35f. 
W. H. read in the text ws, not ἕως. We have, besides, ἕως ὅτου ef 
in Mt. 5:25. Most of the examples of éws deal with the future 
and have only the subj. after the classic idiom.? The future, be- 
ing identical in form with the aorist subj., is possible in the cases 
of ἕως οὗ ἀναπέμψω (Ac. 25 : 21) and ἕως ὅτου σκάψω (Lu. 18 : 8), but 
the regular subj. is the probable idiom. In Lu. 13:35 some 
MSS. have ἕως ἥξει (see (b)), but W. H. reject ἥξει dre. Both ἕως 
ov and ἕως ὅτου are common, but always without av. So ἕως οὗ 
averwow (Ac. 23:21) and ἕως ὅτου πληρωθῇ (Lu. 22:16). With 
simple ἕως it is more common to have ἄν. So ἕως ἂν ἀποδῷς (Mt. 
5 : 26), but note ἕως ἔλθῃ (10:23). "Αν is not essential in this 
construction. Cf. Lu. 12:59; 15:4; 22:34. In Mk. 14 : 32, ἕως 
προσεύξωμαι, the notion is rather ‘while’ than ‘until.’ Cf. Mt. 
14: 22; 26:36; Lu. 17:8. But the note of expectancy suits the 
subjunctive. In Mt. 18:30, ἔβαλεν αὐτὸν εἰς φυλακὴν ἕως ἀποδῷ τὸ 
ὀφειλόμενον, the subj. is retained after secondary tense of the in- 
dicative as in indirect discourse. Ἕως occurs after negative verbs 
also (cf. πρίν), as in Lu. 22:34. Moulton (Prol., p. 169) quotes 
Th. 6 Gi/B.c.) ἕως μένωσιν, G. H. 88 (i/B.c.) ἕως καταβῇς. In the 
papyri ἄν, as in the N. T., is often absent from these conjunctions 
meaning ‘until.’ Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 140) finds ἕως and 
the subj. common in the papyri, the insers. and the κοινή writers. 
Blass’ thinks he sees a certain affinity with final sentences in the 
subj. with these conjunctions for the future indefinite. At any 
rate it is good Attic and should cause no trouble. The κοινή fully 
agrees with the ancient idiom. It is, of course, a matter of taste 
with the writer whether he will regard a future event as a present 
reality or a future uncertainty to be hoped for and attained. 
IIpiv is a comparative form (cf. superlative πρῶ-τος) like the Latin 


1” Burton, No le, and... Ds Les: But the proper sense of the indice. is 
better as an expression of the fact. Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 140. 
2 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 235. *) Gr, of N@E. ΟἰἸ S219: 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 977 


prius.! It is the neuter accusative singular. It is really the same 
in idea as πρότερον, ‘before,’ ‘formerly.’ Pindar uses it as a prep- 
osition with the ablative πρὶν ὥρας --πρὸ ὥρας. The original con- 
struction with πρίν was the infinitive, though the subj. and the 
optative occur with it in Homer.2 Homer has it 81 times with the 
infinitive, 6 with the subj., once with the opt. and not at all with 
the indicative.? The word developed so much importance in the 
later Greek that Goodwin in his Moods and Tenses gives it a 
separate extensive discussion (pp. 240-254). In the N. T. there 
are only thirteen examples of it and all of them in the Gospels 
and Acts. Eleven of the thirteen are with the infinitive (cf. Homer). 
Cf. πρὶν ἀποθανεῖν (Jo. 4:49), πρὶν ᾿Λβραὰμ γενέσθαι (8:58). Five 
times we have πρὶν 7, as in Mt. 1:18. Luke alone uses the clas- 
sic idiom of πρίν with the subj. or opt. after negative sentences. 
In both instances it is only relative future after secondary tenses, 
but in Lu. 2 : 26, μὴ ἰδεῖν θάνατον πρὶν [ἢ] ἂν ἴδῃ τὸν Χριστὸν κυρίου, 
the subj. is retained according to the usual rule in indirect dis- 
course in the κοινή (so often in the Attic). In Ac. 25:16, as al- 
ready explained heretofore, πρὶν ἢ ἔχοι --- λάβοι after ἀπεκρίθην ὅτι 
οὐκ ἔστιν is changed from the subj. to the opt. as is possible in 
indirect discourse, a neat classic idiom found in Luke alone in the 
N.T. Some of the MSS. do not have ἄν in Lu. 2 : 26 and & reads 
ἕως ἄν here. A few MSS. have πρίν 4 in Lu. 22 : 384. The papyri 
writers do not show the same consistency as Luke in the use of 
πρίν But note μήτε διδότω --- πρὶν αὐτῷ ἐπιστέλληται, O. P. 34 
(ii/A.D.). For ‘until’ ἕως kept the field. Indeed in Lu. 22: 84, οὐ 
φωνήσει σήμερον ἀλέκτωρ ἕως τρὶς ἀπαρνήσῃ, We see ἕως where πρίν 
would usually come (Radermacher, NV. 7΄. Gr., p. 164). Very early 
πρὸ τοῦ and inf. also began to displace πρίν (see Verbal Nouns). In 
the modern Greek πρίν holds its place (also πρὶ va, ὅσο, προτοῦ) 
with ind. and subj. (Thumb, Handb., Ὁ. 193). The N. T. does 
not have ἔστε, but the papyri show it. Cf. ἔστ᾽ ἄν, Amh. P. II, 
81, 11 (iii/a.p.). See also Job 13:22 NX. 

(d) Some Nominal and Prepositional Phrases. We have al- 
ready seen in the case of ἄχρι, μέχρι and ἕως how they occur with 
relative pronouns as conjunctional phrases. The same thing oc- 
curs with a number of temporal phrases. Thus ἀφ᾽ od. In Lu. 
13:7 ad’ οὗ is preceded by τρία ἔτη as the terminus a quo. It 


1 Cf. Sturm, Geschichtl. Entw. der Konstr. mit πρίν, 1882, p. 4; Frenzel, 
Die Entw. der Satze mit πρίν, 1896, p. 12. 

2 Sturm, ib., p. 145. 4 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 219. 

ΞΡ. 0: 0. 5 Moulton, Prol., p. 169 note. 


| 978 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


means ‘since.’ Cf. τρίτην ταύτην ἡμέραν ἄγει ad’ ov in Lu. 24:21. 
In Rev. 16:18 it is the simple equivalent of ἀπὸ τούτου ὅτε as in 
the Attic Greek and Herodotus. In these examples the indica- 
tive occurs, but in Lu. 13: 25, ad’ οὗ ἂν ἔγερθῇ, the construction of 
ἕως is used for the uncertain future, the subj. with ἄν. The con- 
ception of ἀπὸ τούτου ὅτε has to be appealed to, ‘from that mo- 
ment when,’ ‘when once’ the steward arises. In like manner we 
see ἀφ᾽ ἧς used for ‘since’ in Lu. 7:45; Ac. 24:11; 2 Pet. 3:4. 
In Col. 1:6, 9 we have the form ἀφ᾽’ ἧς ἡμέρας. Ἐν @ is not 
always temporal. It may be merely local (Ro. 2:1), instrumen- 
tal (Ro. 14: 21) or causal (Ro. 8:3). The temporal use is much 
like ἕως in the sense of ‘while,’ as in Mk. 2:19 (Lu. 5:34) ἐν ᾧ ὁ 
νυμφίος mer’ αὐτῶν ἐστίν. Cf. Jo. 5:7, ἐν ᾧ ἔρχομαι with ἕως ἔρχομαι 
in Jo. 21:22. In Lu. 19:18 the Text. Rec. has ἕως ἔρχομαι, 
but ἐν @ is the true reading. In 1 Pet.1:6 ἐν 6 has its antece- 
dent expressed in the preceding sentence and means ‘wherein.’ 
In Mk. 2:19 we see ὅσον χρόνον for duration of time. In Mt. 9: 
15 the shorter ἐφ᾽ ὅσον occurs, while in Heb. 10 : 37 note ὅσον ὅσον 
(a Hebraism from the LX X, though paralleled in the papyri). In 
Ro. 7:1 we read ἐφ᾽ ὅσον χρόνον, the fullest form of all. Moulton 
(Prol., p. 169) cites C.P.R. 24, 25 (ii/a.D.) ἐφ᾽ ὃν ἢ χρόνον (note ab- 
sence of ἄν). 

(e) The Temporal Use of the Infinitive. There are nine examples 
of πρὸ τοῦ and the infinitive. In the LXX there are 35 examples 
(Votaw, The Infinitive in Bibl. Gk., p. 20). These examples all have 
the accusative with the infinitive, as in πρὸ τοῦ ὑμᾶς αἰτῆσαι αὐτόν 
(Mt. 6:8, Cf. Lu. 2s 2)s922 21555 Jomiint Sale ier Aleaae 
15; Gal. 2:12; 3:23), except Jo. 13:19, (πρὸ rod yevecOar, but 
even here it is implied. The tense is aorist except a present in 
Jo. 17:5. The sense is quite like πρίν (see before). The in- 
scriptions (Moulton, Prol., p. 214) show scattered examples of πρὸ 
τοῦ and inf. The use of ἐν τῷ as ‘when’ or ‘while’ is much more 
common. It occurs only 6 times in Thucydides, Plato 26 times, 
Xenophon 16 times.! But it is very common in the Septuagint 
as a translation of the Hebrew 2 and the infinitive construct. 
Moulton? admits a Hebraism here in the sense of ‘during,’ a 
meaning not found in the vernacular κοινή so far. The construc- 
tion is, however, very common in Luke, the most literary of the 
N.T. writers, and in all parts of the Gospel. It is found both in 
the sense of ‘while’ and ‘when.’ Usually it is the present tense 
that has the notion of ‘while’ and the aorist that of ‘when.’ So 

1 Moulton, Prol., p. 215. 2 Ib., p. 249. 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 979 


in Lu. 1:8 note ἐν τῷ ἱερατεύειν αὐτόν, (2 : 27) ἐν τῷ εἰσαγαγεῖν τοὺς 
γονεῖς τὸ παιδίον ᾿Ιησοῦν. ‘The examples are numerous (55 in the 
N. T.), but the LXX shows 500 instances,! undoubted proof of 
the influence of the Hebrew there, where it is nearly as common 
as all other prepositions with the infinitive. This use of ἐν τῷ 
and the infinitive is not always temporal. In Lu. 12:15 it is 
rather the content than the time that is meant. In Lu. 1: 21 it 
may be causal. Mera 76 and the infinitive we find fifteen times 
in the N. T. In the LXX the construction appears 222 times 
according to Votaw.? It has the resultant meaning of ‘after’ 
and always has the aorist infinitive except the perfect in Heb. 
10:15. It is found in Luke, Paul, Matthew, Mark, Hebrews, 
and chiefly in Luke. A good example is found in μετὰ τὸ ἀπο- 
κτεῖναι (Lu. 12:5). See also Ac. 7:4; 10:41. Mention should 
also be made of ἕως τοῦ ἐλθεῖν in Ac. 8:40, as in the LXX 
(Judith 1:10; 11:19). It occurs 52 times in the O. T. and 16 
in the Apocrypha. But note μέχρι τοῦ πλεῖν, P. B. M. 854 (i/a.p.). 
On prepositions and inf. see Verbal Nouns. 

(f) Temporal Use of the Participle. This subject will demand 
more extended treatment under the head of the Participle (Verbal 
Nouns). Here it may be noted that the participle does not of it- 
self express time. We may in translation render the participle by a 
temporal clause with ‘as,’ ‘while,’ ‘since,’ ‘when,’ ‘after,’ etc., like 
the Latin cum. As a rule the unadorned participle in English is 
enough to bring out the idea. The participle may be co-ordinated 
in translation with the principal verb by the use of ‘and.’ The 
present participle is merely descriptive and contemporaneous, as 
ἀποθνήσκων (Heb. 11:21). The aorist participle has either simul- 
taneous action, as ἀσπασάμενοι (Ac. 25:13), or antecedent, as éu- 
Bavra (Mt. 13:2). The wealth of participles gave the Greek a 
great advantage over the Latin in this matter. In the flourishing 
' period of the language the temporal participle vied with the con- 
junctions in the expression of temporal relations. In the κοινή 
this use of the participle is still quite live, as almost any page of 
the N. T. shows, though it has manifestly in places shrunk before 
the analytic tendency to use conjunctions and finite verbs. This 
tendency to use conjunctions is still more noticeable in modern 
Greek.* 


1 Votaw, The Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 20. | 2 Ib. 

3 Moulton, Prol., p. 230. “We should not usually put a temporal clause 
to represent these, as it would overdo the emphasis.”’ 

4 Jebb in V. and D.’s Handb., p. 333. 


980 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


6. FINAL AND CONSECUTIVE CLAUSES. 

(a) Kinship. It is a difficult matter to correlate properly these 
subordinate clauses. They nearly all have relative adverbs as 
conjunctions. Often the same conjunction is used indifferently 
in a number of different kinds of clauses. So ὡς in comparative, 
declarative, causal, temporal, final, consecutive, indirect inter- 
rogative, exclamatory. In like manner ὅπως has a varied use. 
Cf. the Latin wt, which is comparative, final, apprehensive, 
consecutive. The English that and German da’ have a like his- 
tory. Goodwin,! therefore, treats “final and object-clauses”’ to- 
gether as pure final clauses, object-clauses with verbs of care and 
effort, clauses with verbs of fearing. He gives a separate discus- 
sion of consecutive clauses.2. Burton® practically follows Good- 
win. Viteau* blends them all into one. Winer practically ignores 
consecutive clauses. Jannaris® pointedly says that the popular 
speech “avoids the consecutive construction”? and uses ὥστε and 
the infinitive for either final or consecutive (ef. Latin ut and Eng- 
lish that) “thus confounding consecutive with final clauses.” It 
was not quite that. As a matter of fact the various points of 
view shade off into one another very easily and sometimes quite 
imperceptibly. It is not always easy to distinguish purpose and 
result. in the mind of the writer or speaker. The very word finis 
may be the end aimed at (purpose) or attained (result). My 
colleague, Prof. W. O. Carver, D.D., has suggested grouping 
these ideas all under result, either contemplated, feared or at- 
tained. Some such idea is near the true analysis and synthesis. 
The later Greek showed a tendency to gather most of ‘these 
ideas under iva.® 

(b) Origin in Parataxis. It seems clear that these final clauses 
had their origin in parataxis, not hypotaxis. The conjunctions, 
when used, were an after-development. The step from parataxis 
to hypotaxis has already been taken when we meet the Greek of 
Homer,’ though the paratactic construction continued side by 
side in isolated instances. Examples like ἄφες ἐκβάλω (Lu. 6 : 42), 
βούλεσθε ἀπολύσω; (Jo. 18 : 39), θέλεις ἑτοιμάσωμεν (Mk. 14 : 12) are 
probably instances of this original idiom rather than of a mere 
ellipsis of va.8 Cf. also the possible origin of οὐ μή as οὔ" μή. This 


1M. and T., pp. 105-187. . 

2 ΤΡ., Ρρ. 217--298. 4 Le Verbe, pp. 71-95. 

3 N. T. M. and T., pp. 83-100. 5 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 455. 

6 Ib., p. 458. Thus ὅπως and ὡς gradually disappear. 

7 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 555. 8 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 109. 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 981 


disconnected idiom was felt to be especially bare in the positive 
form, but the negative paratactic construction with μή with 
verbs of fearing is present in Homer.! Gildersleeve? quaintly 
says: ‘‘Parataxis, which used to be thrust into the background, 
has come forward and claimed its rights.” This grammatical 
sage, barring the infinitive and participle, adds: “ Nihil est in 
hypotaxi quod non prius fuerit in parataxi.”” The subjunctive, 
therefore, in final clauses is merely the volitive subj. of parataxis.? 
It was natural that the parataxis should be plainer in negative 
sentences, for alongside of μή (originally the mere negative in para- 
taxis and the negative conjunction in hypotaxis) there came iva 
μή, ὅπως μή. The whole matter is carefully worked out by Weber® 
with careful discussion of each construction in the various writers 
during the long course of Greek linguistic history from Homer 
through the Attic writers. 

(c) Pure Final Clauses. Here conscious purpose is expressed. 
This class constitutes the bulk of the examples and they are the 
easiest to understand. The Greek is rich in variety of con- 
struction for this idea. We can deal only with the idioms in the 
N.T. “Ὄφρα, for instance, is not in the N. T., nor is the idiom of 
ὅπως With the future indicative after verbs of striving. 

(a) “Iva. The etymology of ἵνα is not certain. A fragment® of 
Hesiod has ἵν airté. Perhaps ἵντα is derived from this form. 
But at any rate in Homer tva=éxe? in Iliad, 10, 127. After 
Homer, especially in the poets, it has the meaning ‘where,’ 
‘in what place,’ ‘whither.’7 The exact connection between this 
local demonstrative and relative sense and the final ‘that’ 
(wt) is not clear. But we have a similar transition in the 
Latin ut, English that, German da’. Sophocles in his Lexicon 
of the Roman and Byzantine Periods gives nineteen uses of 
iva for the Greek of that era. They may all be whittled down 
to three, viz. the pure final, the object-clauses or sub-final, the 
consecutive. There is no doubt that ἵνα came to be used in all 
these ways in the Byzantine period. In the κοινή of the N. T. 
time the first two are abundantly shown. The ecbatic or con- 
‘secutive use is debatable in the N. T. But each in its order. 
Curiously enough the Attic inscriptions make a very sparing use 


ΤΠ ps 108: 3 Moulton, Prol., p. 185. 

2 Am. Jour. of Philol:, 1883, p. 419. 4 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 107. 
5 Entwickelungsgeschichte der Absichtsatze (1884, 1885). 

6 Dyroff, Gesch. des Pronomen reflexivum, 1892, p. 71. 

7 Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 566. 8 Tb. 


982 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


of ἵνα, much preferring ὅπως and ὅπως ἄν. So in epic and lyric 
poctry ἵνα is overshadowed by ὄφρα and in tragedy by ws, though 
Aristophanes uses it in three-fourths of his final sentences and 
Plato and the Attic orators use it almost exclusively (Goodwin, 
Moods and Tenses, p. 109). The original use of ἵνα, after the 
demonstrative and the relative stage, was the pure final. It is so 
in Homer, though Monro admits one instance of the object-clause.? 
Only the subj. occurs with it in Homer in this construction. This 
is the natural mode for the expectant note in clauses of purpose. 
But it must not be overlooked that tva in no way controls the 
mode, for the idiom is at bottom paratactic in origin.4 But the 
indicative had a use also as well as the optative, as will presently 
be shown. A word further is needed concerning the tremendous 
development in the use of ἵνα. Thucydides used ὅπως three times 
as often as ἵνα, and ὡς as a final particle only twice. Xenophon in 
the first three books of the Anabasis has ὅπως one and a half times 
as often as ἵνα, and ws nearly as often as ἵνα. But Polybius 
(books I-V) uses ἵνα exclusively, and the N. T. has twa about 
twelve times as often as ὅπως, and ws perhaps once. It is thus 
not simply that twa displaced ὅπως and ὡς, but it gradually 
usurped the final use of the infinitive also. It comes to be almost 
the exclusive means of expressing purpose, and in the modern 
Greek vernacular every phase of the subj. and the old future 
ind. can be expressed by va (iva) and the subj. Νά is used 
also with the ind. The intention in modern Greek is brought out 
a bit more sharply by γιὰ va (Thumb, Handb., p. 197). But the 
distinction is sometimes faint. All in all it is one of the most 
remarkable developments in the Greek tongue. The eight and a 
half pages of examples in Moulton and Geden’s Concordance bear 
eloquent testimony to the triumph of ἵνα in the N. T. Nearly a 
page and a half of these examples are in the Gospel of John. But 
we are now specifically concerned with the pure final use of ἵνα. 
Here ἵνα is in the accusative case of general reference. Thus in 
ἐλήλυθα ἵνα μάθω (cf. vent ut discam, ‘I am come that I may learn’) 
ἵνα is really a demonstrative. ‘I am come as to this,’ viz. ‘I may 
learn.’ The conjunction is supplied to avoid the asyndeton and 
is in apposition with μάθω. As already explained, the subj. is the 
predominant mode, as in τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῇ (Mt. 1: 


1 Meisterh.-Schw., p. 253 f. 2-Hom. Gr., p. 207. 
3 Stahl, Krit.-hist. Synt., p. 479; Mutzbauer, Konj. und Opt., p. 76. 
4 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 107; Blass, Gr. of Ν. T. Gk., p. 211. 

* § Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 416 f.; Jebb in V. and D., pp. 319-323. 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 983 


22). Cf. Ph. 3:8. The negative with ἵνα is μή, as in ἵνα μὴ 
κριθῆτε (Mt. 7:1). The aorist subj. is the normal tense, of course, 
as in ἵνα μεταδῶ (Ro. 1:11), though the present occurs to denote 
a continuous action, as in ἵνα πιστεύητε (Jo. 19 : 19). Cf. ἵνα γνῶτε 
καὶ γινώσκητε (Jo. 10:38). The perfect subj. occurs in εἰδῶ, as ἵνα 
εἰδῆς (1 Tim. 3:15); ἵνα εἰδῶμεν (1 Cor. 2:12); ἵνα εἰδῆτε (1 Jo. 
Ὁ also, Joe les 10. 8: 1 Cora bitl0;) 2a Corson 9: (ive 
μὴ πεποιθότες ὦμεν); ἵνα παρεσκευασμένοι ἦτε (2 Cor. 9:3). The 
subj. is regularly retained after a secondary tense of the indica- 
tive as in ἀνέβη ἵνα ἴδῃ (Lu. 19 : 4); ἐπετίμησεν ἵνα μηδενὶ εἴπωσιν 
(Mt. 16:20). Cf. Mk. 8:6. There is no instance in the N. T. 
of the optative used with ἵνα after a secondary tense of the indica- 
tive. It is true that W. H. read ἵνα δῴη in the text of Eph. 1:17 
(ἵνα δώῃ or δῷ in the margin), but this is after a primary tense, οὐ 
παύομαι. It is the volitive use of the optative and is not due to 
wa. It is like the optative in a future wish.! This use of the 
opt. with ἵνα after a wish is not unknown to classic Greek.? It 
is the subj., not the opt., that is seen in ἵνα πληροῖς (Col. 4 : 17), 
ἵνα wapadot (Mk. 14:10) and in the sub-final ἵνα yvot (Mk. 9 : 30).3 
In Homer and the early writers generally the rule was to use the 
opt. with the final clauses after secondary tenses, but in the Attic 
orators the two modes (subj. and opt.) are on a par in such a con- 
struction, while Thucydides prefers the subj., though Xenophon is 
just the reverse. In the N. T. the optative in final clauses after 
secondary tenses is non-existent. In 2 Tim. 2:25 μή ποτε dwn 
is after a primary tense as in Eph. 1:17, and here again the text 
is uncertain (cf. δώῃ in margin and ἀνανήψωσιν in text.) The Atti- 
cists (Arrian, Appian, Herodian, 4th Macc., Plutarch) made a 
point of the opt. with ἵνα as “the hall-mark of a pretty Attic 
style’? (Moulton, Prol., p. 197). The N. T. writers, more like 
Diodorus and Polybius, fail ‘‘to rival the littérateurs in the use 
of this resuscitated elegance.’”’ Moulton speaks also of “the 


1 Cf. W.-H., vol. II, App., p. 168. 2 W.-M., p. 363. 

8 On the sparing use of the opt. with final sentences in late Gk. see the tables 
in Diel, De enuntiatis finalibus apud Graecarum rerum scriptores posterioris 
aetatis, 1894, pp. 20 ff. See also Radermacher, N. Τ᾿. Gr., p.132. Moulton 
(Prol., p. 197) notes how the Atticists revelled in the opt. with ἵνα, ὅπως, ὡς. 
Josephus has 32 per cent. opts., Plut. 49 (Lives), Arrian 82, Appian 87! Polyb. 
has only 7, Diodorus 5. These are true κοινή literati. Moulton finds only one 
pap. of this period with opt. with ἵνα, O.P. 237 (late ii/A.D.), va — δυνηθείην. In 
iii/A.D. he notes L.Pw., ἵν᾽ --- εἴηι in primary sequence. Tb. 1 (ji/B.c.) actually 
has ἠξίωσα χρηματισθήσοιτο. 

4 Weber, Entwickelungsgeschichte der Absichtsiitze, p. 243. 


984 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


riot of optatives” in the artificial Byzantine writers. On the 
whole subject of final clauses see Gildersleeve on ‘‘The Final 
Sentence in Greek,” 1883, p. 419, A. J. of Philol., IV, pp. 416 ff., 
VI, pp. 53 ff. There is no trouble to find in the papyri, inscr. and 
κοινή writers generally abundant examples of iva and the subj. in 
pure design (Radermacher, N.7'.Gr., p.138). But while the subj. is 
the normal construction, the indicative is also present. In clas- 
sical Greek ἵνα was not used with the future ind.! It was not com- 
mon even with ὅπως, ws and μή. The similarity in form and 
sense (not to mention itacism of - and —e:) made the change very 
easy and, indeed, the text is not always certain as between the 
aorist subj. and the future ind. Thus in 1 Cor. 13:3 ἵνα καυχή- 
σωμαι is supported by NAB, ἵνα καυθήσωμαι by CK and ἵνα καυθή- 
σομαι by late documents.? In Gal. 2 : 4 the best documents have 
iva KaTadovAwoovow instead of —cwow. In Jo. 17 : 2 the MSS. vary 
between ἵνα δώσει and δώσῃ. So in Jo. 15:8 note ἵνα φέρητε καὶ 
γένησθε (γενήσεσθε in margin of W. H.); Eph. 6:3, ἵνα γένηται καὶ 
éon. But the idiom is well established in the N. T., especially in 
the Apocalypse. Thus ἵνα θεωρήσουσιν (Jo. 7:3); ἵνα ξυρήσονται 
(Ac. 21:24); ἵνα ἐρεὶ (Lu. 14:10); ἵνα θήσω (1 Cor. 9:18); ἵνα 
δώσουσιν (Lu. 20:10); ἵνα κενώσει (1 Cor. 9:15); ἵνα κερδηθήσον- 
ται (1 Pet. 3:1); ἵνα σφάξουσιν (Rev. 6:4); ἵνα δώσει (8:3); ἵνα 
ἥξουσιν — γνῶσιν (3:9); ἵνα ἔσται καὶ εἰσέλθωσιν (22 : 14), etc. This 
last example may be non-final. In some of these examples the 
subj. and ind. future occur side by side. In Mk. 6:56 and 
Ac. 5:15 note ἵνα κἄν (only instances of ἄν with iva in the N. T.). 
This is not modal ἄν, but κἄν as ‘even’ -Ξ- καί (Jannaris, Hist. 
Gk. Gr., p. 165; Moulton, Prol., p. 167). In Rev. 13:15 the 
MSS. vary between ἵνα ποιήσῃ and —e, and in 16 between iva 
δῶσιν and δώσει (ποιεῖ ἵνα sub-final). The usage is thus on a 
firm foundation in the N. T. It is in the LXX also. See iva 
ἔσται in Lev. 10:6 and in other writers of the κοινή (Iren., 584 A, 
iva ἔσῃ). But wa occurs also with the present ind. This is 
a rare construction in the N. T. and is not a classic idiom. It 
occurs only three times in the N. T. Thayer calls it ‘a solecism 
frequent in the eccl. and Byzantine writers.’ It is too common 
in the late writers to change the text in the N. TA Thus 1 Cor. 
4:6 ἵνα μὴ φυσιοῦσθε, Gal. 4:17 ἵνα ζηλοῦτε and 1 Jo. 5: 20 
ἵνα γινώσκομεν. The first two are possible subjunctives. W. H. 
read iva μήτις δύναται in the margin of Rev. 13:17, and various 


1 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 115. 3 Moulton, Prol., p. 35. 
2 Approved by Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 212. 4 W.-M., p. 362. 


MODE (EIKAIZI=) 985 


MSS. support the present ind. with ἵνα in Jo.4:15; 5:20; 17: 
Sodio. won 4155 elite 2 +4927 Pet 1037 Β ν "12:6. 
In the earlier Greek writers we do find ἵνα used with past tenses 
of the indicative. The idea was to show that the purpose was 
dependent on an unfulfilled wish or unattained action. But this 
refinement does not appear in the N. T. except in two examples 
with μή πως. With all the wide extension of iva in Western Hel- 
lenistic,? at the heart of it there is the pure telic idiom. Ἵνα with 
the imperative in 1 Cor. 1 : 31 is due, of course, to the quotation. 
“Iva is repeated three times in 2 Cor.12:7. In Jo. 11:37, ποιῆσαι 
iva καὶ οὗτος μὴ ἀποθάνῃ, One is reminded of the Latin facere ut 
(sub-final). Westcott (Hebrews, p. 342 f.) gives a list of all the 
examples of ἵνα in the Epistle (20). Only two of ὅπως. 

(8) “Ὅπως. It is compounded of the neuter accusative relative 
ὅ and the indefinite adverb πώς. It occurs in indirect questions 
as in Lu. 24:20 in the sense of ‘how.’ One notes also the article 
and the interrogative as in τὸ πῶς (Lu. 22:2) like English “‘the 
which.” ὭὝὭὍπως in a sense is the connecting link between the 
various kinds of final sentences. Thucydides and Xenophon 
preferred ὅπως to ἵνα, and Aristotle has iva only a few times (W. 
Schmid, Atticismus, III, p. 87). Polybius does not use ὅπως at all 
in books I-V. The Ν. T. has ἵνα 493 times, ὅπως 52 (Jannaris, p. 
417) as far as Colossians. I figure ἵνα 661 times in text of W. H., 
(not including 6 of ἵνα τί and 53 of ὅπως). Thumb does not 
give ὅπως as a final particle in modern Greek (Handb., p. 197). 
Even in later Greek ὅπως was a sign of literary affectation.® 
As already noted, in the fourth and fifth centuries B.c. ὅπως 
was quite the rule in the Attic inscriptions.’ It is rare in Homer 
and never has κέ or ἄν in pure final clauses in the Homeric 
language. This idiom with ἄν first appears in A‘’schylus. In 
the great Attic writers and the Attic inscriptions the subjunc- 
tive, the future indicative and the optative after secondary tenses, 
all are found. The future indicative occurred chiefly with verbs of 
striving, though sometimes in pure final clauses. The negative 
with this future indicative was μή (ὅπως μή), though no example 

1 Cf. W.-H., App., pp. 167, 169, 171. See further Meyer on 1 Cor. 4:6. 

2 Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 120. The Mod. Gk. has va with past tenses 
of the ind. (Thumb, Handb., p. 198). 

3 Moulton, Prol., pp. 41, 205, 211. 

4 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 565; Delbriick, Konj. und Opt., p. 61. 

5 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 348. 


Srarnn,. dist. GkoGr p,A4l7. _ § Goodwin, M. and T., p. 111. 
7 Meisterh.-Schw., p. 253 f. lei lads 


986 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


occurs in the N. T. Moulton (Prol., p. 177 note) finds in the 
papyri a few survivals of ὅπως μή and the fut. ind., though mostly 
ousted by ἵνα μή. Cf. Hb. P. 45, 60, 168 (iii/B.c.), Tb. P. 414 
(ii/A.D.). Stahl (Syntax, p. 360) calls ὅπως μή and fut. ind. Attic. 
In the N. T. the optative does not occur in this construction. In 
the Atticists it is revived as with ἵνα. The fut. ind. with ὅπως 
in pure final clauses has practically vanished from the N. T. The 
one example in Ro. 3:4, ὅπως ἂν δικαιωθῇς καὶ νικήσεις, IS ἃ QUO- 
tation from the LXX (Ps. 51:6), but changed from subj. there. 
But ὅπως θανατώσουσιν is a variant reading in Mt. 26:59, and 
the future ind. is possible in Mt. 2:8, ὅπως προσκυνήσω, though 
it is probably the aorist subj. Other variant readings where the 
future ind. is supported with ὅπως are 1 Cor. 1:29, καυχήσεται, 
and Mk. 5:28, ὅπως ζήσεται (here W. H. read ἵνα ζήσῃ). But at 
any rate the use of the future ind. with ὅπως in pure final clauses 
is not quite dead in the N. T. period, though surely dying. Else- 
where the aorist subj. alone occurs save in Lu. 16:26 (bis), 28 
and Mt. 6: 4. “Ὅπως no longer? has ἄν in final clauses save in 
the quotation from Ps. 51:6 (Ro. 3:4) and three passages in 
Luke’s writings (Lu. 2:35 ὅπως ἂν ἀποκαλυφθῶσιν Ac. 3:19 f. 
ὅπως ἂν ἔλθωσιν — καὶ ἀποστείλῃ, 15:17 ὅπως ἂν ἐκζητήσωσιν from 
Amos (so A, but B without ἄν) 9 : 12). "Αν is a variant reading 
in Mt. 6:5 and is found very often in the LXNX. Radermacher 
(N. T. Gr., p. 158) finds ὅπως ἄν in Diodorus XIV, 80, 8, Aris- 
teas, ὃ 239, inser. of Halicarnassus (iii/B.c.), Jahrb. d. Ost. Inst. 
XI, 56. But it is rare and érws steps into the background be- 
fore ἵνα. The revival of ὅπως in the third and fourth cent. A.p. 
was Atticistic and did not affect the vernacular. The inscriptions 
and the papyri for the first century A.D. show the prevalence of 
iva over ὅπως (Radermacher, N. 7’. Gr., p. 157 note). The nega- 
tive is, of course, always μή, as in Ac. 20:16, ὅπως μὴ γένηται. The 
subj. is used indifferently after primary tenses (Mt. 6 : 2, ποιοῦσιν 
ὅπως δοξασθῶσιν) and secondary tenses (Ac. 9 : 34, παρετηροῦντο 
ὅπως αὐτὸν ἀνέλωσιν). Cf. Ro.9:17. It is interesting to note that 
in the N. T. ὅπως is almost confined to Matthew and Luke’s 
᾿ writings. The literary flavour of Luke explains his use of the 
idiom, but we do not look for literary ear-marks in Matthew. 
The one example in John (11:57) occurs side by side with ἵνα 
(iva μηνύσῃ, ὅπως πιάσωσιν) and may be used for the sake of variety 
as in ἵνα γένηται ὅπως γένηται (2 Cor.8:14). Cf. also Lu. 16: 28; 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 197; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 417. 
? Blass,’ Gr. of Niele Gk poets 


MODE (EPKAIZI2) 987 


1 Cor. 1: 29; 2 Th. 1: 12, though ἵνα --- twa appear in 1 Cor. 
4:6; Gal. 4:5. In 1 Cor. 1:17 note ἵνα μή and ὅπως μή in 1: 
29. But ἵνα has “invaded the territory of ὅπως, as with φροντίζειν 
and σπουδάζειν᾽᾽ (Moulton, Prol., p. 200). In modern Greek ὅπως 
has lost all telic force (Thumb, Handb., p. 198). Sometimes 
ὅπως represents the main purpose and the infinitive the subor- 
dinate purpose, a construction amply illustrated in the papyri.? 
So then, though ὅπως as a pure final conjunction is disappearing 
in the N. T., it yet occurs with the same concept on the whole. 

(y) ‘Qs. It was not a favourite final particle with Thucydides 
(only twice), though Xenophon used it nearly as much as iva. It 
is not surprising to find only one instance of it in the N. T. and 
that one not certain. NB read ὡς τελειώσω in Ac. 20 : 24 instead of 
ws τελειῶσαι (cf. Lu. 9:52). W.H. and Nestle read τελειώσω, but 
Souter (Rev. V.) gives τελειῶσαι. It is the last leaf on the tree 
and a fluttering one at that. The form could be the future ind. 
or aorist subj. Radermacher (ΔΛ. 7’. Gr., p. 158) finds final ὡς 
merely a reminiscence in the κοινή, but it is needless to cite Mk. 
4:26 f., ὡς ἄνθρωπος βάλῃ, since this is not final at all, but com- 
parison. On as ἄν in final sentences see Schmidt, Joseph. eloc., 
p. 409, for statistics. Radermacher quotes Εἰ. P. 118 (110 a.p.), 
πορεύου--- ews τὸν ἐκεῖ ἐλαιῶνα ποτίσῃς, Where ἕως is used as final ὡς. 
Per contra in modern Greek, Moulton (Prol., p. 249) notes that 
ws takes the meaning of éws as well as its own. 

(6) Mn, μή ποτε, un πως. Negative purpose is expressed by ἵνα 
μή, ὅπως μή also, but originally it was done merely by μή in a para- 
tactic sentence. In Homer and the early writers μή is far in 
excess of ἵνα μή, ὅπως μή, but in Aristophanes and Herodotus the 
reverse is true, while in Plato and Xenophon “μή as a final con- 
junction has about gone. It is rare in the Attic historians and 
orators generally. Originally a negative adverb (subjective nega- 
tive) it came to be used also as a conjunction. Cf. Latin ne. The 
idiom μὴ οὐ appears in Homer in a few final clauses, and after 
Homer μὴ οὐ is used with verbs of fearing.» In the N. T. ἵνα μή 
(1 Cor. 1:17) and ὅπως μή (1:29) have the run over the con- 
junction μή. Only the subj. is used, though in Ac. 27:42 μή τις 
διαφύγοι is a variant reading, but διαφύγῃ is correct after the 
secondary tense of the ind. In Mk. 13:36, μὴ εὕρῃ, a primary tense 
occurs in the principal verb.. In Col. 2:4 W. H. read ἵνα μηδεὶς 

1 Tb. 2 Moulton, Prol., p. 220. 


8 Goodwin, M. and T., pp. 107, 112. 
4-Ib., p. 112. bib }0Ὁ 10)7: 


988 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


παραλογίζηται instead of μή τις (the variant reading). See also μή 
τις λογίσηται (2 Cor. 12:6). Both μή and μή πως are preserved as 
final conjunctions in the modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 198). 
The use of μή ποτε and μή πως is practically the same. Μή πως 
appears with the subj. both after secondary and primary tenses. 
So ἔπεμψα μή πως καταισχυνθῶμεν (2 Cor. 9:3f. Note also ἵνα μή 
in 9:3, 4) and μή πως γένωμαι (1 Cor. 9:27). In Gal. 2:2 (μή πως 
ἔδραμον) and 1 Th. 3:5 (μή πως ἐπείρασεν) we have a difficult con- 
struction. One view is to take it as an indirect question. This 
is possible in Gal. 2:2, but not in 1 Th. 3:5. Even in Gal. 
2:2 there would be an ellipsis of a participle like ζητῶν μαθεῖν. 
Moulton (Prol., p. 201) suggests that ἔδραμον as an “‘after-thought”’ 
in Gal. 2:2 has plenty of classical parallels. Cf. Goodwin, Moods 
and Tenses, ὃ 333. In 1 Th. 8:5 we have μή πως ἐπείρασεν καὶ 
γένηται side by side. It is better therefore to take τρέχω in Gal. 
2:2 as subj. also. Thus in both examples we have the subj. 
and the aorist ind. This is in accord with the ancient idiom 
where in pure final sentences a past tense of the ind. was used 
if it is distinctly implied that the purpose was not attained.) 
That is precisely the case here. Paul did not run in vain. The 
tempter did not succeed with the Thessalonians. It is thus un- 
fulfilled purpose that Paul neatly expresses in accord with the 
Attic diction. Μή ποτε loses the notion of time in ποτε and has 
rather the idea of contingency, ‘but perchance’ rather than ‘lest at 
any time.’ Radermacher (V. 7’. Gr., p. 158) thinks that ποτέ and 
πὼς often distinguish deliberative (dubitative) from final μή. As 
a strictly final particle it occurs either with the subj. or the future 
ind., though the subj. is more common. For the fut. ind. note 
Mt. 7:6 μή ποτε ᾿καταπατήσουσιν (correct text, though the aorist 
subj. has support), Mk. 14:2 μή ποτε ἔσται. In Lu. 12:58 note 
μή ποτε κατασύρῃ καὶ ἀποδώσει. Both subj. and fut. ind. likewise 
occur in Mt. 13: 15 (Ac. 28: 27) μή ποτε ἴδωσιν — καὶ ἰάσομαι (LXX, 
Is.6:10). So also in Lu. 14:8 f., μή ποτε ἢ κεκλημένος (note per- 
fect subj.) καὶ épet (cf. ἵνα ἐρεῖ in verse 10). The normal subj. is 
seen in Lu. 14:12, μή ποτε ἀντικαλέσωσιν. The opt. in the N. T. 
is wanting in final sentences as in cases of repetition (Rader- 
macher, NV. T. Gr., p. 131). W.H. read μή ποτε δῴη (opt.) in 2 
Tim. 2:25. But even so, if true, it is not a pure final clause but a 
kind of indirect question as in Lu. 3:15, only in 2 Tim. 2:25 
the opt. occurs after a primary tense. It is hardly just to say 


1 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 120f. 
2 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 86. 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 989 


with Moulton! that here Paul “‘misused an obsolete idiom,” 
since the opt. after primary tenses occurs occasionally with iva 
in the papyri.2 Cf. μή ποτε αὐτῶν χρεία γένοιτο, εὐθέως αὐτοὺς ἐξέλα-- 
σον, P. Oxy. I, 118, 38. Βαῦύ 1ὖ is more than likely, as Moulton 
argues, that in 2 Tim. 2:25 we should read subj. δώῃ, since ἀνανή- 
Ywow undoubtedly is subj. The epic δώῃ is supported by ἐὰν 
γνώῃ, Clem., Paed., III, 1. (Moulton, Prol., p. 193.) 

(ε) Relative Clauses. This construction in the earlier Greek, 
like the Latin, had either the subj. or the opt. The Attic added 
the future ind. which largely displaced the subj. and the ορί.3 
The N. T. follows the Attic use of the fut. ind. Cf. οἵτινες ἀπο- 
δώσουσιν (Mt. 21:41); ots καταστήσομεν (Ac. 6:3). See 1 Cor. 4: 
17, ὃς ἀναμνήσει. Blass* explains the occasional return to the 
subj. as due to iva. See ὅπου φάγω (Mk. 14: 14); παρ᾽ ᾧ ξενισθῶμεν 
(Ac. 21:16); ὃ προσενέγκῃ (Heb. 8:3); δι᾽ ἧς λατρεύωμεν (12 : 28). 
Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 138) quotes B. U. III, 822 (ii/a.p.) 
εὗρον yeopyov τίς (=ds) αὐτὰ ἑλκύσῃ, Diodorus, XIV, 8, 3, δι᾿ ὧν 
ἐξέλωσι τὰ τείχη. The N. T. hardly uses the relative clause of 
purpose as freely as the Attic Greek. 

(Ὁ The Infinitive. A brief statement is alone necessary here, 
‘since the infinitive receives full discussion in the next chapter. 
Suffice it to say that the infinitive is exceedingly common in the 
N. T. for the notion of pure purpose. Votaw® counts some 1,285 
such instances of the simple infinitive of purpose in “biblical 
Greek.”’ He does not give the figures for the N. T. alone. He 
notes that ‘this use of the infinitive is second only to that of 
general object in order of relative frequency of occurrence.” 
Moulton (Prol., p. 205) notes that the inf. of purpose is more 
common in the N. T. than in Attic, and he agrees with Thumb 
(Theol. Lit., 1903, p. 421) in the theory that this frequency of the 
inf. of purpose in the κοινή is due to the Ionic dialect. It has sur- 
vived in the Pontic dialect of modern Greek, though elsewhere 
displaced by νά and the subj. Cf. ἑτοιμάσωμεν φαγεῖν (Mt. 26 : 17) 
and ἑτοιμάσωμεν ἵνα φάγῃς (Mk. 14:12). The telic inf. is common 
in the κοινή writers generally (Radermacher, N. 7. Gr., p. 152). 
Cf. Xenophon of Eph., 393, 28, ἐληλύθει προσεύξασθαι. It is com- 
monest with verbs of movement (Moulton, Prol., p. 205), as in 
ἐὰν ἀναβῶ κἀγὼ προσκυνῆσαι, Par. P. 49 (ii/B.c.). This infinitive may 
be resolved easily into the original dative (or locative), as in Jo. 

1 Prol., p. 194. 4 Groot Nols Gk, p. 217. 


2 ΤΡ. pr 197. ὅ ΤΠΘ Τηἴ. ἴῃ ΒΡ]. ακ., Ρ. 10. 
8 Goodwin, M. and T., pp. 210 ff. 


990 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


21:3, ὑπάγω ἁλιεύειν, ‘I go a-fishing’; Mt. 2:2, ἤλθομεν προσκυνῆσαι, 
‘we went up for worshipping.’! It is easy to see the purpose 
in the dative form of προσκυνῆσαι, but less clear in the locative 
ἁλιεύειν (probably due to syncretism). Moulton® suggests that 
the locative was originally a sort of designed result and gradually 
the line of cleavage vanished between the two forms as was true 
of ἵνα (and ut). ‘The burden of making purpose clear is in all 
these cases thrown on the context; and it cannot be said that any 
difficulty results, except in a minimum of places.” This idiom 
has a much wider range in Homer than in Attic writers and is 
again more prevalent in the N. T. than in the Attic. A few ex- 
amples must suffice: οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι, ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι (Mt. 5:17); 
ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀνήχθη — πειρασθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου (4:1); οὐκ ἦλθον Ka- 
λέσαι δικαίους (ΜΚ. 2:17); πάρεσμεν ἀκοῦσαι (Ac. 10:33). Cf. Lu. 
18:10; Ac. 11: 25; 12:13; 18 : 44, ete. Less frequent is the inf. 
with τοῦ for the idea of purpose. Votaw* notes but 38 such ex- 
amples of direct purpose in the N. T., though the O. T. shows 
734. These 33 are almost confined to Matthew, Luke and Acts. 
Cf. τοῦ ἀπολέσαι (Mt. 2:13); τοῦ σπεῖραι (Lu. 8 : 5); τοῦ airety (Ac. 
3:2). See both together in Lu. 1: 76f., 79; 2 : 22, 24, παραστῆσαι 
--- καὶ τοῦ δοῦναι. For a full discussion see “ Articular Infinitive” 
(Verbal Nouns). Paul seems to avoid it as a rule. But see Ro. 
6:6; Ph.3:10. The use of ὥστε and the inf. for pure purpose is 
rare in the N. T., some half-dozen instances. Only indisputable 
examples should be claimed. Thus ὥστε ἐκβάλλειν (Mt. 10:1). 
Cf. Mt. 15:33; 24:24; 27:1; Lu. 4:29; 20:20. Radermacher 
(N. T.Gr., p. 160) cites P. Oxy. 1, 52, 7 (825 a.v.), ἐπισταλέντος ὥστε 
τὴν διάθεσιν ἔγγραφον προσφωνῆσαι. For further examples of telic 
ὥστε in the inscriptions and writers of the κοινή see Koch, Obser- 
vationes grammaticae, p. 20. It is more frequent in the LXX. 
Radermacher even cites a case of final ὥστε with the subj. in a 
late papyrus, B.G.U. III, 874, γεγράφηκα ὑμῖν ὥστε πέμψητε. There 
are two examples of ὡς in W. H., ὡς ἑτοιμάσαι (Lu. 9 : 52, other 
editors ὥστε) and ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν (Heb. 7:9). In Ac. 20:24 most 
editors have ws τελειῶσαι, but not W. H. The articular infinitive 
with prepositions is very common in the N. T. as in the LXX, 
about one-half of all the examples of the articular infinitive. For 
a discussion of prepositions with the inf. see Verbal Nouns. Both 
eis τό and πρὸς τό Occur with the inf. in the papyri, the latter 
1 Moulton, Prol., p. 204. 4 Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 21. 


2 Ib., p. 207. 5 Ib., p. 10. 
* Blass, Gr. of N. T; Gk;, p, 228; © Tb. 2p.519, 


MODE (EI'KAIZI2) 991 


more frequently. They both seem “to carry the thought of a 
remoter purpose.’”’ (Moulton, Prol., p. 220.) Moulton cites 
B. U. 226 (1/A.D.) ὅπως εἰδῇ παρέσεσται (=Oar) — πρὸς τὸ τυχῖν, O. P. 
237 (11/A.D.) ὅπως φροντίσῃς --- πρὸς τὸ μὴ — ἐντυγχάνειν. The pa- 
pyri have εἰς τὸ ἐν μηδενὶ μεμφθῆναι as a “recurrent formula.” Cf. 
P. Fi. 2 Gii/a.p.) 4 times. Moulton gives numerous papyri ref- 
erences for telic εἰς τό. The examples with εἰς τό are the most 
common of all in the N. T. (72 instances). As a rule these 
indicate purpose more or less strong, though not always. It is 
particularly common in Paul (50 exx., H. Scott). So εἰς τὸ στη- 
ριχθῆναι (Ro. 1:11), εἰς τὸ εἶναι (8:29). Cf. 1 Th. 3:5; Eph. 1: 
12; Ph.1:10). The instances of πρὸς τό are few (12) and chiefly 
in Luke and Paul. Cf. πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι (Mt. 6 : 1); πρὸς τὸ δύνασθαι 
(Eph. 6:11) 

(0) The Participle. The future participle, so common in this 
construction in the Attic Greek, has nearly vanished from the 
N. T. as from the rest of the κοινή. A few remnants survive like 
ἔρχεται ᾿Ηλείας cwowv (Mt. 27:49), ἀνέβην προσκυνήσων and ποιήσων 
(Ac. 24:11, 17). Cf. Ac. 8:27. So also the present participle 
occasionally occurs where purpose is implied. Thus ἀπεστάλκα- 
μεν ἀπαγγέλλοντας (Ac. 15:27). Cf. ἔπεμψαν ἀγγέλλοντας (Thue. 
VII, 26, 9)? Cf. also Mk. 3:31. A good example is Ac. 3: 
26, ἀπέστειλεν αὐτὸν εὐλογοῦντα. See Participle (Verbal Nouns) and 
Tense for further remarks. 

(d) Sub-Final Clauses (really object or subject clauses like ὅτι 
clauses ). There are a considerable number of clauses which are 
not pure purpose and yet are not result. They are the bridge, 
in a sense, between the two extremes. They are found with verbs 
of striving, beseeching, commanding, fearing. In some instances 
the clause is hardly more than an object-clause. The same con- 
junctions are here used in general, and this shows that no hard 
and fast line was drawn in the matter. Various divisions are 
made of these verbs.*? Burton‘ calls them object-clauses of ex- 
horting, of striving, of fearing, of subject and predicate, of com- 
plementary and epexegetic clauses, of conceived result. But even 
so they overlap and run into one another. 

(a) “Iva. Here again the main conjunction is ἵνα. All these 
varieties noted by Burton are seen with ἵνα save with verbs of 


1 Cf. Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 161 f. 
2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 198. 

8 Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., pp. 122 ff. 

4 N. T. M. and T., p. 83. 


992 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


fearing. As we have seen,! there were two tendencies in the 
κοινή. One was the spread of the Ionic use of the inf. of purpose, 
the other was the wide extension of ἵνα in Western Hellenistic. 
So the iva in the non-final or sub-final sense, once rare,” now comes 
to be exceedingly common. The development came on soon 
after the close of the classical age? But Thackeray (Gr., pp. 24, 
194) finds it rare in the LXX. It came to be used in almost 
any sense that the infinitive bore and finally displaced it. This 
weakened use of ἵνα is one of the characteristics of the κοινή and 
is richly illustrated in the N. T., particularly in the writings of 
John. Thus in Mt. 5:29, συμφέρει ἵνα ἀπόληται, the ἵνα clause is 
the subject of συμφέρει and is a subject-clause in the nominative 
case. There is a great variety of phrases* which thus use ἵνα. So 
ἀρκετὸν ἵνα γένηται (Mt. 10:25; 18:6). Cf. 1 Pet. 4:3 (inf.). 
See also ἱκανὸς ἵνα (Mt. 8:8), though elsewhere inf.; ἄξιος ἵνα (Jo. 
1:27), but inf. in 1 Cor. 16:4, as often; «συνήθεια ὑμῖν va (Jo. 
18 : 39); ἐλήλυθεν ὥρα ἵνα (Jo. 12 : 23); ἐμοὶ εἰς ἐλάχιστόν ἐστιν ἵνα 
(1 Cor. 4 : 8); ἐμὸν βρῶμά ἐστιν ἵνα (Jo. 4 : 34); λυσιτελεῖ --- ἵνα (Lu. 
17:2); τοῦτο, ἵνα ἔλθῃ (Lu. 1:48); ζητεῖται ἵνα (1 Cor. 4: 2); χαρὰν ἵνα 
(Ph. 2:2). Thus the ἵνα clause is seen to be either nom. or 80606.; 
simply, or in apposition with a substantive. In John® the appo- 
sitional use is very frequent. So αὕτη ἵνα (Jo. 17: 3); μείζονα ταύ- 
ms, wa (15:18, ablative); ἐν τούτῳ, ἵνα (15 : 8, locative); χάριν, iva 
(3 John 4, accusative). “Ci. Jo. 6:39; 1010... 1 πὸ ie 
2 Jo..6; 1 Gor: 9:18; Rev. .2:1215 sin Jomib:: 12a ivawayenare 
(subj.) is in apposition with ἐντολή. Some of these are comple- 
mentary or epexegetic clauses. In the subject and object (or 
appositive) clauses the subjunctive is usually found, though occa- 
sionally the fut. ind., as in ἐρρέθη ἵνα ἀδικήσουσιν (Rev. 9:4). See 
further examples of the fut. ind. in Rev. 3:9; 6:11; 18:12; 
14:13 (especially common in the Apocalypse). In Rev. 9:5 
we have ἐδόθη ἵνα μὴ ἀποκτείνωσιν αὐτούς, ἀλλ᾽ iva βασανισθήσονται. 
In Jo. 17:3 some MSS. read ἵνα γινώσκουσιν (read by Treg. and 
Tisch.). Object-clauses with ἵνα after verbs of striving, beseech- 
ing, etc., largely displace ὅπως. Many of these verbs use also the 
infinitive and a few retain ὅπως. Blass’ gives a careful list of 
the construction in the N. T. with each of these verbs. See also 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 205. 

2 It is seen as early as Demosthenes (IV, 28). 

8 Jebb in V. and D.’s Handb., p. 320. 

4 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 228. δ᾽ Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 225 f. 
5 W.-Th., p.338 f. 7 Tb. 


MODE (EPKAIZ=I=) 993 


Thayer under ἵνα (2). Cf. Acta Pauli et Theclae, 29, πρόσευξαι 
ὑπὲρ τοῦ τέκνου μου, ἵνα ζήσεται. With these verbs ἵνα gives the 
purport or object rather than the purpose. This use of ἵνα is very 
rare! in classic Greek, though in itself not out of harmony with 
the Greek genius. The parallel between ἵνα in this sense and ὅτι 
is seen in Jo. 11:50; 1 Jo. 5:3, 9,11. Per contra see 1 Jo. 5: 
13 for distinction. Cf. also ὅτι in Mt. 13:13 with ἵνα in Lu. 
8:10. It is worth repeating that in the modern Greek (except 
in the Pontic dialect) it is universal (νά) to the exclusion of the 
inf. and ὅπως. It is common after verbs of saying (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 189). The examples in the N. T. are too numerous 
to give a complete list.. But note ἵνα after ἀγγαρεύω (Mt. 27: 
32); ἀγαλλιάομαι (Jo. ὃ : 56); ἀγωνίζομαι (Jo. 18 : 36); αἰτέομαι (Col. 
1:9); ἀπαγγέλλω (Mt. 28:10. So παραγγέλλω, Mk. 6:8); ἀπο- 
στέλλω (Ac. 16 : 36); ἀφίημι (Mk. 11:16); βουλεύομαι (Jo. 12 ; 10); 
and συμβ. (Mt. 26 : 4); βλέπω (1 Cor. 16 : 10); γράφω (Mk. 9 : 12); 
διαστέλλομαι (Many MSS. in Mt. 16 : 20); δέομαι (Lu. 9 : 40); δίδωμι 
(Mk. 10:37); ἐντολὴν δίδωμι (λαμβάνω), as in Jo. 11:57 (13:34; 
15:12); ἐντέλλομαι (Mk. 13 : 34); ἐπιτίμάω (Mt. 12:16; 16 : 20, 
W. H.); ἐξορκίζω (Mt. 26 : 63); ἐρωτάω (Mk. 7: 26); εἶπον (Mt. 4: 
3); and λέγω (Ac. 19 : 4); θέλω (MK. 6: 25); ἔστιν θέλημα (Mt. 18: 
14); ζηλόω (1 Cor. 14 : 1); ζητέω (1 Cor. 4 : 2); κηρύσσω (Mk. 6 : 12); 
μεριμνάω (1 Cor. 7 : 34); παρακαλέω (Mt. 14 : 36); πείθω (Mt. 27: 
20); ποιέω (Jo. 11:37); προσεύχομαι (Mk. 14:35); συντίθεμαι (Jo. 
9:22 and inf.); τίθημι (Jo. 15:16); φυλάσσομαι (2 Pet. 3:17). 
This is a most interesting list. Kilker (Questiones de elocutione 
Polybiana, 1880. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 20) has shown how 
Polybius favours ἵνα with verbs of commanding like αἰτέομαι, πα- 
ραγγέλλω, etc. No real distinction in sense can here be drawn 
between the inf. and ἵνα. The later κοινή (and so the N. T.) car- 
ried this use of ἵνα much further than did Polybius, who had more 
affinity with the old literary Greek. There is no need to appeal 
to Latin influence for this sub-final use of ἵνα, as Moulton (p. 208) 
abundantly shows from the papyri. So O. P. 744 (i/B.c.) ἐρωτῶ σε 
iva μὴ ἀγωνιάσῃς, N. P. 7 (i/A.D.) ἔγραψα ἵνα σοι φυλαχθῶσι, B. U. 
531 (i/A.D.) παρακαλῶ σε ἵνα κατάσχῃς, O. P. 121 (iii/a.D.) εἶπά σοι 
εἵνα δώσωσιν. Moulton (Prol., pp. 177, 208) recalls the old jussive 
subj. as sufficient explanation of this use of ἵνα. Radermacher 
(Rh. M., LVI, 203) and Thumb (Hellen., p. 159) support Moulton 
against the Latin influence theory. Per contra see Goetzeler, 
De Polybii El., pp. 17 ff.; Kiilker, Quest.; Viereck, Sermo Grae- 
1 It is found in Hom. Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 128. 


994 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


cus, Ὁ. 67. Moulton scores his point and observes also that the 
inf. was not driven out by ἵνα in the papyri, see (ce). Cf. A. P. 135 
(ii/A.D.), ἐρωτῶ σε μὴ ἀμελεῖν pov. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 
155 f.) gives numerous other examples of non-final ἵνα in papyri 
and inscriptions. The subj. is the usual mode employed even 
after secondary tenses. Thus ἐβουλεύσαντο ἵνα ἀποκτείνωσιν (Jo. 
12:10). In Mk. 9:30, οὐκ ἤθελεν ἵνα τις Ὑνοῖ, we have still the 
subj., not the opt. As already noted, ἵνα δῴη in Eph. 1:17 is 
an optative of wish after a primary tense. It is here also the 
subfinal va. Cf. Phil. 14; Col. 4:12. Moulton?! points out how 
closely akin are προσεύχεσθε ἵνα μὴ ἔλθητε (Mk. 14:38) and ὁρᾶτε 
καὶ φυλάσσεσθε (Lu. 12:15). The paratactic origin of the ἵνα con- 
struction is thus well illustrated. ‘An innovation in Hellenistic 
is ἵνα 6. subj. in commands, which takes the place of the classic 
ὅπως c. fut. indic.’’? Moulton cites a moderate number of ex- 
amples of this abrupt use of ἵνα in the papyri. So F. P. 112 (99 
A.D.) ἐπέχον (Ξε ων) Ζωίλωι καὶ elva αὐτὸν μὴ δυσωπήσῃς, letter of 
Cicero (Att. 6:5) ταῦτα οὖν, πρῶτον μέν, ἵνα πάντα σῴζηται" δεύτερον 
δέ, ἵνα μηδὲ τῶν τόκων ὀλιγωρήσῃς, B. U. 48 (1111 A.D.) ἵνα ὁμόσε 
γενώμεθα. There is a doubtful ex. of this sense of ἵνα in Soph., 
Oed. C. 155, though ὅπως was so used.* It appears in Arrian and 
Epictetus. In the modern Greek the va clause sometimes ‘‘ap- 
proaches the nature of a principal sentence’? (Thumb, Handb., 
p. 198). But this elliptical imperative is undoubted in the N. T. 
Cf. Mk. 5:23, ἵνα ξλθὼν ἔπιθῇς.. So also Mt. 20:32; 1 Cor. 7: 
29; 2 Cor.8:7; Eph. 4:29; 5:33. With this construction com- 
- pare the asyndeton without ἵνα in Mk. 10:36, τί θέλετε ποιήσω 
ὑμῖν; As already explained, this may be mere parataxis (two 
questions). Cf. wa in Mk. 10:35 and Gal. 5: 17.4 

(8) “Ὅπως. It is much rarer in the N. T. in these constructions. 
It no longer occurs with the future ind. after verbs of striving. 
The papyri show ὅπως occasionally in this sense also. Moulton 
(Prol., p. 208) cites B. M. 21 (ii/B.c.) ἠξίωσά σε ὅπως ἀποδοθῇ, while 
“ἀξιῶ c. infin. occurs in the same papyrus.”’ Radermacher (NV. 7’. 
Gr., p. 141 f.) quotes Theoph. ad Autolycum, 2, 84 ἔστω σοι ἐρευ- 
vav τὰ TOD θεοῦ ὅπως δυνήσει, inscr. from Magen., 90, 12 (ii/B.c.) 
ἐφρόντισεν ὅπως --- ἀποκαταστῶσιν. The few examples in the N. T. 
are all in the subj. Burton notes only three (Mt. 12:14; 22:15; 
Mk. 3:6), and all three after συμβούλιον ἔλαβον (ἐδίδουν). The 
clause thus partakes of the nature of an indirect deliberative 


1 Prol., p. 178. 2 Ib. 3 W.-M., p. 396. 
4 See art. by Jann., Expositor, ser. V, vol. IX, p. 296. 


EO 


MODE (ΒΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 995 


question (cf. Mk. 11:18, més). They are all after secondary 
tenses. There are some instances in the N. T. of ὅπως after verbs 
of beseeching, though many verbs that in Attic had this idiom no 
longer have it. Thus ὅπως and the subj. occur with δέομαι (Mt. 
9:38), aitéoua (Ac. 25:3), ἐρωτάω (Lu. 7:3), παρακαλέω (Mt. 8: 
34), προσεύχομαι (Ac. 8: 15). 

(y) Mn, μή πως, μή wore. The usual construction in the nega- 
tive sub-final clauses is ἵνα μή, but a small list of verbs commonly 
have μή as the conjunction. This is true of verbs meaning ‘to 
take heed,’ ‘to care for,’ ‘fear.’1 It is a much narrower range ° 
than the sub-final use of ἵνα. In the N. T. the subj. always oc- 
curs with μή except in Col. 2:8 βλέπετε μή τις ἔσται. Thus βλέπετε 
μή τις ὑμᾶς πλανήσῃ (Mt. 24:4). Treg. and Tisch. read the fut. ind. 
in 2 Cor. 12:21, but W. H. and Nestle rightly have ταπεινώσῃ (cf. 
verse 20). The pres. subj. occurs in Heb. 12:15 ἐπισκοποῦντες 
μὴ ἐνοχλῇ. Elsewhere we have only the aor. subj. Thus after 
βλέπω (Mk. 18 : 5); dpaw (Mt. 18:10); σκοπέω (Gal. 6:1); φοβέο- 
μαι (Ac. 27:17). In Ac. 23:10 some MSS. have εὐλαβέομαι, but 
φοβέομαι is correct. This construction with φοβέομαι is rare in 
the N. T. (Luke, Paul and Hebrews) and is apparently a literary 
touch. Cf. Ac. 27:29. In Ac. 5:26, ἐφοβοῦντο yap τὸν λαὸν μὴ 
λιθασθῶσιν (note subj. after secondary tense), there is a prolepsis 
of τὸν λαόν Μή πως is found after βλέπω with the aor. subj. (1 Cor. 
8:9) and doBéoun (2 Cor. 11:3; 12:20). Cf. Gal. 2: 2 in 6, (ὁ); 
(5) Pure Final Clauses. If the fear is about an object in the 
present or past, the indicative is used. Thus in Lu. 11:35, 
σκόπει μὴ — ἐστίν, and in Gal. 4:11, φοβοῦμαι ὑμᾶς μή πως εἰκῇ 
κεκοπίακα εἰς ὑμᾶς. This is in strict accord with Attic idiom.’ 
The papyri show it also (Moulton, Prol., p. 193). So Par. P. 49 
(ii/B.c.) ἀγωνιῷ μή ποτε ἀρρωστεῖ, N. P. 17 (ili/A.D.) ὑφωροῦμε μὴ 
ἄρα ἐνθρώσκων ἔλαθεν ὕδατι. Radermacher (N. 7΄. Gr., p. 141) adds 
examples of fut. ind., as Enoch 6:3, φοβοῦμαι μὴ οὐ θελήσετε; Dio 
Chrys., xxxiv, 44, οὐ yap ἔστι κίνδυνος, μὴ Μαλλωτῶν ἐσομένων ἀσθενέ- 
στεροι δόξετε. The negative in such a clause is οὐ. Thus φοβοῦμαι 
μή πως οὐχ οἵους θέλω εὕρω (2 Cor. 12: 20). This is to show contrast 
to μή. Cf. Col. 2:8, μή τις ἔσται --- καὶ ob. Sometimes a verb of 
fearing is implied, though not expressed (cf. elliptical use of ἵνα 
and iva μὴ). Thus Ac. 5:39, μή ποτε εὑρεθῆτε. This is a possible 
explanation of μή ποτε οὐ μὴ ἀρκέσῃ (or μή ποτε οὐκ) in Mt. 25:9 

1 Burton, N. T. Μ. and T., pp. 88, 98 f. 


2 Cf. Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 95. 
3 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 133. 


996 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(note negatiyes) and μή ποτε dyn (2 Tim. 2:25). Μή ποτε is used 
with the aorist subj. after προσέχω (Lu. 21:34; Heb. 2:1), with 
a present subj. after φοβέομαι (Heb. 4:1), with a pres. opt. after 
προσδοκάω (Lu. 3: 15, indirect question), with a fut. ind. after 
βλέπω (3:12). These clauses are also of paratactic origin.1 This 
paratactic construction survives in the use of ὅρα with the im- 
perative (Mt. 9:30; 24:6), but even so the clause may be de- 
pendent in actual use as in Mt. 18:10; 1 Th. 5:15. Some 
doubt? arises concerning the clauses with βλέπω which have a 
paratactic origin, but are practically dependent. Those in the 
third person are clearly so (Mk. 13:5; Ac. 13:40, etc.). This 
argues for a like usage in Lu. 21:8; Gal. 5:15; Heb. 12 : 25. 

(5) The Relative Clause. It is a classic idiom for complemen- 
tary relative clauses to be used in a sub-final sense.? As examples 
of this idiom in the N. T. note ἄξιός ἐστιν ᾧ παρξξῃ (Lu. 7:4); οὐκ 
ἔχω ὃ παραθήσω (11:6); οὐδένα ἔχω ὅστις μεριμνήσει (Ph. 2:20). Cf. 
σχῶ τί γράψω (Ac. 25:26) and τὶ γράψαι οὐκ ἔχω (ib.). Rader- 
macher (N. 7. Gr., p. 188) quotes from Achilles Tatius, IV, 16, 3, 
ἀπογεύσομαι τοσοῦτον ὅσον κἀκείνη λάβῃ. 

(e) The Infinitive. With verbs of exhorting, beseeching, etc., 
the infinitive was the normal idiom in the ancient Greek. In the 
N. T. it still occurs twice as often as iva and ὅπως together.4. Some 
of these verbs have only the inf. in the N. T., as αἰσχύνομαι, ἀξιόω, 
ἀσκέω, βούλομαι, δοκέω, Edw, ἐπιθυμξω, ἐπιποθέω, ἐπιτρέπω, ETLXELPEW, 
κελεύω, ὀκνέω, παραινέω, πειράω, σπουδάζω, τάσσω and compounds, 
φροντίζω, φοβέομαι in the sense of ‘to be afraid to do’ (Mt. 2 : 20). 
Many of the verbs that use sub-final ἵνα may have the inf. also. 
Thus ποιήσω ὑμᾶς γενέσθαι (Mk. 1:17). So also βουλεύομαι, αἰτέομαι, 
προσεύχομαι, λέγω, etc. Cf. ἄξιος λῦσαι (Ac. 18:25) and ἄξιος ἵνα 
λύσω (Jo. 1: 27). In 2 Cor. 9:5 the inf. is used after the ἵνα 
clause to express an epexegetic or complementary purpose (ταύτην 
ἑτοίμην εἶναι), a rather common usage. Cf. in 1 Cor. 9:15 both 
ἵνα and the inf. in a broken sentence. Moulton® argues that 
in Paul the majority of cases of τοῦ with the inf. are epexegetic 
(ΕοΣ. 1: 24 7 423328 912; 1 Corse 102413) oresdnominglaciio aioe 
23; 1 Gor..9 210/16 432-Cors8 201 Pheje 21) orthesabiasive 
construction (Ro. 15 : 22; 2 Cor. 1:8). Certainly τοῦ μὴ ἐλθεῖν in 
Lu. 17: 1 is not purpose, nor τοῦ εἰσελθεῖν in Ac. 10:25. Cf. also 
Mt. 21:32, τοῦ πιστεῦσαι. Luke uses τοῦ and the inf. more than 

1 Moulton, Prol., pp. 185, 248. 4 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 87. 


2 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 89. ΌΣΟΙ ΡΣ ΙΒ 
3 Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 217. 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 997 


any other N. T. writer. In Lu. 18:1, πρὸς τὸ éetveis not final. 
Eis 76 and the inf. we find chiefly in Paul (44 examples, Moulton, 
Prol., p. 218. Mr. H. Scott makes 50 by counting the verbs 
instead of the preposition). The construction .is always final in 
the other N. T. writers. But Paul has non-final uses, as in 
1 Th. 2:12; 4:9. The papyri show this non-final use of τοῦ 
and the inf. (Moulton, Prol., p. 219f.). So B. U. 1081 (ii/a.p.) 
φρόνησον τοῦ ποιῆσαι, B. 1]. 164 (1,111 A.D.) πεῖσαι αὐτὸν τοῦ ἐλθεῖν, 
B. M. 23 (ii/B.c.) προσδεομένου μου τοῦ περιποιῆσαι. 

(Ὁ Ei and ὅτι. In Lu. 17:2 we have λυσιτελεῖ εἰ ἔρριπται ἢ ἵνα 
σκανδαλίσῃ, where εἰ and ἵνα introduce subject-clauses. Cf. also 
εἰξε ὅτι in Mk. 9:42. in Lu. 19:21, ἐφοβούμην σε ὅτι ἄνθρωπος 
αὐστηρὸς εἶ, the rare use of ὅτι with φοβέομαι may be causal. It is 
made easier by the proleptic use of ce. The usual object-clause 
with ὅτι belongs to indirect discourse. 

(e) Consecutive Clauses. 

(a) “Iva. It is debatable whether ἵνα has the ecbatic use in the 
N.T. There is in itself no reason why it should not have it, since 
undoubtedly it was so used in the later Greek.!. It occurs also in 
modern Greek, as εἶναι va χάσῃ κανεὶς TO μυαλό του, ‘that is for one 
to lose his reason’ (Thumb, Handb., p. 197). The parallel of the 
Latin ut may have had some influence on this late Greek. The 
development, however, was in the vernacular, and out of the sub- 
final use of ἵνα, and the Latin influence was not needed. There is 
not space to follow the long debate in the grammars and com- 
mentaries on this subject. Kiihner? held that ἵνα had the ecbatic 
sense, but Thayer® boldly accepts the verdict of Fritzsche and 
Winer who “have clearly shown that in all the passages adduced 
from the N. T. to prove the usage the telic (or final) force pre- 
ν 8115. W. F. Moulton‘ agreed with Winer as against Fritzsche 
in the admission of the sub-final use of ἵνα, but he balked at the 
consecutive idea. ‘But it does not follow that the weakened ἵνα 
is generally equivalent to ὥστε: this use of ἵνα is rather, as we can 
still perceive in most cases, an extension of eo consilio ut.” Yes, 
in most cases, beyond a doubt. I once had just this feeling and 
stood against® the admission of the consecutive force of ἵνα. J. 
H. Moulton® confesses to a similar development of opinion on 
this subject. He had once’ committed himself against the ec- 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 455. 2°Gr eS oboe Ὁ, ΔΏΙΗ Ὁ. 
’ Lexicon, p. 304. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 381, holds to the strict use of iva. 
4 W.-M., p. 421. ΒΕ Proly pn. 200: 


5 Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., pp. 153, 155. 7 Intr. to N. T. Gr., p. 217. 


998 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


batic ἵνα, but now he confesses himself “troubled with unsettling 
doubts.”’ He boldly advocates! the freedom of commentators to 
interpret iva as the context demands (final, sub-final, consecutive). 
Ellicott? had defended just this principle, and he is the most 
severely grammatical of commentators. The commentator must 
have grammar, but he needs the grammar of the author on whose 
work he is making comments. So also Sanday and Headlam on 
Ro. 11:11 (μὴ ἔπταισαν ἵνα réowow;) pointedly interpret it thus: 
“ἵνα expresses the contemplated result.” They appeal to Elli- 
cott, Lightfoot and Evans in support of this laxer use of iva as 
against Winer and the Germans. They also (p. 148) quote Chry- 
sostom’s exposition of ἵνα in Ro. 5: 20: τὸ δὲ ἵνα ἐνταῦθα οὐκ αἰτιο- 
λογίας πάλιν ἀλλ᾽ ἐκβάσεώς ἐστιν. Lightfoot admits the consecutive 
force of iva in Gal. 5:17; 1 Th. 5:4. He is correct in both 
instances. See also Lu. 1:48. In Jo. 16:2, ἔρχεται ὥρα iva δόξῃ, 
it is almost temporal. It is argued that, where ἵνα seems to be 
used in a consecutive clause, it is the divine purpose that is to be 
considered. But certainly no such explanation is possible in Ro. 
11:11. There is such a thing as the divine purpose and it is 
seen® in Lu. 9:45, qv παρακεκαλυμμένον ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν ἵνα μὴ αἴσθωνται 
αὐτό. Cf. also Mt. 1:22, ἵνα πληρωθῇ. But surely no such pur- 
pose‘ appears in Jo. 6: 7, οὐκ ἀρκοῦσιν αὐτοῖς iva ἕκαστος βραχὺ λάβῃ. 
Here we have contemplated result, it is true, but it is result just 
the same. It is probably just out of this idiom (conceived result) 
that the use of ἵνα for actual result came. Burton’ admits this 
conceived result as in Heb. 10 : 36, and seeks to explain Jo. 9 : 2, 
τίς ἥμαρτεν — ἵνα τυφλὸς γεννηθῇ; But the effort is not successful. 
He denies that there is a certain, ‘scarcely a probable, instance 
in the N. T. of a clause denoting actual result conceived as such.’’® 
He considers’? Rev. 19 : 18, ποιεῖ σημεῖα μεγάλα, ἵνα καὶ πῦρ ποιῇ ἐκ- 
τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβαίνειν, as the most probable instance of ἵνα de- 
noting actual result. But there are others just as plain, if not 
clearer. Thus 1 Jo. 1:9, πιστός ἐστιν καὶ δίκαιος, ἵνα ἀφῇ τὰς ἁμαρ- 
τίας. Blass® places this beside ἄδικος ἐπιλαθέσθαι (Heb. 6 : 10) and 
thinks that the consecutive use οὗ ἵνα grew out of the infinitive in 
that sense. With this Moulton® agrees. Cf. also Rev. 9 : 20, οὐ 


μετενόησαν, ἵνα μὴ προσκυνήσουσιν, With οὐ μετενόησαν δοῦναι αὐτῷ δόξαν 


τ ΡΟ) 0)0} 6 Ib., p. 94. 

2 Oniiinh. ΠΣ} 17: 7 Tb. 

5. Moulton, Prol., p. 210. a Gr. of N.S Gk ΠΣ. 
4 Blass, Groots Nite Gk pocass *) Prok, p. 210; 

5 


ΝΙΝ 02 f: 


MODE (EIKAIZIz) 999 


in 16:9. Note in particular 1 Jo.3:1, where the clause καί ἐσμεν 
accents the ecbatic force of ἵνα. This use is possible also in Jo. 
9:36; Mk. 11:28. In Mk. 4:22, ἐὰν μὴ ἵνα φανερωθῇ, we have iva 
(cf. ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα) used like ὥστε and the inf. (cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. 
Gk., p. 218). In Mk. 2:10 ἵνα almost means ‘on condition that.’ 
The consecutive ἵνα appears outside of the N. T. as in Arrian 
(Diss. Epict., 11, 2, 16) οὕτω μωρὸς ἦν, ἵνα μὴ ἴδῃ. Sophocles in his 
Lexicon gives a quite extensive list of passages in the κοινή writers 
where iva has the consecutive sense. He has probably claimed 
too many, but some of them are real instances. Even Josephus 
has ἵνα in the sense of conceived result.1. Radermacher (N. 7’. 
Gr., p. 156) cites Epictetus, IV, 3,9, ἐλεύθερος γάρ εἰμι καὶ φίλος τοῦ 
θεοῦ iv’ ἑκὼν πείθωμαι αὐτῷς Several other examples occur in Epic- 
tetus. So, then, we conclude that ἵνα has in the N. T. all three 
uses (final, sub-final, consecutive), and thus runs a close parallel 
with the infinitive which it finally displaced.2 Sophocles cites 
several examples of consecutive ἵνα from the LX X. One of these 
is certainly pertinent, Wisdom of Sol. 13 : 9, for ἵνα δύνωνται fol- 
lows τοσοῦτον and ἵνα has the force of ὥστε. 

(8) “ὥστε. This conjunction is merely ὡς and ré=‘and so.’ In 
Homer ὡς is both a demonstrative and a relative. Either idea 
may appear in wore. It is really a comparative particle.2 In the 
early writers the inf. was more common than the ind. with ὥστε. 
Thus in Euripides the inf. occurs 130 times to 20 indicatives. In 
Thucydides it is 144 to 82, but in Plato it is 253 to 240. The 
consecutive sentence began with the inf. and was extended to the 
finite verb. In late Greek it returned to the inf. construction. 
Cf. Green, Diodorus and the Peloponnesian War, 1899, p. 21. Of 
the 83 instances® of ὥστε in the N. T. probably 30 do not come 
up for discussion under either final or consecutive clauses. The 
word in these examples is merely an introductory inferential par- 
ticle like οὖν. The structure is wholly paratactic. In this sense 
of ‘therefore’ the particle occurs with the ind. twenty-one times. 
Cf. Mt. 12:12, ὥστε ἔξεστιν. Once the subj. appears, 1 Cor. 5: 
8, ὥστε ἑορτάζξωμεν. Radermacher (N. 7. Gr., p. 161) even quotes 
P.Oxy. IV, 748, 27 (ii/B.c.), ὥστ᾽ ἂν τοῦτό σε θέλω γινώσκειν, and there 
are other instances like it. The other eleven instances have the 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 224. 2 Moulton, Prol., p. 210. 

3 Cf. Gildersl., The Consec. Sent. in Gk., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1886, p. 167. 

4 Cf. Berdolt, Der Konsekutivsatz in der altern griech. Litteratur, 1896, 
pp. 21-27. 

5 Mr. H. Scott makes 95 times by counting the verbs. 


1000 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


imperative. Cf. ὥστε βλεπέτω (1 Cor. 10:12). See 1 Cor. 3: 21; 
11:33, ete. Of the hypotactic examples 62 have the infinitive 
and only two the indicative. In the Attic Greek actual result 
was expressed by ὥστε and the indicative, while ὥστε and the inf. 
(‘so as to’) denoted a result naturally or necessarily following the 
preceding cause. In the N. T. there are only two instances 
of the ind. with ὥστε (as a hypotactic conjunction). They are 
Jo. 3:16, οὕτως yap ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν 
μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, and Gal. 2 : 13, καὶ συνυπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ λοιποὶ 
Ἰουδαῖοι ὥστε καὶ Βαρνάβας συναπήχθη αὐτῶν τῇ ὑποκρίσει. Here the 
actual result is distinctly accented. Blass? on the flimsiest grounds 
seeks to oust ὥστε in Jo. 3:16 by ὅτι and to put the inf. in Gal. 
2:13, so as to get rid of this construction entirely in the N. T. 
Moulton’ rightly shows small patience with such “summary” 
methods in textual criticism. The construction with the ind. is 
not quite obsolete in the vernacular κοινή, but in the LXX it is 
almost absent. This classic idiom stands, therefore, in the N. T., 
but only to make the contrast sharper. Of the 62 instances of 
ὥστε with the inf. in the N. T. they are nearly all consecutive, 
not final nor even sub-final. Even in the classical Greek the inf. 
with ὥστε in the sense of actual result was displacing‘ the ind. 
and in the vernacular it grew rapidly. Cf. ὥστε --- ἀπολελύσθαι, 
B. G. U. 27 (ii/a.p.). This is a distinct encroachment on the 
old idiom and has a wider range than in Attic In Ac. 14:1 
note οὕτως ὥστε. See Mt. 18:32 ὥστε ἐλθεῖν τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ 
καὶ κατασκηνοῖν ἐν τοῖς κλάδοις αὐτοῦ, (Mk. 4:37) ὥστε ἤδη γεμίζεσθαι 
τὸ πλοῖον, (Ac. 15:39) ὥστε ἀποχωρισθῆναι αὐτοὺς ἀπ᾿ ἀλλήλων. Ta- 
tian took ὥστε consecutive in Lu. 4 : 29 (Moulton, Prol., p. 249). 
Consecutive ὥστε and inf. is too common in the inscriptions and 
papyri for Radermacher to mention (NV. T. Gr., p. 160). We do 
not have ὥστε after a comparative (ἢ ὥστε) in the N. T. There is 
no example of ὥστε nor of ἐφ᾽ @re in the sense of ‘on condition 
that.’ In Gal. 2 :9 ἵνα has practically that idea. 

(y) ‘Qs. Thayer considers that in Heb. 8 : 11 and 4 :3 we have 
the consecutive use of ὡς. It is a quotation from the LXX (Ps. 
94:11) and is possible, though the simple ‘as’ is sufficient.6 But 


1 Goodwin, M. and T., pp. 228 ff. 

2 -GrooliNakGks pices 4 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 99. 

* Prolen. 209; 5 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 224. 

δ In Xen. ὡς rather than ὥστε occurs both with the inf. and the modes. Cf. 
Wehmann, De ὥστε particulae usu Heroditeo Thucydideo Xenophonteo, 1891, 
p. 40. 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 1001 


ws has kept its place as a consecutive particle in the κοινή (Rader- 
macher, NV. T. Gr., ἡ. 160). 

(6) “Ὅτι. There is no doubt about the consecutive use of ὅτι 
in the later Greek. We find it in the LXX, as in Ex. 3:11, τίς 
εἰμι ἔγὼ ὅτι πορεύσομαι πρὸς Φαραώ; Cf. also 2 Ki. 8:13. The in- 
stances in the N. T. are not numerous, but they are very clear. 
Thus Mk. 4:41, ris ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν ὅτι καὶ ὁ ἄνεμος καὶ ἡ θάλασσα 
ὑπακούει αὐτῷ; In Mt. ὃ : 27 note ποταπὸς ὅτι (cf. οὕτως ὥστε). See 
also Heb. 2:6 (Ps. 8:5); Lu. 4:36. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., 
p. 160) quotes Acta Christophori, 68, 18, τοιοῦτοι yap εἰσιν οἱ θεοὶ 
ὑμῶν ὅτι ὑπὸ γυναικὸς ἐκινήθησαν. Moulton (Prol., p. 249) gives τί 
διδοῖς τοῖς ἀμνοῖς σου, ὅτι ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔχουσιν; Pelagia, 20. It occurs 
in Theocritus 1x, 25 μέγας --- τοσοῦτον ὅτι --- διέκοψα, x, 14 és τοσοῦ- 
τον ὅτι. Abbott (Joh. Gr., p. 594) takes ὅτι as consecutive in 
Jo. 14 : 22, ri γέγονεν ὅτι ἡμῖν μέλλεις ἐμφανίζειν; Abbott finds no 
instance of consecutive ὅτι in the Egyptian papyri. The idiom 
is common in the late Greek. Akin to it is the modern Greek use 
of ποῦ as consecutive (Thumb, Handb., p. 197). The same idea 
is found in Jo. 7: 35. 

(ce) The Relative. This is a common classic idiom. The mode 
is the ind. and the negative οὐ.Σ2 In Latin the subj. is the mode 
with qui. The tense is usually the fut. ind., though the con- 
struction is rare® in the κοινή. But one may note in theN. T., 
Mt. 10: 26 and in particular 24 : 2, οὐ μὴ ἀφεθῇ ὧδε λίθος ἐπὶ λίθον 
ds οὐ καταλυθήσεται. See also Lu. 8:17; 1 Cor. 6:5; Ro. 8:32 
In Jo. 5:7, ἄνθρωπον οὐκ ἔχω ἵνα βάλῃ, We see ἵνα usurping this 
province of the relative. Cf. Rev. 19:15. See “Relative” under 
Sub-final. 

(¢) The Infinitive. The inf. with ὥστε has been discussed, but 
we have left the simple inf., the articular (τοῦ) inf., εἰς τό and the 
inf. There are apparently examples of each construction in the 
N. T. Thus the simple inf. of result is seen in Lu. 1: 54, avreda- 
Beto Ισραὴλ παιδὸς αὐτοῦ μνησθῆναι ἐλέους ; at any rate it is used here 
very freely. Blass‘ considers the infinitives in Lu. 1:72 used 
“quite incoherently.” But in Ac. 5:3 ψεύσασθαι has a consecu- 
tive idea, as has ἐπιλαθέσθαι in Heb. 6:10. See also ἀνοῖξαι in Rev. 
5:5 and δοῦναι in 16:9. Cf. Lu. 1:76, 78 f. It is probable that 
originally the dative —a in the inf., δόμεναι as opposed to δόμεν, 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 455; Moulton, Prol., p. 249. Cf. Compernass, § 38. 
See ἘΝ Lexicon. 

2 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 218 f. 

3 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gre p. 468. 4 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 224. 


1002 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


expressed ‘designed result’? (Moulton, Prol., pp. 204, 207), but 
this idea shrank into the background. This idiom is found in the 
papyri,! as in O. P. 526 (1i/a.D.), οὐκ ἤμην ἀπαθὴς ἀλόγως σε ἀπολεί- 
rev. Meyer on Ro. 7:3, τοῦ μὴ εἶναι, argues that τοῦ and the 
inf. never expresses result, a position which I once held.2 But the 
evidence is too strong to resist. See Infinitive for distinction be- 
tween actual and hypothetical result. Radermacher (NV. 7. Gr., 
p. 154) quotes Acta Barnabae, 10, μὴ βιάσῃ Βαρνάβαν τοῦ μὴ πο- 
ρεύεσθαι, as consecutive. The idiom is not common in the papyri 
as is true of τοῦ and inf. (Moulton, Prol., p. 220). It belongs 
chiefly to the LXX and Byzantine writers, and Moulton puts it 
in “the higher stratum of education in the main.” The epexe- 
getic use occurs, as in C. P. R. 156 ἐξουσίαν --- rod — θέσθαι, O. P. 
275 τοῦ ἀποσπασθῆναι ἐπίτειμον. This construction (τοῦ and the inf.) 
had a very wide development in the N. T. in opposition to the 
encroachments of iva. See Lu. 17:1 and Ac. 10:25, where τοῦ 
and the inf. is practically the subject of the verb (ef. original 
dative and locative cases). Luke has two-thirds of the examples 
of τοῦ and the inf. in the N. T. Only half of these Gn Gospel and 
Acts) seem clearly final according to Moulton.2 He holds that of 
the 13 examples in Paul none are unmistakably final, though Ro. 
6:6 and Ph. 3:10 are probably so. In both instances τοῦ and 
the inf. is epexegetic of a ἵνα clause (Moulton, Prol., p. 218). In 
Paul ‘so as to’ will usually express his idea with τοῦ and the inf. A 
clear instance in Luke is seen in Ac. 7:19, ἐκάκωσεν τοὺς πατέρας 
τοῦ wovetv=‘so as to make.’ Blass‘ cites a parallel from the LX X 
(1 Ki. 17: 20), σὺ ἐκάκωσας τοῦ θανατῶσαι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς. Other LXX 
instances are Gen. 3: 22; 19: 21; Is. 5:14. The case in Ro. 
7:3 is very clear, τοῦ μὴ εἶναι. It is possible in Lu. 9:51; Ac. 
18:10; 20:3; 27:1; Ro. 1:24. Cf. τοῦ ἐρωτῆσαι and ὅπως κατα- 
γάγῃς in Ac. 23:20. So with eis τό and the inf. Its most natural 
signification is aim,or purpose, but, just as with iva, so here re- 
sult is sometimes the idea. Meyer in his note on Ro. 1: 20, es τὸ 
εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀναπολογήτους, insists that the meaning of εἰς τό is al- 
ways purpose. In this particular instance divine purpose is 
probably the idea, though result is a possible conception. See 
Sanday and Headlam in loco. Ellicott on 1 Th. 2:12, εἰς τὸ 
περιπατεῖν (after παρακαλοῦντες κτλ.), admits the sub-final use of εἰς 
τό (οἷ. ἵνα) after verbs of exhorting (cf. 1 Th. 3: 10), though 
denying the ecbatic use. But it is only a step to go on and that 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 210. ΤΟΙ ΩΤ 
2 Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 156. * Gre of' No ΧΟ no236! 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 1003 


the N. T. writers took. See the epexegetic use of εἰς τό in 1 Th. 
4:9. Winer! admitted the consecutive use’ of eis τό and the inf. 
as in 2 Cor. 8:6, εἰς τὸ παρακαλέσαι ἡμᾶς Τίτον, ‘so that we be- 
sought Titus.’ This idiom is not present in the Johannine wri- 
tings, though it is very frequent in Paul’s writings (especially Ro. 
and 1 Th.) and Hebrews. Notice ταχὺς eis τὸ ἀκοῦσαι, βραδὺς eis 
τὸ λαλῆσαι (Jas. 1:19). In Heb. 11:3, εἰς τὸ γεγονέναι, we have 
a clear example of result. Note the perfect tense with notion of 
permanence.? See also φρονεῖν εἰς τὸ σωφρονεῖν (Ro. 12 : 3), where 
purpose is impossible. Cf. Gal. 3:17. As to πρὸς τό and the inf. 
the point is not clear. Purpose is undoubtedly present as in 
Mt. 6:1; Eph. 6:11, and there is total absence of purpose in Lu. 
18 : 1, πρὸς τὸ δεῖν. It is not certain, in spite of Blass’ comment,’ 
that in the N. T. πρὸς τό expresses result. In Mt. 5 : 28, πρὸς τὸ 
ἐπιθυμῆσαι, either purpose or result is possible. W. F. Moulton? 
denies that the idiom ever conveys mere result, but admits that 
it may have subjective purpose as in 1 Th.2:9. J. H. Moul- 
ton® holds that this is the idea in all the four examples in Paul’s 
. writings. See further 2 Th. 3:8; 2 Cor. 3: 138. 

7. WisHEs. The use of the optative for a future wish like 
ἁγιάσαι (1 Th. 5: 23), μὴ γένοιτο (Gal. 6 : 14), is not a hypotactic 
construction. ‘This is pure parataxis and has already been dis- 
cussed under the Optative.6 See Optative Mode. The only hypo- 
tactic sentence for the expression of a wish in the N. T. is that 
with ὄφελον, which comes in the late Greek to be used as a par- 
ticle. Even here it is possible to regard the construction as 
paratactic, but note εἰ yap and εἴθε. It is the second aorist ind. 
of ὀφείλω without the augment. ”Odedov with the inf. occurs in 
Herodotus, and the form is thus probably Ionic.7. For κοινή par- 
allels see “Impossible Wishes” under Indicative Mode. Cf. ὥφει- 
ov συνίστασθαι in 2 Cor. 12:11. It is found in the LXX’ asa 
conjunction, as in Ex. 16:3, ὄφελον ἀπεθάνομεν. Cf. Num. 14 : 2; 
20:3. Moulton® suggests that its application to the second and 


1 W.-M., p. 413 f. aC ΟΝ (ak. hi oG, 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 219. 4 W.-M., p. 414 note. 

5 Prol., p. 218. See further Ogden, De infinitivi finalis vel consecutivi 
constructione apud priscos poetas Graecos, 1913. 

6 See ch. on “ Wishes” in my Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 157. 

7 Moulton, Prol., p. 201. ; 

8 In W.-Sch., p. 29, reference is made to εἰ ὄφελον ἐφύλαξας in Job 14: 18 and 
εἰ yap ὄφελον δυναίμην in Job 30:24. Evidently ὄφελον was not felt to be suffi- 
cient alone. 

9 Prol., p. 201. 


1004. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


third persons is due to the meaning ‘I would’ rather than ‘thou 
shouldst.’ Asa matter of fact its use in the N. T. is very limited, 
though εἴθε and εἰ yap are wanting as particles of wishing. For 
a wish about the past we have the aorist ind. So ὄφελόν γε ἐβασι- 
λεύσατε (1 Cor. 4:8). Cf. Ps. 118 (119) :5. For a wish about 
the present we have the imperfect ind. So 2 Cor. 11:1, ὄφελον 
ἀνείχεσθε, and Rev. 3:15, ὄφελον js. The Text. Rec. here has 
ὄφελον εἴης, but it is baseless. However, we do find the fut. ind. 
for a future wish. So Gal. 5:12, ὄφελον ἀποκόψονται. Wishes as 
a separate idiom are vanishing in the N. T. But ὄφελον appears 
in Lucian, Athenagoras, Greg. Naz., Socrates. Cf. Sophocles’ 
Lexicon. 'To compensate for this loss we have the strong assever- 
ations with od μή (Mt. 18 : 14), the use of εἰ like the Hebrew 5x 
(Mk. 8:12; Heb. 4 : 8), εἰ μήν (Heb. 6 : 14), the use of the parti- 
ciple like the Hebrew inf. absolute (Mt. 13:14). The distinction 
between wish and supposition with εἰ was sometimes hard to make 
in Homer.! The relation between wishes and conditions is not 
clear. 

8. CONDITIONAL SENTENCES. 

(a) Two Types. No hypotactic clause is more important than 
this. For some reason the Greek conditional sentence has been 
very difficult for students to understand. In truth the doc- 
tors have disagreed themselves and the rest have not known 
how to go. The theory of Hermann, followed by most Germans 
(Winer,? Blass*), is the one that I learned from Broadus and have 
expounded in my Short Grammar.* It is also that of Gilder- 
sleeve. This theory in brief is that there are four classes of con- 
ditions which fall into two groups or types. The two types are 
the determined and the undetermined. The point in ‘‘deter- 
mined” is that the premise or condition is assumed to be true (or 
untrue). A positive statement is made in either case and the 
conclusion follows logically from this premise. ‘The indicative is 
the one used for this type (the first and second class conditions, 
real and unreal, or fulfilled and unfulfilled). The other type is the 
undetermined condition. Naturally the indicative is not allowed 
here. The element of uncertainty calls for the subj. or the opta- 
tive. The difference therefore between the third and fourth class 
conditions is just that between the subj. and the opt. They are 
both modes of doubtful, hesitating affirmation, but the optative 

1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 227. Cf. Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1909, p. 14. 


2 W.-M., pp. 363 ff. ΡΟ 01’ 
δ᾽ ΟΝ pee laa: 5 Am. Jour. οὗ Philol., 1882, pp. 488 ff. 


MODE (ΒΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 1005 


is more remote than the subj. In this type the premise is not 
assumed to be either true or untrue. The point is in the air and 
the cloud gathers round it. But there is less mist over the subj. 
than the opt. In broad outline this is the classification of the 
conditional sentences which I hold to be true. Thompson! is 
surely right in saying that no division can claim any higher right 
than that of convenience and intelligibility, except that I should 
like to add that the exposition should be in harmony with the 
facts of the historical development of the Greek language. There 
is no nobler achievement in syntax than the Greek conditional 
sentence before it broke down from the loss of the optative and 
the future indicative. In the modern Greek it is therefore a 
wreck, and there is corresponding obscurity between the various 
classes of conditions, as in English, in spite of special develop- 
ments to make atonement for the loss.2, In broad outline these 
four classes of conditions may be termed Reality, Unreality, 
Probability, Possibility. The word Probability is, however, too 
strong a term for the third-class condition (ἐάν and the subj.). La 
Roche? prefers “objektive Moglichkeit” for the third class and 
“subjektive Moglichkeit” for the fourth class (εἰ and the opt.). 
This is also the language of Winer,’ “objective possibility”? and 
“subjective possibility.” Tarrar® prefers the words Possibility, 
Impossibility, Slight Probability, Uncertainty. Radermacher 
(N. T. Gr., p. 142) calls εἰ with ind. ‘“objektiv,” ἐάν with subj. 
“an sich objektiv,” εἰ with opt. “subjektiv,” εἰ with past tenses 
of ind. “Irrealitét.”’ So it goes. Radermacher thinks also that, 
to understand the Greek conditions, we must distinguish sharply 
between the vernacular and the κοινή (‘so miissen wir scharf 
scheiden zwischen Volkssprache und der Koiné’’), a mistaken 
view in my judgment. It is best to use κοινή for both the ver- 
nacular and literary language. This brings us face to face with 
the other theory, the one adopted by Farrar. It was expounded 
by Goodwin® and has had quite a vogue in America and Eng- 
land.’ This theory calls for “particular” and ‘“general”’ supposi- 
tions as a fundamental element. This is a false step in itself. As 

1 Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 296. 

2 Jebb, V. and D.’s Handb., pp. 330 ff.; Thumb, Handb., p. 194 f. 

3 Beitr. zur griech. Gr., 1893, pp. 14, 18. He uses “Wirklichkeit” and 
“Trrealitat”’ (pp. 8, 28) for the others. 

4 W.-M., p. 364. 5 Gk. Synt., p. 156 f. 

6 See Proc. of the Am. Acad., vol. VI; Jour. of Philol., V, pp. 186-205, 


VIII, pp. 13-38; Μ΄ and T., pp. 145 ff. 
7 Adopted by Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 296. 


1006 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Gildersleeve! shows, each of the four classes of conditions may be 
particular or general. That point has no bearing on the quality 
of the condition. Goodwin’s past general supposition, where alone 
a show of distinct structure is made, is a mixed condition (see later 
under fourth class condition). But the point on which I wish to 
attack Goodwin’s scheme is chiefly in his definition of the first and 
second class conditions. That involves the third also, as will be 
seen. Goodwin confuses the “fact” with the “statement” of the 
fact. He describes the first condition thus: “‘When the protasis 
simply states a present or past particular supposition, implying 
nothing as to the fulfilment of the condition, it takes a present or 
past tense of the indicative with εἰ. The words to which I ob- 
ject, besides “particular,” are “implying nothing as to the fulfil- 
ment of the condition.” This condition pointedly implies the 
fulfilment of the condition. It is the condition of actuality, real- 
ity, Wirklichkeit, and not mere “possibility” as I’arrar has it (see 
above) ἃὰ la Goodwin. This is the cru of the whole matter. 
Once see that the first class condition with the ind. implies the 
reality of the premise, all else follows naturally. In the discussion 
of the second class condition Goodwin? properly says: ‘When the 
protasis states a present or past supposition, implying that the 
condition zs not or was not fulfilled, etc.” This is the condition 
of unreality as the other is that of reality and the indicative is, of 
course, used with both. Hence the subj. and the opt. conditions 
fall apart to themselves as undetermined. ‘The point about all 
the four classes to note is that the form of the condition has to 
do only with the statement, not with the absolute truth or cer- 
tainty of the matter. Examples will be given directly to show that 
the second class condition is sometimes used where the fact is 
just the opposite. The same thing is true of the first class condi- 
tion. We must distinguish always therefore between the fact 
and the statement of the fact. The conditional sentence deals 
only with the statement. This point is clearly seen in Kiihner- 
Gerth, II, p. 465, except that the third class is lost sight of and 
merged with the first. Burton’ follows Goodwin through all his 


1 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1882, pp. 435 ff. Gildersl. still objects to the distinc- 
tion of “particular” and “general” suppositions which Goodwin brought into 
fashion. That merely depends on the character of the apodosis. Cf. Am. 
Jour. of Philol., 1909, p. 10. 2M. and T., p. 147. 

3 N.T.M. and T., pp.100 ff. Farnell (Gk. Conditional and Rel. Sent., 1892) 
also follows Goodwin, as does R. H. Smith (The Theory of Cond. Sent. in Gk. 
and Lat., 1894). 


MODE (ΕΓ ΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 1007 


ramifications. A word further is demanded by way of warning. 
One must not try to explain the Greek condition by the English 
or German translation. The English is often hopelessly ambigu- 
ous, while the Greek is perspicuous if one will only give it a 
chance to speak for itself. The true explanation is only possible 
py the approach from the Greek standpoint. And that is by the 
mode, not by εἰ or ἐάν. ’Edy is nothing but εἰ ἄν. The ἄν is not 
essential to either protasis or apodosis. Homer! used ei with the 
subj. with or without κέ or av. The Attic Greek? sometimes has 
εἰ ἄν with the opt. and Demosthenes used εἰ ἄν with the past ind. 
Radermacher (N. 7’. Gr., p. 127) quotes Joh. Philop. De e@terni- 
tate 480, 28 (i11/A.D.) ei — ἠδύνατο ἄν. He gives also (p. 163) κἂν 
— ξβοηθοίη, Diod. XI, 37, 3; ἐὰν μὴ — ῥύσαιτο, Diod. I, 77,3. The 
modern Greek uses ἄν (for ἐάν) with any tense of the ind. (Thumb, 
Handb., Ὁ. 194). There is no principle. involved in ἄν, simply 
custom. In modern Greek the subj. is used, of course, more freely 
since the fut. ind. and the opt. have vanished.’ Jolly holds that 
the ind. was a later development with conditional sentences in 
Greek and that the first attempt was made with the subj. and 
the opt. He thinks that the use of the ind. was the result of a 
clearer conception of the logical possibilities of the conditional 
clause. The subj. was more common in the Zend and the 
Sanskrit (and Latin) than in the Greek. Here as always ἄν is 
difficult to explain. “Now it has a definite reference, now it is 
indefinite. Sometimes the reference is supplied by the context, 
sometimes by the opposite.”® See The Use of ἄν in Relative 
Sentences in this chapter. We shall first examine the standard 
forms of the conditional sentence and then note the variations 
and modifications. 

(b) Four Classes. 

(a) Determined as Fulfilled. This class of condition asswmes 
the condition to be a reality and the conclusion follows logically 
and naturally from that assumption. Gildersleeve (Am. Jour. of 
Philol., 1882, p. 485) observes that this is the favourite condition: 
“Tt is the favourite condition when one wishes to be or seem 
fair, the favourite condition when one is sure of the premiss.” 
The construction is εἰ (sometimes ἐάν) and any tense of the in- 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 210 f. 2 Biumlein, Unters., pp. 352 ff. 

5. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 463; Thumb, Handb., p. 194 f. 

4 Cf. Jolly, Ein Kapitel vergl. Synt., 1872, p. 122 f. 

5 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1882, p. 449. 

6 The origin of εἰ is uncertain. Ei is the same as ai in Homer (and Doric). 


1008 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


dicative in the protasis. The apodosis varies very greatly. It 
all depends on what one is after, whether mere statement, pre- 
diction, command, prohibition, suggestion, question. Hence the 
apodosis may be in the indicative (any tense) or the subjunctive 
or the imperative. There is no necessary correspondence in 
tense between protasis and apodosis. The variation in the mode 
of the apodosis has no essential bearing on the force of the con- 
dition. This condition, therefore, taken at its face value, assumes 
the condition to be true. The context or other light must deter- 
mine the actual situation. The apodosis is the principal clause, 
but since the protasis is the premise, the protasis usually pre- 
cedes the apodosis. The apodosis may be declarative or inter- 
rogatory, positive or negative. This condition is so frequent in 
the N. T. that no exhaustive list can be given, but representative 
examples must suffice. Thus in Mt. 12:27, εἰ ἔγὼ ἐν Βεεζεβοὺλ 
ἐκβάλλω Ta δαιμόνια, of viol ὑμῶν ἐν τίνι ἐκβάλλουσιν; This is a good 
example (cf. also Gal. 5:11) to begin with, since the assumption 
is untrue in fact, though assumed to be true by Jesus for the sake 
of argument. The question is a reductio ad absurdum. In verse 
26, εἰ ὁ Σατανᾶς τὸν Σατανᾶν ἐκβάλλει, ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἐμερίσθη, there is 
the additional point of change of tense in the apodosis. He was 
already divided against himself, in that case, before he casts him- 
self out. But the tense may be merely due to a quick change 
of view-point as accomplished (timeless aorist in reality). This 
point comes out well in verse 28, εἰ δὲ ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ ἔγὼ ἐκβάλλω 
τὰ δαιμόνια, ἄρα ἔφθασεν ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς ἡ βασιλεία. Note apa with the 
aorist. For the past ind. in both clauses see Ac. 11:17 (εἰ ἔδωκεν, 
τίς ἤμην); 1 Cor. 15:2; Rev. 20:15 (εἴ τις οὐχ εὑρέθη, ἐβλήθη). For 
the present ind. in both clauses note Mt. 190 : 10 (εἰ οὕτως ἐστίν --- 
οὐ συμφέρει); Ro. 8:9; Jo. 15:18; 1 Cor. 15:10. The presence 
of the perfect in protasis (15 : 14, 17, 19) or apodosis (15 : 138, 16) 
does not vary the point. In 2 Cor. 2 : 5, the perfect is followed by 
the perfect. The fut. ind. may, though rarely in the N. T., occur 
in both clauses, as in Mt. 26 : 33 (εἰ σκανδαλισθήσονται, σκανδαλισθή- 
copat). (Cf ΜΙ 0: 1. 191... 40s Gores to Ὁ Pim 190] 
Cor. 3:14f. But such little niceties cut no figure in this con- 
struction. There is perfect liberty to mix the tenses ad libitum. 
So past and present (Lu. 19:8f.; 11:20; 2 Cor. 7:8, 14; Ro. 


Lange (Der hom. Gebr. der Partikel Ei) makes it exclamatory. But Hale 
(The Orig. of Subj. and Opt. Cond. in Gk., Harv. Stu. in Class. Philol., 1901) 
treats it as a demonstrative in the locative case, meaning ‘in that case.’ 
This is more probable. 


MODE (ΕΓ ΆΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 1009 


ἽΠΠΟΥ ΠἼΠ Jo: 4311), past and future 001718.: 92: 15:20: 
Lu. 16:11), present and future (Mt. 17:4; Jo. 5:47; 11:12; 
Ac. 5:39; 19:39; Ro. 8:11). In 1 Cor. 9:11 e ἐσπείραμεν and 
εἰ θερίσομεν occur side by side. Examples of the imperative in the 
apodosis occur as in Mk. 4: 23 εἴ τις ἔχει ὦτα ἀκούειν, ἀκουέτω. Cf. 
Nis e2oy onl suede: Ac: 160157 J0. 7743118 $23) In Laut 
4:3, εἰ vids εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ, εἰπέ, we have a good example of the first 
class condition. The devil would not, of course, use the second 
class (assumed to be untrue), for that would be an affront to 
Christ. The third and fourth classes would throw doubt on the 
point. The temptation, to have force, must be assumed as true. 
The devil knew it to be true. He accepts that fact as a working 
hypothesis in the temptation. He is anxious to get Jesus to 
prove it, as if it needed proof for Christ’s own satisfaction and 
for his reception. If the devil used Aramaic, then we have 
Christ’s own translation of it or that of the Evangelist. In Jo. 
18 : 23 (εἰ κακῶς ἐλάλησα, μαρτύρησον περὶ τοῦ κακοῦ), however, the as- 
sumption is not a fact, though Christ treats it as such for argu- 
ment’s sake. Cf. Lu. 23:35, 37. _In Jo. 20:15 note the aorist 
ind. (εἰ €Bacracas) and the imper. (εἰπέ). Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., 
p. 215) takes εἰ θέλεις in the late κοινή to be like the French δ᾽ εἱ 
vous plait. Cf. Μι. 17:4. For the subj. in the apedosis note Gal. 
δ: 25, εἰ ζῶμεν πνεύματι, πνεύματι καὶ στοιχῶμεν. The use of ἐάν with 
the ind. is rather more frequent in the late κοινή. Finally εἰ came 
to be ‘fa mere literary alternative.”! In the κοινή in Pisidia and 
Phrygia ἐάν occurs with the aorist ind., the pres. ind. and the 
future ind. as well as with the subj.2,~ The papyri examples are 
unmistakable, as ἐὰν de? in Th. P. 58 (ii/B.c.), ἐὰν οἶδεν B. U. 
546 (Byz.), ἐὰν φαίνεται A. P. 93 (ii/A.D.), ἐὰν δ᾽ εἰσίν O. P. 
(1i/A.D.), ἐὰν κελεύεις O. P. 1150, 2 f. (vi/A.D.), ἐὰν paxodow Par. 
P. 18, ἐάνπερ ἐκπληρώσουσιν Par. P. 62 (1i/B.c.).2 Radermacher 
(VN. T. Gr., pp. 83, 163) cites others from the papyri and in- 
scriptions. So Heberdey-Wilhelm, Rezsen, p. 187, ἐὰν δέ τις θήσει; 
Eum. Hippiatr., p. 244, 30, ἐάνπερ ἐνόρχης ἐστίν. Perhaps ex- 
amples like ἐὰν ἦν are not to be counted as instances, since ἦν 
for ἢ is sometimes subj.‘ In general, the difference between εἰ 
and ἐάν is considerably lessened in the κοινή, though it must be 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 420. 

2 Compernass, De Sermone, p. 35 f. 3 Moulton, Prol., p. 168. 

4 Ib., pp. 49, 168, 187; Cl. Rev., XVIII, p. 108. For the usage of the 
LXX see Sterenberg, The Use of Cond. Sent. in the Alex. Version of the Pen- 
tateuch, 1908. 


1010 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


remembered that ἐάν was never confined to the subj. nor εἰ to the 
ind. and opt. ᾿Εὰν ἦσθα occurs in Job 22 : 3, and Moulton! quotes 
it from Hb. P. 78 (iii/B.c.) as “certainly subj.” Cf. also ἐὰν ἦσαν 
Tb. P. 333 (iii/A.D.), and a number of undoubted examples of ἐάν 
with past, present and future tenses of the ind. from κοινή writers 
are given in Sophocles’ Lexicon under ἐάν. Thayer calls it “a 
somewhat negligent use, met with from the time of Aristotle on.” 
It was just a normal development in the κοινή till in the modern 
Greek ἄν is used indifferently with either ind. or subj. So ἂν τό 
’xaves, ‘if you did so,’ ἂν διψάσῃς, ‘if you thirst’ (Thumb, Handb., 
p. 194f.). Theophylact in his Proem to Luke has ἐὰν μὴ ἐθάρρει, 
In the N. T. we note ἐὰν οἴδαμεν (1 Jo. 5:15); ἐὰν στήκετε (1 Th. 
3:8), where no mistake is possible between the two modes (ind. 
and subj.). In 1 Th. 3:8 ND have στήκητε, but in Lu. 6: 34 
there is considerable support for ἐὰν daveifere, as there is for ἐάν τε 
ἀποθνήσκομεν in Ro. 14:8. In Gal. 1:8 a few MSS. read ἐὰν evay- 
γελίζεται. It is possible to treat ἐὰν μαρτυρῶ as pres. ind., Jo. 5: 
31; 8:14. There is undue scepticism on Blass’ part? concerning 
ἐάν and the fut. ind. It is true that the MSS. are generally di- 
vided, but there is no real room for doubt about following NBCE 
in Ac. 8:31, ἐὰν ὁδηγήσει, except for possible itacism with --η. That 
is possible also in Rev. 2:5 where W. H. read ἐὰν μετανοήσῃς. 
But there is no room for itacism in Mt. 18:19 ἐὰν συμφωνήσουσιν, 
supported by NBDELA 383, although rejected by W. H. and Nestle 
(FGKM have --ωσιν), nor in Lu. 19 : 40 ἐὰν σιωπήσουσιν, nor in Rey. 
2:22 ἐὰν μὴ μετανοήσουσιν. In Mt. 18:19 the editors seem un- 
willing to follow the MS. evidence for the fut. ind. It is mere 
tradition to feel that ἐάν has to have the subj. Besides, we have 
ἐὰν ἔσῃ and ἐὰν μηκέτι προσθήσω in Hermas, Mand. V, 1. 2 and Vis. 
I, 8. 2, v. 1. In Lev. 22:9 we find ἐὰν βεβηλώσουσιν. There is at 
any rate no great difference in the resultant sense between the 
‘fut. ind. and the aor. subj. and it was a very natural develop- 
ment. Cf. Homer’s use of xé with both. But, when all is said, 

as a matter of fact, in the N. T. as in the κοινή generally, the rule — 
is for εἰ to appear with the ind. and ἐάν with the subj. In 1 Cor. 
7:5 we have εἰ μήτι ἄν (bracketed by W. H.) without a verb. It 
is matched by the papyri.2 Thus Β. U. 326 εἴ τι ἐὰν --- καταλίπω, 
O. P. 105 (1i/A.D.) εἴτι ἄλλο αἱὰν ( χω; B. M. 233 (iv/a.p.) et re 
ἂν — ἀναλώσῃς, Th. P. 28 (1i/B.c.) εἰ κἂν δύναται. In these the modal 
ἄν (ἐάν) is separated from εἰ and used as if with és, drov. Rader- 


1 Prol., p. 168. : 
2 Gr. of, ΝΟ pa2io: 3 Moulton, Prol., p. 169. 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 1011 


macher (N. T. Gr., p. 162) cites also Joh. Philop., De qwtern., p. 
85, 19, εἰ οὐκ ἂν ---ὑπάρχῃ. Deissman! sees no analysis of ἐὰν μή 
τι in this, though Moulton contends for this explanation. The 
use of εἰ περίκειται in Mk. 9 : 42 in the sense of ὅτι Blass (Gr. of 
N. T. Gk., p. 215) calls “quite incorrect.”” He means it is 
not ‘‘classic.”’” Note the irony in 1 Cor. 14:38, εἴ τις ἀγνοεῖ, 
ἀγνοεῖται. 

The negative of the protasis in the first class condition is 
practically always οὐ in the N. T. We have εἰ οὐ as a rule, not 
εἰ μή. In the classic Greek the rule was to use εἰ μή, and εἰ οὐ 
appeared only where the οὐ coalesced with a single word (the 
verb generally) or for sharp antithesis or emphasis. But in the 
N. T., as in the κοινή generally and occasionally in the Attic,’ we 
meet εἰ οὐ in the condition of the first class. Jannaris‘ notes 34 
examples of εἰ οὐ in the N. T., but Moulton® finds only 31 of this 
class of condition. There is only one in the second, so that there 
is a slight discrepancy. In truth εἰ μή occurs only five times with 
the simple logical condition, and the examples are not quite nor- 
mal except the one in Mk. 6: 5, οὐκ ἐδύνατο εἰ μὴ ἐθεράπευσεν (a 
simple past condition), and in 1 Tim. 6:8, εἴ τις --- μὴ προσεύχεται 
(Blass calls this an “abnormal’’ instance from the literary style. 
It is surely not “abnormal’’). But see 1 Cor. 15 : 2 ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ 
εἰκῇ ἐπιστεύσατε, 2 Cor. 13:5 ef μήτι ἀδόκιμοί ἐστε, Gal. 1:7 εἰ μή 
τινές εἰσιν. Elsewhere the negative is od. This is in harmony with 
the meaning of οὐ and the ind. mode. The definite negative goes 
with the definite mode. This is the condition of supposed reality 
and εἰ οὐ is the natural combination. In general Blass® is correct 
in saying that οὐ is the negative of the ind. and μή of the other 
modes including the inf. and part. This, of course, was not the 
Attic standard, but that was hopelessly gone even for the Atti- 
cists.’ In the modern Greek δέν (from οὐδέν) supplants οὐ with the 
ind. and μή(ν) goes with the subj. That is the goal, as Moulton 
observes,® which is not yet reached in the N. T., for μή occurs in 
questions of doubt with the ind. and εἰ μή still holds on. Even in 
the modern Greek, Thumb (Handb., p. 195) gives de with subj. 
or ind. in conditions as ἂ δὲν πιστεύῃς and ἂ δὲν πήγαινα. Rader- 


1 B.5S., p. 204. 4 ΤΡ. 
2 W.-Th., p. 477. ΤΟΙ Dail (1s 
5. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 429. fT ΟΝ ΟΡ 255: 


7 Moulton, Prol., p. 170. Cf. Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1880, first copy. 
8 Prol., p. 170. Cf. P. Thouvenin, Les Négations dans le Nouveau Testa- 
ment, Revue de Philol., 1894, p. 229. 


1012 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


macher (N. T. Gr., p. 172) cites Pap. Wess. xxvi, εἰ οὐ δίδοται. 
But the point to get clear is that in the first class condition the 
normal negative in the κοινή is εἰ ob. Moulton counts the idiom 
6 times in Luke, 3 in John, 16 in Paul, 2 in James, and one each 
in Matthew, Hebrews, 2 Peter and Revelation. As examples 
take Lu. 18:4 εἰ καὶ τὸν θεὸν od φοβοῦμαι οὐδὲ ἄνθρωπον ἐντρέπομαι 
and Jo. 1:25 εἰ σὺ οὐκ εἶ ὁ Χριστός. In the latter case the nega- 
tive is very emphatic. Soin Jo. 5:47 εἰ οὐ πιστεύετε. Cf. further 
Lu;12:: 26; 16 Filly are sors 12. Romi ΟΣ mie 
17; 2 Th. 8:10. Sometimes οὐ practically coalesces with the 
verb, as ‘in Lut 14: 20: 1- Gore 7911 by 16% 22 iim ope se 
Rev. 20:15. The notion of contrast is seen in Jo. 10:37 εἰ οὐ 
ποιῶ, εἰ δὲ ποιῶ. Note also κἂν μὴ πιστεύητε. So in 5:46 f. εἰ πι- 
στεύετε, εἰ δὲ --- οὐ πιστεύετε. See further Lu. 11:8; Jas. 2:11; 2 
Pet. 2:4. In Mt. 26 :42 note εἰ οὐ δύναται τοῦτο παρελθεῖν ἐὰν μὴ 
πίω. In Ro. 11:21, εἰ οὐκ ἐφείσατο, οὐδὲ cod φείσεται, it is hardly 
possible to translate εἰ οὐ by ‘unless.’ The same thing is true in 
1 Cor.9:2 and 15:29. Cf. édv pq in 9: 16. 

(8) Determined as Unfulfilled. In this somewhat difficult con- 
dition only past tenses of the ind. occur. The premise is as- 
sumed to be contrary to fact. The thing in itself may be true, 
but it is treated as untrue. Here again the condition has only to 
do with the statement, not with the actual fact. A good illustra- 
tion is found in Lu. 7:39 οὗτος εἰ ἦν ὁ προφήτης, ἔγίνωσκεν ἄν. The 
Pharisee here assumes that Jesus is not a prophet because he al- 
lowed the sinful woman to wash his feet. Jesus is therefore 
bound to be ignorant of her true character. The form of the con- 
dition reveals the state of mind of the Pharisee, not the truth 
about Jesus’ nature and powers. As a matter of fact it is the 
Pharisee who is ignorant. For this reason I cannot agree with 
Moulton’s statement! that the ind. is not suited to the expression 
of contingencies, wishes, commands or other subjective concep- 
tions. On p. 201 Moulton recovers himself by saying that “these 
sentences of unfulfilled condition state nothing necessarily unreal 
in their apodosis,’’ and ‘the sentence itself only makes it untrue 
under the circumstances.”’ I should add ‘‘as conceived by the 
speaker or writer.”’ Surely the ind. is the mode for positive and 
negative statements, for directness of statement and clarity of 
expression. But one must emphasize the words ‘“‘statement”’ 
and ‘‘expression.”?” The ind. does not go behind the face value 
of the record. Most untruths are told in the ind. mode. The 

1 Prol., p. 199. Goodwin, M. and T. (p. 147), sees clearly on this point. 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 1013 


statement of unreality here from the standpoint of the speaker 
or writer, is as clear cut and positive as that of reality in the first 
class condition. The term ‘‘unreal”’ as applied to this use of the 
ind. properly belongs only to the standpoint of the user. To him 
the case is impossible and he makes a positive statement to that 
effect with the ind. By the ind. mode the condition is determined. 
Whether it is fulfilled or unfulfilled is a more difficult matter. 
This idea has to be conveyed by suggestion. It is not a question 
of positive or negative, but of definite assumption of unreality. 
The ‘unreality” does not come from the ind. That in its origin 
is a matter wholly of the context. Take Mk. 6:5, for instance, 
οὐκ ἐδύνατο εἰ μὴ ἐθεράπευσεν. In the abstract it is not possible to 
tell which class of condition we have here. It is either first or 
second, we know. If the writer is talking about the present 
time in terms of past time, then it is a second class condition de- 
termined as unfulfilled. The Greek fell upon the use of the past 
tenses of the ind. as a device to help in this matter. An unful- 
filled condition about present time was expressed in terms of the 
imperfect ind. An unfulfilled condition about past time was ex- 
pressed in terms of the aorist or the past perfect ind. There is the 
analogy of wishes to justify it, if, indeed, wishes did not come 
out of this construction (εἴθε, εἰ yap). The origin of this precise 
point is obscure.! In the context one must seek for light and help. 
In Mk. 6:5 (οὐκ ἐδύνατο ἐκεῖ ποιῆσαι οὐδεμίαν δύναμιν, εἰ μὴ ὀλίγοις 
ἀρρώστοις ἐπιθεὶς τὰς χεῖρας ἐθεράπευσεν) it is clear that a definite 
past event is chronicled. So it is a condition of the first class, de- 
termined as fulfilled. But in Jo. 15:22 (and 24) εἰ μὴ ἦλθον καὶ 
ἐλάλησα αὐτοῖς, ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ εἴχοσαν, how is it? Is it a simple his- 
torical narrative about a past situation? Is it a hypothesis about 
the present time in terms of past time to suggest its unreality? 
Fortunately here the context shows. The very next words are 
νῦν δὲ πρόφασιν οὐκ ἔχουσιν περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν. (Cf. also νῦν δέ 
in verse 24). The contrast with the present and actual situation 
is made in plain terms. In Jo. 9 : 41 we have νῦν δέ even after ἄν. 
This is not always done in the context and one is either left to 
his wits or ἄν is added to the apodosis. In verse 19 of John 15 
we have εἰ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἦτε, ὁ κόσμος ἂν TO ἴδιον ἐφίλει. ‘The addi- 
tion of ἄν to an indicative hypothesis produced much the same 
effect as we can express in writing by italicising ‘if’ ”’? or by add- 


1 Cf. Wilhelmus, De Modo Irreali qui Vocatur, 1881, p. 3. Mod. Gk. no 
longer has this idiom. It uses ἄν with the past ind. and θά in the apodosis for ἄν. 
2 Moulton, Prol., p. 200. 


1014 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ing to the apodosis ‘in that case.’ This is the definite use of ἄν. 
But it is a mistake to say, as some writers! do, that ἄν in the apod- 
osis is essential to the second class condition. EKven Moulton? 
says: “The dropping of ἄν in the apodosis of unfulfilled conditions 
was classical with phrases like ἔδει, ἐχρῆν, καλὸν ἦν. The absence 
was so undoubtedly, but was ἄν ever really necessary with these 
verbs? When ἄν was used with them, there was a slight change 
of meaning. The N. T. is in perfect accord with ancient idiom 
when it has καλὸν ἦν εἰ οὐκ ἔγεννήθη (Mt. 26 : 24); ἐδύνατο εἰ μὴ ἐπε- 
κέκλητο (Ac. 26 : 32); εἰ μὴ ἦν, οὐκ ἐδύνατο (Jo. 9:33), not to men- 
tion the apodosis alone in Mt. 25: 27; Lu. 10: 23; Ac. 22:22; 27: 
21; 2 Cor. 2:3; 12:11; 2 Pet. 2:21. In Ac. 24:19, ots ta ent 
σοῦ παρεῖναι Kal κατηγορεῖν εἴ τι ἔχοιεν πρὸς ἐμέ, it 15 a Mixed cond. 
(protasis in fourth class) and the apodosis is itself a relative clause. 
But the idiom goes further than these verbs of propriety and 
possibility and obligation, as is seen in Gal. 4 : 15, εἰ δυνατόν, ἐδώ- 
κατέ μοι; Jo. 15 : 22, 24; 19: 11, οὐκ εἶχες, εἰ μὴ ἦν σοι δεδομένον; Ro. 
7:7, οὐκ ἔγνων εἰ μὴ διὰ νόμου and οὐκ ἤδειν εἰ μὴ ἔλεγεν. In 1 Cor. 
5 : 10, ἐπεὶ ὠφείλετε, we have the apodosis of this condition. Moul- 
ton (Prol., p. 200 note) cites O. P. 526 (ii/A.D.) εἰ καὶ μὴ ἀνέβενε, 
éyw οὐ παρέβενον; O. P. 530 (1i/A.D.) ef — παρέκειτο, ἀπεστάλκειν; 
Rein. P. 7 (ii/B.c.) οὐκ ἀπέστηι, εἰ μὴ ἠνάγκασε. But in most cases 
the av regularly appears in the apodosis, though not as the first 
word. Thus εἰ ἔγένοντο, πάλαι ἂν μετενόησαν (Mt. 11:21). In Ac. 
18 :14f. we have the second and first class conditions side by 
side, εἰ μὲν ἦν ἀδίκημά τι ἢ ῥᾳδιούργημα πονηρόν, ὦ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι, κατὰ λόγον 
ἂν ἀνεσχόμην ὑμῶν᾽ εἰ δὲ ζητήματά ἐστιν περὶ λόγου καὶ ὀνομάτων καὶ 
νόμου τοῦ καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς, ὄψεσθε αὐτοί. Here Gallio neatly justifies his 
own impatience by the first condition (second class) and shows 
his own opinion by the second condition (first class). Sometimes 
ἄν is repeated with two verbs as in εἰ ἤδει, ἔγρηγόρησεν ἂν Kal οὐκ ἂν 
εἴασεν (Mt. 24:43), but it is not repeated in the parallel pas- 
sage in Lu. 12:39 εἰ ἤδει, ἔγρηγόρησεν ἂν καὶ οὐκ ἀφῆκεν, though 
W. H. have οὐκ ἄν in the margin. "Av is repeated also in Jo. 
4:10. 

The simplest form of this condition is when the imperfect occurs 
in both clauses or the aorist in both. In the former case present 
time is generally meant, as in Lu. 7:39 εἰ ἦν, ἐγίνωσκεν av; Jo. 5: 
40 εἰ ἐπιστεύετε, ἐπιστεύετε ἄν. So also Jo. 8:42; 9:41; 15:19; 

1 Bamberg, Hauptregeln der griech. Synt., 1890, p. 45.; Conditional Clauses 


in Gk., p. 2, Anonymous Pamphlet in Bodleian Library. 
2 Pro eeu, 


MODE (ΕΓ ΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 1015 


ise sos wonurlool Gale L10¢ Heb: 84725 Inv Jo8' 319, 
el ἤδειτε --- ἂν ἤδειτε, We have the same construction, for this past 
perfect has the sense of the imperfect. In Heb. 11:15, εἰ ἐμνη- 
μόνευον --- εἶχον ἄν, however, the reference is to past time as the 
context makes clear. It is descriptive of an unreal hypothesis in 
the past of a continuous nature. ‘If they had kept on remember- 
ing, they would have kept on having.’ This is a classical idiom, 
though uncommon. Another example is seen in Mt. 23 : 30, εἰ 
ἤμεθα ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις THY πατέρων ἡμῶν, οὐκ av ἤμεθα. Only the con- 
text can help one tell the kind of condition in 1 Cor. 12 : 19 and 
Heb. 7:11, for the apodosis appears in the form of a question 
without ἄν and the verb. The other normal condition of this 
class is where the aorist ind. occurs in both clauses, as in Mt. 11: 
21 εἰ éyevovro, πάλαι ἄν μετενόησαν, Mk. 13:20 εἰ μὴ ἐκολόβωσεν, 
οὐκ ἂν ἐσώθη. This refers to past time. Cf. Mt. 25:27; 1 Cor. 2: 
8; Jo. 14:2; Heb. 10:2 (only apodosis). Sometimes one tense 
occurs in one clause, another in the other. The standpoint is 
shifted. Thus in Jo. 14:28 εἰ ἠγαπᾶτε, ἐχάρητε ἄν, Gal. 3: 21 
εἰ ἐδόθη, av ἦν, Heb. 4:8 εἰ κατέπαυσεν, οὐκ ἂν ἐλάλει. Cf. also Jo. 
15 : 22, 24. It is not always certain that the present reference of 
ἦν can be insisted on, since there was no separate aorist form of 
εἰμί. Sometimes ἦν is aorist. So as to Jo. 11:21, 32, εἰ ἧς, οὐκ ἂν 
ἀπέθανεν. But the point of difference is certainly made in Jo. 18: 
30, εἰ ἦν ποιῶν, οὐκ ἂν παρεδώκαμεν. Cf. also Ac. 18:14; Mt. 26: 
24. In Jo. 4:10, εἰ ἤδεις, οὐκ ἂν ἤτησας, we have the same thing. 
Cf. also Mt. 24:48. In Ac. 18:14 note in the next verse εἰ δέ 
ἐστιν, ὄψεσθε (first class). In 1 Jo. 2:19 we have the past perfect 
in the apodosis εἰ ἦσαν, μεμενήκεισαν ἄν, the solitary example.2 But 
the past perfect occurs in the protasis as in Ac. 26:32, ἀπολε- 
λύσθαι ἐδύνατο, ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος εἰ μὴ ἐπεκέκλητο Καίσαρα. Cf. also εἰ 
ἔγνώκειτε, οὐκ ἂν κατεδικάσατε (Mt. 12:7), though Westcott*® takes 
this as a “real imperfect” like ἤδειν above. The periphrastic 
past perfect we find in Jo. 19:11 οὐκ εἶχες, εἰ μὴ ἦν δεδομένον. 
Moulton‘ has given a list of the times that ἄν appears in the apod- 
osis in the N. T. with the ind. imperf. (17 times), the ind. aor. 
(24) and the past perfect (1). In Lu. 17:6 we have the pres. 
ind. and the imperf. combined, εἰ ἔχετε, ἐλέγετε ἄν. This is really 
a mixed condition (first and second classes). Cf. Jo. 8:39, εἰ 


1 Cf. Westcott on Heb., pp. 111 ff., for an excellent summary of the second 
class conditions. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 201. 

3 On Heb., p. 113. 4 Prol., p. 166. 


1016 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ἐστέ, ἐποιεῖτε (the margin of W. H.). Radermacher (N. T. Gr., 
p. 163) quotes P. Oxy. IV, 729 (137 a.p.) ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἐκώλυσεν Ζεύς --- 
ἔζησεν ἄν, where note ἐάν with aorist ind. like the modern Greek 
ἂν τὸ ἤξευρα (Thumb, Handb., p. 195). 

The negative of the second class condition is in the N. T. al- 
ways μή except once, Mt. 26:24 (Mk. 14:21) καλὸν ἢν αὐτῷ εἰ 
οὐκ ἐγεννήθη. Here the οὐ is very emphatic. Elsewhere we have 
εἰ μή as in Mt. 24 : 22 (note μή in protasis, οὐ in apodosis); Jo. 
9 °333°15/2 22)°245°18): 800192 ῬΑ 20732 SOs ese Lee 
εἰ μή is three times as common in the N. T. as εἰ ov, but outside 
of the five examples of εἰ μή in the first class conditions above 
and one in the third class (Lu. 9:13) εἰ μή is confined to the 
second class condition and to the elliptical use like πλήν in the 
sense of ‘except’ or the phrase εἰ δὲ μή meaning ‘otherwise’ with- 
out a verb (cf. εἰ μή thus in Mt. 12:4; Lu. 4: 26; εἰ δὲ μή in Jo. 
14:11). See a bit later on this point. As already noted, modern 
Greek’ uses ἂν δέν in this condition (Thumb, Handb., p. 195). 

(y) Undetermined, but with Prospect of Determination. This 
class uses in the condition clause the mode of expectation (Hr- 
wartung), the subj. It is not determined as is true of the first and 
second class conditions. But the subj. mode brings the expecta- 
tion within the horizon of a lively hope in spite of the cloud of 
hovering doubt. W. G. Hale? considers that the subj. in this 
condition is due “to a fusion of volitive subj. and the anticipatory 
5]. Monro® thinks it is the quasi-imperative sense (volitive 
subj.). He argues that the use of μή with the subj. (cf. prohibi- 
tions) proves this. But Moulton‘ replies that “the negative μή, 
originally excluded from this division of the subjunctive, has 
trespassed here from the earliest times.’”? So he urges that the 
subj. with ἐάν (as with ὅταν) is the futuristic, not the volitive, use. 
The futuristic subj. in Homer may have ov, but usually μή with 
the 5110]. in conditions, and yet some cases of εἰ οὐ with the subj. 
occur in Homer when ov coalesces with the verb as εἰ οὐκ ἐθέλωσιν, 
Iliad 3. 289, εἰ οὐκ εἰῶσιν, 20. 139. In Jer. 6:8 we still have ἥτις 
οὐ κατοικισθῇ in B. The truth probably is that in some instances 
this subj. is futuristic, in others volitive or deliberative. The 
point is a fine one as one can readily see. Gildersleeve® finds the 


1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 254; Moulton, Prol., p. 171. 

2 The Origin of Subj. and Opt. Conditions in Gk. and Lat., Harv. Stu. in 
Class. Philol., 1901, p. 115. 

5 Hom. Gr., p. 230. Stahl, Griech. histor. Synt., p. 390, makes it futuristic. 

4: Prol., palsa, 5 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1909, p. 11. 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 1017 


prevalence of the subj. in conditional (as in temporal) clauses due 
to the greater exactness of the subj. here. It enables one, since 
it has a “tendency to realization” (Tendenz zur Wirklichkeit),! 
to make a difference between the indicative and the optative 
conditions, though it has more affinity with the optative, except 
in the case of some future indicative conditions which come very 
close to the subj. idea. The kinship in origin and sense? of 
the aorist subj. and fut. ind. makes the line a rather fine one 
between εἰ and the fut. ind. and ἐάν and the subj. Indeed, as we 
sometimes have ἐάν and the fut. ind. in the first class condi- 
tion, so we occasionally meet ef and the subj. in the third class 
condition. Radermacher (N. Τ'. Gr., p. 162) notes εἰ and subj. at 
first as a “vulgarism,’’ but surely the classic usage answers that. 
The inscriptions have usually only ἐάν and aorist subj. he finds. 
But he finds also; abundant instances of εἰ and subj. in κοινή 
and late writers. So Epictetus, II, 18, 11 εἰ μή ris ἐξαλείψῃ, Vet- 
tius, 274, 11 εἰ δέ τις λογίσηται, Hippiatr., 177, 2 εἰ προσσχῇς, 
Demetrius, De eloc. 21, 11 εἰ γένηται, Pausanias, II, 35, 3 εἰ — 
ὑδρεύωνται. So in Lu. 9:13 εἰ μήτι ἀγοράσωμεν, 1 Cor. 14:5 ἐκτὸς 
εἰ μὴ διερμηνεύῃ, Ph. 3:12 εἰ καταλάβω (possibly also εἴ πως καταν- 
τήσω in verse 11), Rev. 11:5 εἴ τις θελήσῃ (text of W. H., but 
margin θέλει or θελήσει). In Ro. 11:14, εἴ πως παραζηλώσω καὶ 
σώσω, we may also have the aorist subj. In 1 Th. 5:10 we 
have εἴτε γρηγορῶμεν εἴτε καθεύδωμεν. It is in the midst of a final 
sentence with ἵνα. In 1 Cor. 9:11 some MSS. read εἰ θερίσωμεν. 
This construction occurs occasionally in classical Greek. It was 
frequent in Homer and in the Attic poets, but is rare in our nor- 
malized texts of Attic prose, though a few examples occur in 
Thuc., Plato, Xenophon.? This “laxity” increased till finally εἰ, 
like ὅτε, vanishes before ἐάν (ἄν) which is used indiscriminately 
with ind. or subj., while εἰ is a mere “literary alternative.” In 
modern Greek ἄν has driven εἰ out of the vernacular. In 
Deut. 8:5 AF have εἴ τις παιδεύσῃ. Cf. Judg. 11:9. Moulton‘ 
finds the same construction in the papyri as does Deissmann,°® 


1 Baumlein, Griech. Modi, p. 177. 

2 Gildersl. (Am. Jour. of Philol., XX XIII, 4, p. 490) complains that in 
Germany no standing is given to his distinction between the “minatory and 
monitary’’ use of εἰ with the future indicative. He first promulgated it in 
1876. 

8. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 420, 464. 

4 Prol., p. 187. Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 167. 

ΠΡ 5 0.115: 


1018 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


though it is rare in the early papyri.! Moulton (Prol., p. 
187) cites O. P. 496 (ii/a.D.) εἰ δὲ ἦν (=p), though he* seems 
curiously unwilling to admit the examples in the N. T. As 
to ἐκτὸς εἰ μή in 1 Cor. 15:2, we have the ind. with this com- 
bination. Deissmann (B. S., p. 118) cites inser. ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ ἐὰν --- 
θελήσῃ. It is true that in the N. T. as a rule εἰ goes with the ind. 
and ἐάν with the subj. It is mainly in the future conditions that 
the line is breaking down. In Mt. 12 : 29 we have ἐὰν μὴ δήσῃ and 
then διαρπάσει, but W. H. break the sentence into two. Besides 
the normal ἐάν and the occasional εἰ in this condition we have 
also ἄν (shortened form of ἐάν, not the modal av). Thus Jo. 12: 
32 av ὑψωθῶ, 18 : 20 ἄν τινα πέμψω, 16 : 23 ἄν τι αἰτήσητε. It occurs 
in the N. T. only six times (cf. ἂν μή in Jo. ὅ : 19) and all in John. 
Cf. Ac.9:2. But note Lu. 12 : 38, κἂν ---κἂν ἔλθῃ καὶ εὕρῃ (contrac- 
tion of xat+éav). Cf. Mt. 21:21; Lu. 13:9. It is absent from the 
Attic inscriptions, but supplants ἐάν in modern Greek. It is not 
clear why ἐάν disappeared thus in modern Greek. The Ionic form 
is ἤν The future conditions are naturally the most frequent of all. 

Just as the second class condition was debarred from the fu- 
ture, so the third class condition is confined to the future (from 
the standpoint of the speaker or writer). The first class condition 
covers past, present and future. In 1 Cor. 10:27 note εἴ τις 
καλεῖ and ἐάν τις εἴπῃ. In Ac. 5:38, ἐὰν ἢ and εἰ --- ἐστίν, a real 
distinction is preserved. Gamaliel gives the benefit of the doubt 
to Christianity. He assumes that Christianity is of God and 
puts the alternative that it is of men in the third class. This 
does not, of course, show that Gamaliel was a Christian or an 
inquirer. He was merely willing to score a point against the 
Sadducees. Here, indeed, the supposition is about a present 
situation, but ἐάν and the subj. contemplate the future result 
(turn out to be). So ἐὰν ἔχητε in 1 Cor. 4:15; ἐὰν ἢ in Mt. 6 : 22. 
"Kay θέλῃς in Mt. 8: 2 is future in conception. In Jo. 5:31, ἐὰν 
μαρτυρῶ (possibly pres. ind.), the idea would be ‘if perchance I 
bear witness.’ Cf. also 8:14. In such instances the matter 
may be looked at as a present reality (so εἰ σκανδαλίζει Mt. 5 : 29) 


1 The Phrygian inscr. show similar exx. Cf. Ramsay, Cities and Bish. of 
Phrygia, II, 292. Burton (N. T. M. and T., p. 105) admits that it is an over- 
refinement to rule out εἰ and the subj. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 240. 

a Proll 5 

ὁ Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 43; Meisterh.-Schw., p. 225f. In Jo. 5:19 we have 
both uses of ἄν (conditional and modal). In Mk 5:28 note ἐὰν ἅψωμαι κἂν 
τῶν ἱματίων, not a repetition of modal ἄν, but a particle κἄν = ‘even.’ 


MODE (ΕΓ ΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 1019 


or a future possibility (so ἐὰν σκανδαλίσῃ, Mk. 9:43). Cf. also 
ἐὰν ἀγαπήσητε in Mt. 5:46 with εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε in Lu. 6: 82 (in verse 
33, ἐὰν ἀγαθοποιῆτε). In Jo. 13:17 note εἰ ταῦτα οἴδατε, μακάριοί 
ἐστε ἐὰν ποιῆτε αὐτά. Here we have the first and third class con- 
ditions happiy combined with clear distinction. Jesus assumes 
the knowledge as a fact, but the performance is doubtful. 

The tense is usually the aorist, though sometimes the pres. subj. 
occurs. ‘Thus ἐὰν ἀκούσῃ (Mt. 18:15); ἐὰν διψᾷ (Jo. 7:37). In 2 
Tim. 2:5 note ἐὰν δὲ καὶ ἀθλῇ τις, οὐ στεφανοῦται ἐὰν μὴ νομίμως 
ἀθλήσῃ, where the distinction is drawn between the two tenses. I 
doubt the propricty, however, of reading a future perfect sense 
ἃ ἴα Latin into this aorist subj. as Moulton? does. He cites Mt. 
δ : 47, ἐὰν ἀσπάσησθε, but surely the simple aorist conception is suf- 
ficient. John’s fondness (see Tenses) for the pres. subj. with ἐάν 
has been discussed. In Jo. 3:27 we have the periphrastic per- 
fect, ἐὰν μὴ ἢ δεδομένον. Cf. also Jas. 5:15, κἂν ἢ πεποιηκώς. The 
conclusion of this condition is naturally most frequently the 
future ind. Thus Mt. 9:21 ἐὰν ἅψωμαι, σωθήσομαι; Jo. 16:7 ἐὰν 
πορευθῶ, πέμψω; Ac. 5:38 ἐὰν 7, καταλυθήσεται. So Mt. 5:13; 
28:14: Jo. 7:17; 12:26; 14:15; Ro. 2:26. But this normal 
apodosis is by no means universal. Thus note οὐ μὴ ἔλθῃ in Jo. 
16:7 after ἐὰν μὴ ἀπέλθω: See also Jo. 8:51. Cf. Ac. 13: 41. 
In Mk. 14 : 31 note οὐ μὴ ἀπαρνήσομαι. The imperative may occur 
in the apodosis as in Mt. 18:15, ἐὰν ἁμαρτήσῇ, ὕπαγε ἔλεγξον. So 
ΕΠ 80.17.20 42 Rowl2 220» 1324; Ῥη 2:1» δυ 
ofttimes the conclusion is stated in terms of the present either as 
a present hope or a vivid projection into the future (futuristic 
present). So in 2 Cor. 5:1, ἐὰν καταλυθῇ, ἔχομεν. The condition is 
future in conception, but the conclusion is a present reality, so 
confident is Paul of the bliss of heaven. Cf. Mt. 18:13. In 18: 
12 both the fut. and the pres. ind. appear in the apodosis. A 
lively sense of present need is seen in Mt. 8:2. A practical turn 
is given by the pointed question in Mt. 5:47. In Ro. 14:8 note 
ἐάν re — ἐάν te. A maxim often has the pres. ind. in the apodosis. 
Thus οὐ δύναται οὐδεὶς --- ἐὰᾶν μὴ πρῶτον δήσῃ (Mk. 3:27). Cf. Jo. 
8: 16, 54; 11:9; 12 : 24; 1 Cor. 7:.390,.,440; 2 Tim.2:5. The pres. 
perf. is likewise so used, as in Ro. 14 : 29, ὁ δὲ διακρινόμενος ἐὰν 
φάγῃ κατακέκριται. So Jo. 20 : 23; Ro. 2:25; 7:2. More difficult 
seems the aorist ind. in the apodosis. The aor. ind. is sometimes 
timeless as is always true of the other modes (see chapter on 


1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 215. 
2 Prol., p. 186. 8. Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 371. 


1020 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Tenses where papyri parallels are given). That may be the ex- 
planation here. It is possible also to explain it as a change of 
standpoint. The protasis looks to the future, while the apodosis 
turns back to the past. Such vivid changes in language are due 
to the swift revolution in thought. See Mt. 18:15, ἐὰν ἀκούσῃ, 
ἐκέρδησας; Jo. 15:6, ἐὰν μή τις μένῃ ἐν ἐμοί, ἐβλήθη ἔξω Kal ἐξηράνθη 
(cf. ἐδοξάσθη ἵνα φέρητε also of the future); 1 Cor. 7: 28, ἐὰν καὶ 
γαμήσῃς, οὐχ ἥμαρτες" καὶ ἐὰν ynun ἡ παρθένος, οὐχ ἥμαρτεν. For a 
similar idiom see Ignatius, Hp. to Romans 8:3; to Polycarp 5:2. 
Moulton (Prol., p. 247) cites Epict., dv μὲν στρατεύσωμαι, ἀπηλλάγην. 
See also Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 586. In Mk. 10 : 30, ἐὰν μὴ λάβῃ, we 
have ἐὰν μή almost in the sense of ὃς μή. Cf. also ἐὰν μὴ ἵνα in Mk. 
4:22. The use of εἰ οὐ and ἐὰν μή side by side is seen in Mt. 26: 
42, εἰ ob δύναται τοῦτο παρελθεῖν ἐὰν μὴ αὐτὸ πίω. Cf. also Jo. 10: 
37, εἰ οὐ ποιῶ and κἂν μὴ πιστεύητε. 

(δ) Remote Prospect of Determination. Hale! attributes “the 
Greek optative assumption to a fusion of the true opt. and the 
potential opt.”’? The use of the opt. in the protasis of this condi- 
tion is probably volitive, since the negative? is μή. That is cer- 
tainly true of the optative in wishes with εἰ or εἰ γάρ (ee). But 
the deliberative use occurs a few times with εἰ in indirect ques- 
tions. The potential opt. in the apodosis with ἄν is more difficult 
to explain. It is certainly not volitive any more, not more than 
mere fancy (Vorstellung), the optative of opinion,’ and apparently 
futuristic. This fourth class condition is undetermined with less 
likelihood of determination than is true of the third class with the 
subj. The difference between the third and fourth classes is well 
illustrated in 1 Pet. 3:13f. So Jesus draws the distinction in 
Lu. 22:67. The use of the opt. in both apodosis and protasis 
accents the remoteness of the hypothesis. And yet it is not in 
the category of unreality as in the second class. It floats in a 
mirage, but does not slip quite away. It is thus suitable not 
merely for real doubt, but it also fits well the polite temper of 
courteous address. It is evident that this condition will be com- 
paratively infrequent. It is an ornament of the cultured class 
and was little used by the masses save in a few set phrases (or 
wishes). It is not strange, therefore, that no complete example 
of this fourth class condition appears in the LXX, the N. T. or 
the papyri so far as examined.’ Radermacher (N. T. Gr., pp. 

1 Origin of Subj. and Opt. Cond., Harv. Stu. in Class. Philol., 1901, p. 115. 


2 Moulton, Prol., p. 196. 4 Gildersl., Am. J. of Philol., 1909, p. 7. 
δ᾽ Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 227. ® Moulton, Prol., p. 196. 


MODE (ΕΓ ΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 1021 


133, 143) with all his diligence produces no example of the opt. 
in both condition and conclusion in the current κοινή. In the 
modern Greek it has disappeared completely. In the N. T., as 
in the LXX, the instances of the protasis are very few. Moulton! 
notes only 13 in the LXX apart from the Atticistic 4 Maccabees. 
Of these he observes that 2 are wishes, 5 are cases of ὥσ(περ) εἴ 
τις and 2 are indirect questions. There are in the N. T. only 11 
examples. Some of these are indirect questions. Thus in ἔλεγον 
εἰ βούλοιτο πορεύεσθαι (Ac. 25 : 20) we have the opt. of ind. dis- 
course. The direct was εἰ βούλῃ. The same thing is true of 
27:39, ἐβουλεύοντο εἰ δύναιτο ἐκσῶσαι τὸ πλοῖον. There is implied 
indirect discourse or purpose (cf. the classic use of εἰ for pur- 
pose).2 So we see aim in Ac. 17: 27, ζητεῖν εἰ ἄρα γε Ψηλαφήσειαν 
αὐτὸν καὶ εὕροιεν, and 20:16, ἔσπευδεν εἰ δυνατὸν εἴη. In 27:12, εἴ 
πως δύναιντο, we have both purpose and implied indirect discourse. 
In 24:19, εἴ τι ἔχοιεν, the protasis is more nearly that of the 
proper fourth class condition, but even so it is a mixed condition, 
since the apodosis ἔδει belongs to the second class. Blass* ven- 
tures to suggest εἴ τι ἔχουσιν as more correct. But it is needless 
to change the text. These examples are all in Acts, one of the 
more literary books of the N. T. Paul has only the stereotyped 
phrase εἰ τύχοι (1 Cor. 14 : 10; 15 : 37), which is a true example of 
this protasis, “if it should happen.” The two other examples are 
in 1 Pet. 3:14 εἰ καὶ πάσχοιτε διὰ δικαιοσύνην, μακάριοι, and 3:17 
κρεῖττον ἀγαθοποιοῦντας, εἰ θέλοι TO θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, πάσχειν. The 
idiom is a mere torso, as is evident. In O. P. 1106, 7 (ν]1,.Α.}.), 
εἰ γὰρ ἐπιμένοιεν, πλῆθος ἐπιστήσεται στρατιωτικόν, We have a mixed 
condition. 

The apodosis with ἄν (the less definite ἄν) is more frequent and 
occurs both in direct and indirect discourse. Since the potential 
opt. in the N. T. never occurs in connection with the protasis, 
the matter was discussed sufficiently under The Optative Mode 
in Independent Sentences (see this chapter, 11, 3, (b)). This po- 
tential opt. is practically the apodosis of an unexpressed protasis. 
But the exx. occur in questions save one (Ac. 26 : 29). Twice the 
questions are direct (Ac. 8:31; 17:18). -The rest are indirect 
(opt. preserved as in the direct). Cf. Lu. 1:62 τί ἂν θέλοι, Ac. 
5:24 τί ἂν γένοιτο. So Lu. 6:11. The deliberative element in 
-some of these questions is well illustrated in Lu. 9:46; Ac. 10: 
17. The MSS. vary in some cases about the presence of ἄν, as 


1 Tb. 2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 228 f. 
ΣΟ ΟΝ GL. Gk. pucel. 


1022 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


in Lu. 18:36. The examples are all in Luke’s writings. In Ac. 
8 :31 we do indeed have a protasis, but not of the fourth class. 
It is a mixed condition. The disappearance of this opt. condi- 
tion led to the enlarged use of the first and third classes. In 
Ro. 3:6 and 1 Cor. 15:35 the fut. ind. is used where the po- 
tential opt. would have suited the Attic idiom. 

(c) Special Points. 

(a) Mixed Conditions. The human mind does not always 
work in stereotyped forms, however excellent they are. Gram- 
matical construction is merely the expression of the mental con- 
ception. Freedom must be acknowledged without any apology. 
I say these somewhat commonplace things because of the bill of 
“exceptions”? which meet us in so many grammars at this point. 
It would have been a miracle if the four classes of conditions were 
never ‘‘mixed,” that is, if the protasis did not belong to one 
class, while the apodosis fell in another. In P. Goodsp. 4 (ii/B.c.), 
εἰ ἔρρωσαι, εἴη ἄν, We have the protasis of the first class and the 
apodosis of the fourth. Radermacher (N. 7’. Gr., p. 132) quotes 
Pastor Hermae, Sim. IX, 12, 4 οὐδεὶς εἰσελεύσεται εἰ μὴ λάβοι, 
Theoph. Ad Autolycum εἰ yap λάβοι --- ἐκκαύσει. Thus in Lu. 17: 6, 
εἰ ἔχετε, ἐλέγετε ἄν, We have a protasis of the first class (determined 
as fulfilled) and the apodosis of the second (determined as unful- 
filled). The same thing is true of the marginal reading in the 
text of W. H. in Jo. 8 : 39, εἰ ἐστέ, éroretre. In Ac. 24 : 19, ods ἔδει 
ἐπὶ σοῦ παρεῖναι καὶ κατηγορεῖν εἴ τι ἔχοιεν πρὸς ἐμέ, We find a prot- 
asis of the fourth class with an apodosis of the second class. 
Then again in Ac. 8:31, πῶς γὰρ ἂν δυναίμην ἐὰν μή τις ὁδηγήσει με; 
we have a protasis of the first class (barring itacism) and an apod- 
osis of the fourth. The examples like 1 Cor. 7:28 do not amount 
to mixed condition, since it is merely a question of the standpoint 
in time of the apodosis, though this apodosis does more naturally 
go with the first class condition. There may be two protases, as 
in 1 Cor. 9:11, and both of the same class, or the two may belong 
to different classes, as in Jo. 13 : 17. 

(8) Implied Conditions. Sometimes the apodosis is expressed, 
while the protasis is merely implied by a participle, an impera- 
tive or a question. In such examples one must not think that 
the participle, for instance, means ‘if.’ Thus in Ro. 2:27 τε- 
λοῦσα with κρινεὶ suggests a condition of either the first or the 
third class according as one conceives it. The condition is hinted 
at, not stated. The same thing is true of λαμβανόμενον in 1 Tim. 

1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 220. 


MODE (EIKAISIS) 1023 


4:4 and μετατιθεμένης tn Heb. 7: 12. Cf. also Heb. 2:3; 1 Cor. 
11:29; Gal. 6:9. This use of the participle is still very fre- 
quent! in the N. T. In Mt. 16 : 26 we have ἐὰν κερδήσῃ, while in 
Lu. 9: 25 note κερδήσας. In Lu. 19: 23, κἀγὼ ἐλθὼν σὺν τόκῳ ἂν αὐτὸ 
ἔπραξα, the apodosis calls for a condition of the second class (con- 
text). The imperative is used where a protasis might have been 
employed. Thus in Mk. 1:17, δεῦτε ὀπίσω μου, καὶ ποιήσω. The 
adverb δεῦτε has the force of an imperative. There is an implied 
condition here. So also 11:24, πιστεύετε καὶ ἔσται. Cf. Mt. 7: 
7; 11:29;:19:21; Lu. 7:7;,Jo..2:19; 14:16; Jas. 4:7. The imp. 
may be (Jas. 1:5) the apodosis of an expressed condition and the 
implied protasis of another conclusion.2, In Eph. 5 : 26, ὀργίζε- 
σθε καὶ μὴ duapravere, two imperatives together practically answer 
as protasis and apodosis. In Mt. 7:10, ἢ καὶ ἰχθὺν αἰτήσει — μὴ 
ὄφιν ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ; the two questions do the same thing in a rough 
sort of way (anacoluthon). Cf. 1 Pet. 1:24. In Mt. 26:15, ri 
θέλετε μοι δοῦναι κἀγὼ ὑμῖν παραδώσω αὐτόν; the question takes the 
place of the protasis. Here καί joins the two parts of the sentence, 
but in Jas. 5:13 we have question and imperative in separate 
sentences. Cf. also 1 Cor. 7:21. These devices are all found in 
the classic idiom.? 

(y) Elliptical Conditions. An incomplete condition is really a 
species of ellipsis or aposiopesis and is common to all languages.‘ 
Ellipsis of the copula in the apodosis (1 Cor. 12 : 19) or the prot- 
asis (Ro. 8:17) is not the point. That is, of course, common. 
SrA ales, sel Geils ΤΟΥ 703 a) Pet.' 8 2143)2) Cor: 
11:16. There may be the absence of either protasis or apodosis. 
The apodosis is wanting in some instances. The suppression of 
the apodosis in Lu. 13:9, κἂν μὲν ποιήσῃ καρπὸν εἰς TO μέλλον --- 
amounts to aposiopesis.6 See also 19: 42, εἰ ἔγνως καὶ σύ. Cf. 
further Mk. 7:11; Jo. 6 : 62; Ac. 25 :9. In Lu. 22 : 42 the aposio- 
pesis disappears from the text of W. H. (rapeveyxe, not παρενεγκεῖν). 
In 2 Th. 2:3, ἐὰν μὴ ἔλθῃ, we have a mere anacoluthon as in 
Ph. 1:22. These protases belong to either the first, second or 
third classes. The lonely protases of the fourth class discussed 
above (cf. 1 Pet. 8 : 14, 17) come in here also. We have a species 
of anacoluthon. The structure of the sentence is changed so 
that the corresponding apodosis does not follow. In the same 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 230. 

2 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 110. 3 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 461. 
4 Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 166. 

5 W.-Th., p. 600. 


1024 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


way (suppression of apodosis) is to be explained the use of εἰ like 
px in the sense of ‘not,’ in solemn oaths or questions. The apod- 
osis is wanting. So εἰ δοθήσεται τῇ γενεᾷ ταὐτῃ σημεῖον (Mk. 8: 
12). So Heb. 3:11 (4:38, δ) εἰ ἐλεύσονται (Ps. 94-95: 11). This is 
aposiopesis. The full expression is seen in Gen. 14:23; Num. 
14 :30;1Sam. 14:45. It is an apparent imitation of the Hebrew 
idiom, though not un-Greek in itself. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., 
p. 184) treats this idiom in Mk. ὃ : 12 as due to translation from 
the Hebrew (Aramaic). Analogous to this is εἰ μήν in Heb. 6: 14, 
if εἰ is not really ἢ changed by itacism (cf. Ezek. 33 : 27; 34 : 8). 
Hort! holds to the difference between εἰ μήν and 7 μήν and would 
take εἰ in Heb. 6: 14 as the true ef. But Moulton? makes out a 
good case from the papyri and the inscriptions for taking it as 
merely a variation of ἢ μήν. He finds eleven papyri examples of 
εἶ μήν from ii/B.c. to 1.4.0. Particularly clear is the Messenian 
Mysteries inscr., Michel 694, εἶ μὰν ἕξειν. If so, it does not come in 
here. But the use of εἰ in questions is pertinent. Thus εἰ ὀλίγοι 
of σωζόμενοι; (Lu. 18:23). Cf. Mt. 12:10; Lu. 12:26; 22 : 49; 
Ac. 17:27; 19:2. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., Ὁ. 136) takes εἰ in 
questions=7 as in Lu. 22:49. This is possible on grounds of ita- 
cism, but it does not entitle Radermacher to say “werden muf.”’ 
The use of the condition in the sense of ‘to see if’ borders on 
this elliptical construction. Something has to be supplied before 
the protasis in order to make the idea clear. The apodosis is 
virtually contained in the protasis. It is a classic? idiom and 
reappears in the papyri.4 So O. P. 748, ὅλος διαπονοῦμαι εἰ “E. χαλ- 
Kos ἀπόλεσεν. ‘The protasis here may conform to the first class 
condition as in e-éye (Lu. 14:28); εἴ πως ἤδη ποτὲ εὐοδωθήσομαι 
(Ro. 1:10). So Mk..11:13;*Ac..8:22. In Phi 3 +12) kat Κατα" 
λάβω, we have the third class and possibly also in Ro. 11:14. 
But in Ac. 27:12 it is the fourth class, εἴ πως δύναιντο. The use 
of εἰ in the indirect question, as in Mk. 3: 2, εἰ θεραπεύσει, corre- 
sponds closely with the preceding. Cf. also 11:13. The same 
thing is true of εἰ in the sense of ὅτι, as in Ac. 26 : 23. This is also 
true of εἰ with verbs of wonder, as in Mk. 15 : 44; Ac. 26:8. 

The protasis itself is sometimes abbreviated almost to the van- 
ishing point, as in εἰ μή without a verb, in the sense of ‘except’ (Mt. 
5:13). Here εἰ and μή seem to coalesce into one word like πλήν. 
Cf. 11:27, οὐδεὶς ἐπιγινώσκει τὸν υἱὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ. This is very 
common as in classic Greek. Sometimes we have εἰ μὴ μόνον as in 


1 App., p. 151. 8 Goodwin, M. and T., pp. 180 ff. 
2 Prol., p. 46. 4 Moulton, Prol., p. 194. 


MODE (EIPKAIZI>) 1025 


Mt. 21:19. The origin of this use of εἰ μή was the fact that the 
verb was identical with the preceding one in the apodosis and so 
was not repeated. From this ellipsis the usage spread to mere 
exceptions to the previous statement, a limitation simply. Ei μή 
may make exception to a preceding negative as in Gal. 1:19, 
ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον εἰ μὴ ᾿Ιάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφόν. The 
effect here is to make εἰ μή seem adversative instead of exceptive. 
Cf. Mt. 12:4. For ἐὰν μή in this construction see Gal. 2:16. 
In 1 Cor. 7:17 εἰ wy has the sense of ‘only’ and is not to be con- 
strued with περιπαϊείτω. The use of εἰ μή occurs in questions ex- 
pecting a negative answer, as in Mk. 2:7, ris δύναται ἀφιέναι ἁμαρ- 
τίας εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός; In 1 Cor. 7:5, εἰ μήτι [ἄν], we have τι (cf. εἴ 
τι in Mt. 18: 28) added and possibly also ἄν. B here omits ἄν, 
possibly to “ease a difficulty” as Moulton! suggests. If genuine, 
it would be a sort of analysis of ἐάν into εἰ ἄν that occurs in the 
illiterate papyri. For examples see under 8, (b), (a). For εἰ μήτι 
with the ind. pres. see 2 Cor. 13 : 5 and the subj. aorist. See Lu. 
9:18. The use of ἐκτὸς εἰ μή probably comes by analogy from 
ἐκτὸς εἰ (cf. Latin nisi), but it occurs in the N. T. without verbs 
only in 1 Tim. 5:19. Elliptical also are εἰ μὴ ἵνα (Jo. 10: 10); 
el pu) ότι (2 Cor. 12:13); ef μὴ ὅταν (Mk. 9:9). In Jo. 14:11 
note ei δὲ μή in the sense of ‘but if not,’ ‘otherwise.’ Cf. Mk. 2: 
21; Rev. 2:5, 16. For ef δὲ μήγε see Lu. 5:36. Other forms of 
εἰ used elliptically are εἴ περ (Ro. ὃ : 80); ὡσεί (Mt. 3:16); ὡσπε- 
pet (1 Cor. 15:8). Ei δὲ μή and εἰ δὲ μή γε became such fixed 
phrases? that they occur even when the preceding sentence is 
negative (Mt. 9:17) or where ἐὰν μή would be more natural (Lu. 
10 : 6, where the phrase answers to ἐὰν ἡ). Cf. Lu. 13:9. In 
Jo. 14:2, εἰ δὲ μή, εἶπον ἄν, the. conclusion is expressed. 

In 2 Cor. 10:9.we have ὡς ἄν without a verb=‘as if.’ It is 
common to have εἴτε — εἴτε (1 Cor. 8: 5) without the verb. The use 
of κἄν without the verb is also found in the sense of ‘if only,’ ‘at 
least.’ So in Mk. 5:28; 6:56. In 2 Cor. 11:16 we have both 
εἰ δὲ μή ye and κἄν (δέξησθε to be supplied). In Lu. 12:38 note 
κἄν — κἄν. The suppression of the protasis occurs in all the ex- 
amples of the potential opt. already discussed, as in Ac. 26 : 29. 
Even in the deliberative questions of the opt. with ἄν the same 
thing is true. Cf. Ac. 17: 18 (direct); Lu. 1:62 (Gndirect). The 
protasis is also suppressed sometimes with ἐπεί. Cf. 1 Cor. 15: 
29, ἐπεὶ τί ποιήσουσιν; Here a protasis of the first or (more prob- 
ably) of the third class must be supplied. So in Ro. 3:6; 11:6, 

Ὁ Dee Lb. a ΣΟ ΟΠ Newlands bs pe 111: 


1026 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


22. In 1 Cor. 14:16, ἐπεὶ ἐὰν εὐλογῇς πῶς ἐρεῖ, the ellipsis still 
occurs in spite of ἐάν. In Heb. 9 : 26, ἐπεὶ ἔδει, and 10: 2, ἐπεὶ οὐκ 
ἂν ἐπαύσαντο, the protasis would belong to the second class, as is 
true also of ἐπεὶ ὠφείλετε ἄρα in 1 Cor. 5:10. In 7:14, ἐπεὶ ἄρα 
ἐστίν, the protasis would be of the first class. 

(5) Concessive Clauses. These are really just conditional! 
clauses with the addition of καί. In καὶ ef and καὶ ἐάν (κἄν) the 
sense is ‘even if’ and is climacteric. Burton? seeks to draw quite 
a distinction between concessive and conditional clauses. He 
cites Mt. 26:38, εἰ πάντες σκανδαλισθήσονται ἐν σοί, ἔγὼ οὐδέποτε 
σκανδαλισθήσομαι, aS an instance of the concessive idea without 
καί. It is possible that we may read the idea into this passage 
because in the parallel passage in Mk. 14:29 we read εἰ καί --- 
ἀλλ᾽ éyw. Cf. also κἂν δέῃ in Mt. 26 : 35 with ἐὰν δέῃ in Mk. 14: 
31. The use of εἰ (ἐάν) in the sense of ‘though’ shows that there 
is at bottom no essential difference. The structure is precisely 
the same as the conditional sentence. They are, to repeat, 
nothing but conditional sentences of a special tone or emphasis. 
The use of καί was to sharpen this emphasis either up or down. 

With καὶ εἰ the supposition is considered improbable.? With 
καὶ εἰ the truth of the principal sentence is stoutly affirmed in the 
face of this one objection. It is rhetorically an extreme case. In 
1 Cor. 8: 5, καὶ γὰρ εἴπερ εἰσὶν --- [ἀλλ΄] ἡμῖν εἷς θεός, we have an in- 
stance. In Mk. 14: 29 the true text is εἰ καί, not καὶ εἰ. In 1 Pet. 
3:1 W. H. read simply εἰ. In late Greek καὶ εἰ vanishes before 
καὶ ἄν (ἐάν). So in the Ν. T. we have καὶ ἐὰν κρίνω (Jo. 8 : 16). 
So also Gal. 1:8. For κἄν see Jo. 8:14, κἂν μαρτυρῶ. So Mt. 
21:21; 26:35. See Jo. 10 : 38, εἰ δὲ ποιῶ, κἂν ἐμοὶ πιστεύητε. The 
clauses with ἐάν and the subj. are, of course, third class condi- 
tions. Sometimes?’ καὶ εἰ anc κἄν can hardly® be considered as 
strong as ‘even if.’ They may be resolved into ‘and if.’ So Mt. 
11: 14;:Luy 6232:3Mka162 180m ebb heya 

Much more common is εἰ καί. This phrase means ‘if also.’ 
Here the protasis is treated as a matter of indifference. If there 
is a conflict, it makes no real difficulty. There is sometimes a 
tone of contempt in εἰ καί. The matter is belittled. There is 
often some’ particle in the conclusion in this construction as in 
Lu. 18 : 4, εἰ καὶ τὸν θεὸν οὐ φοβοῦμαι οὐδὲ ἄνθρωπον ἐντρέπομαι, διά γε 
τὸ παρέχειν, κκλ. Note yeasin 11:8. Cf. Col. 2:5, εἰ καί --- ἀλλά. 


1 Blass, Gr. of Ν. T. Gk., p. 215. 4. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 465. 
2 ON. Ti My ΑΘ ΟΣ 5 Thayer’s Lexicon. 
> Paley, Gk. Part., p. 31. 6 Cf. Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 114. 


CSC ννα 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 1027 


There is considerable variety with εἰ καί. Thus in 2 Cor. 7:8 we 
have a condition of the first class (so Lu. 11:8; 18:4, οἷο), 
while in 1 Pet. 8 : 14, εἰ καὶ πάσχοιτε, we have one instance of the 
fourth class. With ἐὰν καί and the subj. we find, of course, the 
third class. So Gal. 6:1, ἐὰν καὶ προλημφθῇ. Cf. 2 Tim. 2:5. 
In 1 Cor. 7:28, ἐὰν καὶ yaunons, the notion is ‘if even’ rather 
than ‘also’ (cf. καὶ ἐὰν γήμῃ). In Mt. 18:17 note ἐὰν παρακούσῃ 
αὐτῶν and ἐὰν δὲ καὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας παρακούσῃ. ‘There is nothing 
peculiar about Ro. 14:8, ἐάν τε ζῶμεν --- ἐἀν τε ἀποθνήσκωμεν. (CE. 
Ex. 19:13.) Cf. εἴτε," etre with the ind. (1 Cor. 3 : 23) or the 
subj. (1 Th. 5:10). The use of the participle for concession (see 
καίπερ ὦν, Heb. 5:8) will be treated under the Participle. For 
the use of κἄν even after ἐάν see Mk. 5 : 28. 

(e) Other Particles with εἰ and ἐάν. These have no effect on 
the condition as a distinct class, though they modify the precise 
idea in various ways. This point will be treated more exactly 
under Particles. But note εἰ ἄρα (Mk. 11:13; Ac. 8:22); εἴ γε 
(Eph. 4 : 21); εἰ ἄρα ye (Ac. 17: 27 opt.); εἴ ye καί (2: ον, 5:3); εἰ 
dé pnye (Lu. 5 : 36); ef οὖν (Mt. 6: 23; Heb. 7:11); εἴπερ (Ro. 3: 
30); ἐάνπερ (Heb. 3: 14; 6:3); εἴ πως (Ro. 1: 10, the fut. ind.; Ac. 
27:12, the opt.). In Mk. 8 : 23 εἴ τι is in direct question. 

9. InprrEcT Discourse (Oratio Obliqua). 

(a) Recitative Ὅτι in Oratio Recta. Direct quotation is more 
frequent in primitive language, in the vernacular, and in all vivid 
picturesque narrative. It is the dramatic method of reporting 
speech. It is natural in Homer, in the Old Testament and in the 
Gospels, in Aristophanes and in Shakespeare, and in Uncle Remus. 
The prolonged indirect discourse in Thucydides and in Livy, in 
Xenophon and Cesar, is more or less artificial. In the LX X little 
use is made of indirect discourse. The direct quotation may not 
be as verbally exact as the indirect,! but it is more lively and in- 
teresting. ΑΒ ἃ rule the direct discourse is simply introduced with 
a word of saying or thinking. The ancients had no quotation-marks 
nor our modern colon. But sometimes ὅτι was used before the 
direct quotation merely to indicate that the words are quoted. We 
find this idiom occasionally with ὅτι, more seldom with ὡς, in the 
Attic writers.? It is very rare*® in the LXX, since the Hebrew so 
frequently has a special participle like ‘saying.’ But see Gen. 28: 
16. In the N. T. Jannaris* counts 120 instances of recitative ὅτι. 


1 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 130. 2 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 285. 
8 Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 50; but see on the other hand Con. and Stock, Sel., 
p. 114. 4 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 472. 


1028 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


The idiom appears chiefly in the historical books. See Mt. 7: 23, 
ὁμολογήσω ὅτι οὐδέποτε ἔγνων ὑμᾶς. This particular instance can be 
looked upon as indirect discourse, since the person is the same in 
both clauses and the tense and mode are unaffected. It is prob- 
able that indirect declarative clauses grew out of constructions of 
this nature! But in Mt. 27:43, εἶπεν ὅτι θεοῦ eiui vids, there is 
no doubt at all. See 26:74, ὀμνύειν ὅτι οὐκ οἶδα τὸν ἄνθρωπον, and 
26:75, εἰρηκότος ὅτι πρὶν ἀλέκτορα φωνῆσαι τρὶς ἀπαρνήσῃ pe. SO 
Mk. 1.87: 2 12; 16; 4:21 8.285; υῪδῪ᾿ ΟΣ ΣΟΥ ΑἸ τὺ Saito 
4:17. In Mt. 16:7 we have (W. H., but R. V. marg. has cau- 
sal) recitative ὅτι (ὅτι ἄρτους οὐκ ἐλάβομεν); while in verse 8 the 
indirect (probably causal) use, ὅτι ἄρτους οὐκ ἔχετε; In Mk. 6: 23 
(W. H. marg.) we have a direct quotation with ὅτι, in Mt. 14:7 
the same thing appears as indirect discourse without ὅτι. In Jo. 
10 : 34, ἀπεκρίθη — οὐκ ἔστιν γεγραμμένον ὅτι ἔγὼ εἶπα θεοί ἐστε, NOte 
a treble direct quotation, once with ὅτι and twice without. In Jo. 
1:50 the first ὅτι is recitative, the second is indirect discourse. 
The ὅτι in the beginning of Jo. 20:29 is causal. In Jo. 20:18 
(cf. 3:18) ὅτι is recitative and declarative. It is doubtful whether 
“it is recitative or causal in Jo. 21:17. In Ro. 3:8, ὅτι ποιήσωμεν 
(hortatory subj.), ὅτι is also recitative. So in 2 Th. 3:10 ὅτι 
occurs with the imperative ἐσθιέτω. ‘The instances of direct quota- 
tion without ὅτι are very numerous. Cf. Mt. 8:3; 26:25. Some- 
times the same thing is reported with ὅτι (Mt. 19 : 9) or without 
ὅτι (Mk. 10:4). For single words quoted without agreement with 
the word with which they are in apposition note ὁ διδάσκαλος and 
ὁ κύριος in Jo. 18:18. W.H. seek to indicate the presence of reci- 
tative ὅτι by beginning the quotation with a capital letter as in 
all their quotations. Cf. Jo. 9:9. This redundant ὅτι may occur 
before direct questions as in Mk. 4: 21; 8:4. It continues common 
in the κοινή and the modern Greek uses πῶς in this idiom.” 

(b) Change of Person in Indirect Discourse. Sometimes this 
was not necessary, as in Mt. 27:43. So in 16:18, κἀγὼ δέ σοι 
λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, there is no change in the second person. Cf. 
also Jo. 11:27; Gal. 2:14. But in Mt. 20:10, ἐνόμισαν ὅτι πλεῖον 
λήμψονται, the direct discourse would have λημψόμεθα. So Lu. 
24:23. Compare ἐλάβομεν in Mt. 16:7 with ἔχετε in v. 8. Note 
τί φάγωμεν (direct) in Mt. 6:31, but τί φάγητε (indirect) in 6: 25. 
In Mk. 9: 6, οὐ yap ἤδει τί ἀποκριθῇ, the direct would be ri ἀποκριθῶ; 

1 Schmitt, Uber den Urspr. des Substantivsatzes, 1889, p. 66. 


2 Thumb, Handb., p. 192. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 472. Καὶ τότες εἶπε 
πῶς Δέ σου τό ’Aeya ἐγώ; ‘then he said, Didn’t I tell you so?’ 


MODE (ErKAIZ=I>) 1029 


The person may be both ways in the same sentence, as in Ac. 1: 
4, παρήγγειλεν — περιμένειν THY ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πατρὸς ἣν ἠκούσατέ μου. 
See further under Mixture. 

(c) Change of Tense in Indirect Discourse. Mr. H. Scott objects 
to the wide scope here given to the term “indirect discourse” to 
cover ‘‘object clauses” after ὁράω, xrd., but I conceive the prin- 
ciple to be the same. After primary tenses there is, of course, no 
change in mode or tense. Cf. Mt. 16:18; 27: 48 above. See also 
Mk. 11:24, πιστεύετε ὅτι ἔλάβετε καὶ ἔσται ὑμῖν. It is only after 
secondary tenses that any change occurs. Usually even then there 
is no change of tense in Greek. Thus ὅπου ἤκουον ὅτι ἔστιν (Mk. 6: 
55). So with ἀκούσας ὅτι βασιλεύει ---- ἐφοβήθη (Mt. 2 : 22). So ἠλπί- 
Couey ὅτι αὐτός ἐστιν (Lu. 24:21). See also Mt. 21:45; Mk. 6:14; 
Lu. 1: 22; Jo. 2:17; 6:24. Cf. Gal. 2:14, εἶδον ὅτι οὐκ ὀρθοποδοῦ- 
ow. SoJo. 11:13. In Jo. 21:19 the future ind. is retained after 
εἶπεν σημαίνων. Cf. Mt. 20:10. So in Lu. 5:19 the aorist subj. 
occurs. In Mk. 2:16 we have ὅτι ἐσθίει twice, the first in ind. 
discourse and the second with recitative ὅτι. But sometimes the 
ancient Greek, even the Attic,'! used a past tense of the indicative 
in ind. discourse where the direct had the tenses of present time. 
The N. T. shows occasionally the same construction. In a case 
like Jo. 1: 50, εἶπόν σοι ὅτι εἶδόν oe, the aorist tense belonged to the 
direct. Cf. 9:30, 32, 35. So as to the imperfect ἦν and aorist 
ἀνέβλεψεν in Jo. 9:18. Cf. also Lu. 18:2. In Mt. 27:18, ᾿ἤδει 
ὅτι διὰ φθόνον παρέδωκαν αὐτόν, the aorist is used for antecedent 
action. Cf. παραδεδώκεισαν in Mk. 15:10. See also Mt. 16: 12, 
ὅτι οὐκ εἶπεν. But in Jo. 2:25, αὐτὸς yap ἐγίνωσκεν τί ἦν ἐν τῷ ἀν- 
θρώπῳ, the direct form? would have ἐστιν, not ἦν. So with ἤδει τί 
ἔμελλεν ποιεῖν (6 : 6); οὐκ ἔγνωσαν ὅτι τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῖς ἔλεγεν (ὃ : 27). 
Cf. also 11: 51; 12 : 16, 33; 18:32. In Ac. 19: 92, οὐκ ἤδεισαν τίνος 
ἕνεκα συνεληλύθεισαν, the past perfect stands when the direct would 
have the present perfect. In Ac. 16:3, ἤδεισαν ὅτι “ἕλλην ὁ πατὴρ 
αὐτοῦ ὑπῆρχεν, the imperfect may indicate that Timotheus’ father 
was no longer living, though it is not the necessary meaning, as 
we have just seen. Cf. Mk. 11: 32; Jo. 6 : 22-24; 16:19; Ac. 22: 
2; 1 Pet.1:12. In Ac. 22 : 29, ἐφοβήθη ἐπιγνοὺς ὅτι ἹῬωμαῖός ἐστιν 
καὶ ὅτι αὐτὸν ἦν δεδεκώς, we see both constructions combined. In 


1 Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 263. 

2 Cf. Robertson, Short Gr., p. 181. As a matter of fact, the primitive 
method in oratio obliqua was probably this very change of tense as in Eng. 
We have it more frequently in Hom. than the change of mode or the graphic 
retention of tense. Cf. Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 402. 


1030 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Jo. 11:40, οὐκ εἶπόν σοι ὅτι ἐὰν πιστεύσῃς ὄψῃ, the subj. and the 
fut. ind. are retained after secondary tense, unless ὅτι is recitative. 
This preservation of the original tense appears in clauses not 
strictly in indirect discourse. In Lu. 9: 33, εἶπεν--- μὴ εἰδὼς ὃ λέγει, 
the present tense is retained in the relative clause ὃ λέγει, as it is 
in the causal clause in 9:49, ἐκωλύομεν αὐτὸν ὅτι οὐκ ἀκολουθεῖ μεθ᾽ 
ἡμῶν. In Jo. 21:25, χωρήσειν, the future inf. stands for the future 
ind. in the direct, as τεθνηκέναι does in Ac. 14:19 for the perfect 
ind. In Lu. 20 : 6 εἶναι really represents the imperfect indicative 
of the direct. | 

(d) Change of Mode in Indirect Discourse. The rule with the 
Greek was not to change the tense. The mode after past ten- 
ses, with more freedom, was either retained! or changed to the 
corresponding tense of the optative mode. The optative, as the 
most remote in standpoint of the modes, suited this idiom very 
well. The imperfect and past perfect indicative were, however, 
retained, though even here the optative sometimes appeared.? 
When the aorist optative represented an aorist indicative of the 
direct discourse the opt. represented past time.* Usually the op- 
tative and subjunctive are future as to time. We have the 
optative in the N. T. in indirect discourse only in Luke. It 
was in the κοινή a mark of literary care, almost Atticism, quite 
beyond the usual vernacular. And with Luke the idiom is almost 
confined to indirect questions. Luke never has the opt. after 
ὅτι or ws. Once (Ac. 25:16) in a subordinate temporal clause 
the optative occurs where the subj. with (ef. Lu. 2 : 26) or without 
ἄν would be in the direct, πρὶν ἢ ἔχοι — τε λάβοι. And even here οὐκ 
ἔστιν after ὅτι comes just before. This change in the subordinate 
clause was also optional in the ancient idiom.* If ἄν was used 
with the subj. in the direct it was, of course, dropped with the 
change to the optative in the indirect. Similar to this is the use 
of εἰ and the optative with dependent single clause either as prot- 
asis with implied apodosis or purpose like ef Ψηλαφήσειαν (Ac. 17: 
27); εἰ δυνατὸν εἴη (20:16); εἴ πως δύναιντο (27:12). Here after 
primary tenses we should have ἐάν and the subj. or εἰ and the 
future ind. Cf. Ph.3:12; Ro. 1:10. Cf. ri ypdyw in Ac. 25: 26. 
As already explained also, the indirect questions with εἰ and the 


1 In archaic Lat. the ind. was used in indirect discourse as in Gk. Cf. 
Draeger, Hist. Synt., Bd. II, p. 460. 

2 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 263. 

* Madvig, Bemerk. iiber einige Punkte der griech. Wortfiig. 1848, p. 23. 

* Goodwin, M. and T., p. 273. 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 1031 


optative (Ac. 25 : 20; 27 : 39) are instances where the indicative 
would be used in the direct. Even in indirect questions Luke 
usually keeps the mode of the direct. So the indicative as in 
τὸ Tis — δοκεῖ (Lu. 22 : 24), the subjunctive as in τὸ πῶς --- ἀποδῷ 
(22 : 4) or the optative as in τὸ τί ἂν θέλοι (1:62). The indicative 
is never changed to a subjunctive as in Latin. When the subj. in 
Greek occurs in an indirect question it does so because it was the 
subj. in the direct. Thus οὐ yap ἤδει τί ἀποκριθῇ (Mk. 9:6). ΟΥ̓. 
Mt. 6:25, 31, ri φάγητε, Ti dayoper. So Lu. 22:2, 4; Ac. 4:21. 
Cf. subj. with ἵνα after secondary tenses (Ro. 1:13; 1 Pet. 4:6). 
The use of the optative (as distinct from subj.) in indir. dis- 
course was a Greek development. We see the beginning of it in 
Homer. The optative, however, does occur in Lu. (18 : 36, W. H. 
text, margin ἄν) in an indirect question where the direct had the 
indicative. Cf. ποταπὸς εἴη in 1:29. So 8:9, ἐπηρώτων τίς εἴη. 
In Ac. 21:33, ἐπυνθάνετο τίς εἴη καὶ τί ἐστιν πεποιηκώς, both con- 
structions occur side by side. The variation here in the mode 
(retention of the ind.) gives a certain vividness to this part of 
the question. See Optative in Paratactic Sentences where the 
κοινή parallels are given. In γίνοιτο κρατεῖν πάσης ἧς ἂν αἱρῆσθε 
χώρας, Ρ. Par. 26 (B.c. 163), there is no sequence of mode. The 
subj. is with the indefinite relative and the opt. is a wish. It has 
been already (under Optative) shown that av and the opt. in an 
indirect question is there because it was in the direct (cf. Ac. 17: 
18, τί ἂν θέλοι; with Lu. 1:62, τὸ τί ἂν θέλοι. Sometimes, one 
must admit, the difference between the two is reduced to ἃ mini- 
mum, as in the papyri occasionally. So in Lu. 9:46, τὸ τίς ἂν 
ein (cf. 76 ris εἴη in Lu. 22 : 23). See also Lu. 15: 26; Ac. 10:17. 
But there is always a shade of difference. The manuscripts re- 
flect this haziness in the variations between ind. and opt. as in 
Titi isi vob; 22: 23%, Ac. 2:12). In Lui 3°215,. ἡ ἱποτὲν ely» we 
also have.the opt. in an indir. question. Radermacher (NV. 7. Gr., 
p. 165) quotes Diod. I, 75, 5, ἐπειδὰν --- πρόσθοιτο. The Atticists 
used it often. 

(6) The Limits of Indirect Discourse. It is not always easy to 
draw the line between indirect discourse and other constructions. 
Thus Jannaris? uses it only for declarative clauses with ὅτι or ὡς. 
Burton’ confines it to indirect assertions and indirect questions, 
but admits that it also covers indirect commands and promises. 
Take Mt. 14:7, ὡμολόγησεν αὐτῇ δοῦναι ὃ ἐὰν aitnonra. The in- 

1 Moulton, Prol., p. 198. 2 Hist. Gk. Οὐ p. 471 f. 
3 N. T. M. and T., p. 131. So most of the grammars. 


1032 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


finitive δοῦναι is the direct object of the verb and does not seem 
to be in indir. discourse, for in Mk. 6:23 the direct form has 
δώσω. But, after all, it is practical indir. discourse, though the 
analogy of tense construction breaks down in this instance. But 
note fut. infinitive with ὥμοσεν in Heb. 3:18, according to the 
principle of indirect discourse. On the whole it is best to consider 
three classes or kinds of indirect discourse: declarative clauses, 
indirect questions, indirect commands. 

(f) Declarative Clauses (Indirect Assertions). 

(a) Ὅτι and the Indicative. There is no clear instance of ὡς in 
this sense in the N. T. It was common in the ancient Greek.! 
Just as final ὅπως retreated before ἵνα, so declarative ὡς did before 
ὅτι. In late Greek ἵνα monopolized the field as a final particle 
and divided it with ὅτι as a declarative conjunction. We do have 
ws in indirect questions a few times as will be shown. This is 
more likely the meaning even in Ac. 10 : 28, ἐπίστασθε ws ἀθέμιτον. 
Reeb? points out that Demosthenes uses ὡς for what is false and 
ὅτι for what is true. The German wie is used like ὡς with verbs 
of reading, narrating, testifying. With these verbs ὡς is more 
than just ὅτι (‘that’). “Ὅτι expresses the thing itself and ὡς the 
mode or quality of the thing (Thayer). With this explanation 
it is possible to consider it as declarative, though really mean- 
ing ‘how.’ Cf. Lu. 24:6, μνήσθητε ὡς ἐλάλησεν. So in Lu. 8 : 47 
with ἀπαγγέλλω, 23:55 after θεάομαι, Ac. 10:38 after οἶδα, Ac. 
20: 20 with ἐπίσταμαι, Ro. 1:9 with μάρτυς (so Ph. 1:8; 1 Th. 
1:8): The manuscripts vary in some passages between ὡς and 
ὅτι and πῶς. W.H. bracket ὡς in Lu. 6:4 and read πῶς in Mk. 
12 : 26 and ὅτι in Jude 5, though as is retained in 7.4 In all these 
passages it is possible to regard ws as the ‘how’ of indirect ques- 
tion rather than declarative. The encroachment of πῶς on ὅτι is 
to be noticed also. Cf. Mt.12:4 after ἀναγινώσκω (and Mk. 12: 
26), Mk. 12:41 after θεωρέω, Mk. 5:16 after διηγέομαι, Lu. 14: 
7 after ἐπέχων, Ac. 11:13 after ἀπαγγέλλω (so 1 Th. 1:9). In 
the later Greek πῶς comes gradually to be equivalent to ὅτι.ὅ 
Gradually πῶς gained the ascendency over ὅτι till in the modern 
Greek it became the regular declarative particle. See Thumb, 
Handb., p. 190. In Ro. 10:15; 11:33, as is exclamatory. The 
κοινή writers and the papyri show this same retreat of ws before - 


1 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 258. 2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr.,'p. 571. 
* De Particulorum ὅτι et ὡς apud Demosthenum Usu, 1890, p. 38. 
4 Cf. Blass, *Groofh N.wleGkorpaes0 1. 

5 Hatz., Einl., p. 19. 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 1033 


ὅτι and the inroad of πῶς on ὅτι (Radermacher, N. 7΄. Gr., p. 159). 
Cf. B. U., I, 37 (51 Α.}.), οἶδας πῶς --- χρήζωι, and Epictetus often 
after é6paw. ‘There is, however, no doubt of the use of ὡς ὅτι in 
the declarative sense=‘that.’ It is an unclassical combination, 
but it appears in the LX X (Esther 4 : 14) and in the κοινή writers.! 
It is like the Latin quasi in the Vulgate. The late papyri (fourth 
cent. A.D.) show that ὡς ὅτι came in the vernacular to mean 
simply ‘that.’? Moulton cites also two Attic inscriptions from 
the first century B.c. which have ὡς ὅτι in the sense of ws or ὅτι 
alone. The editors have removed ὅτι from ὡς ὅτι in Xenophon’s 
Hellen. II, ii, 14, εἰπὼν ὡς ὅτι dxvoin. Moulton agrees to Blass’ 
stigma of “‘unclassical” on ὡς ὅτι, but Paul has κοινή support for 
HissHscrOlmlveinecsCore oi Oe lbs 212 Τὴ 2:2: But: ὅτι, has 
won its place in the N. T. not only over ὡς, but also over the in- 
finitive. The use of the inf. in indir. discourse* takes quite a sub- 
ordinate place in the N. T. Luke alone uses it to any extent. 
The use of ὅτι is the common way of making a declaration in in- 
direct discourse in the N. T. The periphrasis with ὅτι has super- 
seded it in nearly all the N. T. writers.4. There arose also διότι in 
the declarative sense® (cf. late Latin quia=quod), but no example 
occurs in the N. T. The classic causal sense of διότι prevailed. 
It is sometimes doubtful whether ὅτι is causal or declarative 
as in Ac. 22:29. The context must decide. Finally, as noted, 
πῶς came to be the normal declarative conjunction in the ver- 
nacular (over the inf. as over ws and ὅτι) as the infinitive disap- 
peared from indir. discourse. The only mode used with ὅτι in the 
N. T. is the ind. In Ro. 3:8 (subj.) ὅτι is recitative. At bottom 
ὅτι is just 6 τι, and Homer sometimes used 6 τε in the declarative 
sense (and 6). Cf. ὅτι ὅτε together in 1 Cor. 12: 2. 

The verbs after which ὅτι is used in the N. T. cover a wide 
range. Indeed, ὅτι comes also after substantives like ἀγγελία (1 
Jo. 1:5); κρίσις (Jo. 3:19); λόγος (Jo. 15: 25); μαρτύρια (1 Jo. 5: 
11); μάρτυς (2 Cor. 1:23); παρρησία (1 Jo. 5:14); φωνή (Ac. 22: 
14); φάσις (Ac. 21:31). It is in apposition also with ἐν ὀνόματι 
(Mk. 9:41). We see also ἐν τούτῳ ὅτι (1 Jo. 3:16). Some- 


1 See Sophocles’ Lexicon under ὡς. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 413. 
Moulton (Prol., p. 212) gives C.P.R. 19 (iv/A.D.) πρώην βιβλία ἐπιδέδωκα TH σῇ 
ἐπιμελείᾳ ὡς ὅτι ἐβουλήθην. ' 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 212. 4 Moulton, Prol., p. 211. 

3 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 2381. 5 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 413. 

6 Mitsotakis, Praktische Gr. der neugriechischen Schrift- und Umgangs- 
sprache, 1891, p. 235. 


1034 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


times ὅτι itself seems to imply ἐν τούτῳ (Ro. 5:8) or περὶ τούτου 
(Mk. 1:34) or eis éxetvo (Jo. 2:18). Cf. τοῦτο dru (Rev. 2:6). 
Another irregularity of construction is the prolepsis of the sub- 
stantive before ὅτι (and change of case) as in 1 Cor. 16:15. This 
idiom is sometimes called the epexegetic use of ὅτι. Cf. further 
Ac. 9:20. It is a rather common idiom. Cf. Mt. 25:24. See 
especially Jo. 8:54. In Ro. 9:6 note οὐχ οἷον δὲ ὅτι. In 1 Cor. 
15:27 δῆλον ὅτι is almost adverbial, but that is not true of πρό- 
δηλον ὅτι in Heb. 7:14. The elliptical τί ὅτι (Lu. 2:49) may be 
compared with τί γέγονεν ὅτι in Jo. 14:22. The elliptical οὐχ 
ὅτι (cf. Jo. 6:46) is like the corresponding English ‘not that.” 
‘The ὅτι clause may be in the nominative (subject clause) as in 
Mk. 4:38, οὐ μέλει σοι ὅτι ἀπολλύμεθα; More usually it is, of 
course, in the accusative (object clause) as in Jo. 11:27, πεπί- 
στευκα ὅτι. The ὅτι clause may also be in apposition with the loca- 
tive as in Mk. 9:41. In Gal. 1: 20, ἰδοὺ ἐνώπιον θεοῦ ὅτι, we have 
a solemn oath as in ἀλήθεια ὅτι (2 Cor. 11:10); πιστὸς ὅτι (1:18); 
μάρτυς ὅτι (2 Cor. 1: 23); ὀμνύω ὅτι (Rev. 10:6); ζῶ ἐγώ, ὅτι (Ro. 
14:11). Sometimes the personal construction occurs with ὅτι, 
as in 1 Cor. 15:12, Χριστὸς κηρύσσεται ὅτι. In Jas. 1:13 we either 
have recitative ὅτι or oratio variata. In Jo. 4:1 we have one ὅτι 
clause dependent on another. “Ὅτι may be repeated in parallel 
clauses as: in 90:0: 225,Ac.17233 22:29;,1,Cor. 15:3 Inalao: 
5:9 we have two examples of ὅτι, but one is causal. In Jo. 1: 
15 ff. the three are all causal. In Jo. 11:50 we have ὅτι and ἵνα 
in much the same sense. Not so 1 Jo. 5:18. Cf. wa in 1 Jo. 5: 
3 with ére in 5:11. 

The verbs that use declarative ὅτι in the N. T. are very numer- 
ous. A few have only ὅτι. Thus Mk. 11:32, ἅπαντες εἶχον τὸν 
Ιωάνην ὅτι προφήτης jv (note ἦν). Blass! calls this use of ἔχω a 
Latinism like habeo. Cf. also ὑπολαμβάνω ὅτι (Lu. 7:48), a clas- 
sical construction. So also λαλέω (Heb. 11:18); συμβιβάζω (Ac. 
16:10); σφραγίζῳ (Jo. 3:33); “γνωρίζων (1 Cor. 12:3); éuda- 
vitw (Heb. 11:14); ἐξομολογέω (Ph. 2:11); κατηχέω (Ac. 21: 
21); xnptoow (1 Cor. 15:12); ἀποδείκνυμι. (2 Th. 2:4); unriw 
(Lu. 20 : 357); ὑποδείκνυμι (Ac. 20 : 85);- φανερόομαι (2 Cor. ὃ : 8); 
ἀποκαλύπτω (1 Pet. 1:12); παραδίδωμι (1 Cor. 15:3); παρατί- 
Onuc (Ac. 17:3); προφητεύω (Jo. 11:51). The great mass of 
the verbs of perceiving, showing (contrary to Attic), knowing, 
believing, hoping, thinking, saying, declaring, replying, testify- 
ing, etc., use either the declarative ὅτι or the infinitive. In Lu. 

1. Gr ΟΝ ΤΙΣ ΟΡ 7291: 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 1035 


9:18f. with λέγω we have the inf. and ὅτι side by side. So 
also in Ac. 14 : 22 with παρακαλέω. Outside of λέγω and ἀντιλέγω 
ἐπιμαρτυρέω, κατακρίνω and παρακαλέω the infinitive in indir. dis- 
course in the N. T. is confined to the writings of Luke and Paul 
and Hebrews according to Viteau,! ‘““comme vestige de la langue 
littéraire.”’ But even with Luke and Paul the rule is to use ὅτι. 
Blass? has a careful list of the uses of these verbs. In margin of 
W. ΗΠ. in Jo. 5:15 we have ἀναγγέλλω with ὅτι, but the text has 
εἶπον. But see ὅτι also in Ro. 2:4 (ayvoew), Mt. 12:5 (ἀναγινώσκωλ), 
Lu. 18 : 37 (ἀπαγγέλλω), Ac. 25 : 16 (ἀποκρίνομαι), 1 Jo. 2: 22 (ἀρνέο- 
μαι), Ac. 17:6 (Boaw), 1 Pet. 2:3 (yebouar), Ro. 10 : 5 (γράφω), Mt. 
16: 21 (δεικνύω), 1 Cor. 1:11 (δηλόω), Ac. 10:42 (διαμαρτύρομαι), Ac. 
17 : 8 (διανοίγω), Mk. 8:31 (διδάσκω), Mt. 6:7 (δοκέω), Ac. 9:27 
(Sinyéouat), Lu. 24 : 21 (ἔλπίζω), Mt. 6:26 (ἐμβλέπω), 1 Cor. 11:2 
(ἐπαινέω), Ac. 13 : 32 (εὐαγγελίζομαι), Lu. 18:11 (εὐχαριστέω), Rev. 
2:4 (ἔχω κατά τινος), Lu. 11:38 (θαυμάζω), Jo. 6:5 (θεάομαι), Ac. 4: 
13 (καταλαμβάνομαι), Lu. 12:24 (κατανοέω), 2 Cor. 5:14 (κρίνω), 2 
Pet. 3:5 (λανθάνω), Μύ. ὃ :9 (λέγω), Ac. 23:27 (μανθάνω), 2 Cor. 1: ᾿ 
23 (μάρτυρα τὸν θεὸν ἐπικαλοῦμαι), Heb. 7:8 (uaprupew), Ac. 20 : 26 
(μαρτύρομαι), Mt. 27:63 (μιμνήσκω), Mt. 5:17 (νομίζω), Mt. 15 : 17 
(νοέω), Mt. 26 : 74 (ὀμνύω), Jas. 1:7 (οἴομαι), Ro. 9:1 (οὐ ψεύδομαι), 
2 Th. 3:10 (παραγγέλλω), Heb. 13:18 (πείθομαι), Jo. 6 : 69 (m- 
στεύω), Ro. 4:21 (πληροφορέω), 2 Cor. 18 : 2 (προείρηκα καὶ προλέγω, 
οἵ. Gal. 5:21), Ac. 28 : 84 (πυνθάνομαι), Lu. 15:6, 9 (cvyxaipw), Jo. 
18 : 14 (συμβουλεύω), Ro. 8 : 16 (συμμαρτυρξω), Mt. 16 : 12 (συνίημι), 
Ju. 5 (ὑπομιμνήσκω), 1 Cor. 10 : 19 (φημί), Lu. 10: 20 (χαίρω), 1 Tim. 
1:12 (χάριν ἔχω τινί). I cannot claim that this is a complete list, 
but it is the best I can do with the help of H. Scott, Blass, Thayer, 
Moulton and Geden, and Viteau’s list. At any rate it gives one 
a fairly clear idea of the advances made by ὅτι on the classic infin- 
itive idiom. Some verbs still share the participle with ὅτι, but 
not verbs of showing. These no longer appear in the N. T. with 
the participle. So with ὅτι note βλέπω (Heb. 3 : 19); θεωρέω (MK. 
16:4). Cf. Ac. 19 : 26, θεωρέω and ἀκούω. So also ἐπιγινώσκω (Lu. 
7:37); ἐπίσταμαι (Ac. 15 : 7); εὑρίσκω (Ro. 7: 21); μνημονεύω (Ac. 20: 
31); ὁράω (Mk. 2:16). Besides some verbs appear with either ὅτι, 
the infinitive or the participle. Thus ἀκούω (Mt. 5 : 21; Jo. 12 : 18; 
Lu. 4: 23); γινώσκω (Mt. 21:45; Heb. 10: 84; Lu. 8: 46); λογίζομαι 
(Ro. 8:18; 2 Cor. 10 : 2 both inf. and part.); οἶδα (Ac. 16:3; Lu. 
4:41; 2 Cor. 12:2); ὁμολογέω. (Mt. 7: 23 unless recitative ὅτι; 
1 Le Verbe, p. 51. ΣΟ ΟΝ uct Ka Dicow ty 
3 Ib., p. 230: 


1036 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Tit. 1:16; 2 Jo. 7). In Ac. 27:10 we find ὅτι used with the in- 
finitive “quite irregularly” Blass! calls it. But it is Just the classic 
mingling of two constructions seen in the more usual form in Ac. 
14 : 22, where a change is made from the inf. to ὅτι and δεῖ. Dif- 
ferent verbs had varying histories in the matter of ὅτι. It was 
not a mere alternative with many. With ἀκούω, for instance, ὅτι 
is the usual idiom. The same thing is true with ἀποκρίνομαι, γινώ- 
σκω, Bodw, οἶδα, λέγω, νομίζω, πιστεύω. But with φημί, in classical 
Greek almost always with the infinitive (Ro. 8 : 8), we twice have 
ὅτι (1 Cor. 10:19; 15:50). For ὅτι and then the inf. see Mk. 
8 :28f. The substantive nature of the ὅτι clause is well shown in 
1 Th. 3:6. For ὅτι with the inf. see Ac. 27:10. Radermacher 
(N. T. Gr., p. 159) cites ὅτι --- ὑπάρχειν from Proklus’ In rem publ., 
LU 225-922: 

(8) The Infinitive. With some verbs we have only single in- 
stances of the infinitive of indir. discourse in the N. T. So with 
Bodw (Ac. 25 : 24); γινώσκω (Heb. 10 : 34); καταλαμβάνομαι (Ac. 25: 
25); ἡγέομαι (Ph. 3:8); νοέω (Heb. 11:3). ᾿Αποκρίνομαι has it 
only twice (Lu. 20:7; Ac. 25:4). See also ἀπαγγέλλω (Ac. 12: 
14); ἀπαρνέομαι (Lu. 22:34); διισχυρίζομαι (Ac. 12:15); δηλόω 
(Heb. 9:8); ἐπαγγέλλομαι (Mk. 14:11; Ac. 7:5); ἐπιμαρτύρομαι 
(1 Pet. 5:12); κατακρίνω (Mk. 14:64); μαρτυρέω (Ac. 10:48); 
προαιτιάομαι (Ro. 3:9); προκαταγγέλλω (Ac. 3:18); σημαίνω (Ac. 
11 : 28); χρηματίζω (Lu. 2:26). Some of these are words that are 
not used with any construction very often, some occur only with 
the infinitive, like ἐπιδεικνύω (Ac. 18 : 28); προσδοκάω (Ac. 3:5; 28: 
6); ὑποκρίνομαι (Lu. 20 : 20); brovoew (Ac. 13 : 25; 27:27). There 
is, besides, the inf. with βούλομαι, θέλω, κελεύω, etc., more exactly 
the simple object inf. Other verbs that have occasionally the 
inf. are in the list given under (a), those with either ὅτι or the inf. 
like ἀρνέομαι (Heb. 11: 24); γράφω (Ac. 18: 27); δεικνύω (Ac. 10: 28); 
διδάσκω (Lu. 11:1); διαμαρτύρομαι (Ac. 18 : 5); διανοίγω (Ac. 16 : 14. 
Cf. rod in Lu. 24 : 45); εὐαγγελίζομαι (Ac. 14 : 15), συμβουλεύω (Rev. 
3:18). In Luke and Paul the inf. of indir. discourse is fairly 
common with λέγώ (Lu. 9 : 18, 20, etc. Cf. Mt. 11:24; Mk. 3: 
23) and with νομίζω (Lu. 2 : 44; Ac. 7 : 25, ete.). 

In the old Greek the inf. was the favourite construction in in- 
direct discourse.? The Latin had it in all its glory, but the grad- 
ual disappearance of the inf. from late Greek made it wither 
away. Indeed, it was a comparatively late development in Greek 


ΤΟΝ oa) kee aos 
2 Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 267. 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣῚ) 1037 


anyhow and is rare in Homer.! It is not easy to draw the line 
between βούλομαι and κελεύω with the inf. on the one hand and 
λέγω and νομίζω with the inf. on the other.2 At bottom the con- 
struction is the same. The question of the case of the substantive 
or adjective used with this inf. is not vital to the idiom. It is 
really a misnomer to call it “the accusative and infinitive.” That 
is, in fact, more frequently the case found with this inf., but it is 
so, not because the idiom calls for it per se, but simply because 
the infinitive can have no subject, not being a finite verb (cf. the 
participle). Hence when a noun (not the object) occurs with the 
inf. in indir. discourse it is put in the accusative of general refer- 
ence, if there is no word in the sentence in another case for it 
naturally to agree with by apposition. This matter was dis- 
cussed under Cases, but will bear some repetition at this point 
since it is so often misunderstood. Clyde’ correctly sees that, 
since the inf. itself is in a case and is non-finite, it cannot have a 
subject. Monro‘ thinks that the accusative was a late develop- 
ment to assist the “‘ virtual’ predication of the later inf. Some- 
times this acc. itself is the direct object of the principal verb (so 
verbs of asking, etc.). Gildersleeve has a pertinent word: “1 look 
with amazement at the retention [by Cauer in his Grammatica 
Miltans| of Curtius’ utterly unsatisfactory, utterly inorganic ex- 
planation of the acc. c. inf. in oratio obliqua, against which I 
protested years ago (A. J. P., XVII, 1896, 517): ἤγγειλαν ὅτι ὁ 
Κῦρος ἐνίκησε becomes ἤγγειλαν τὸν Κῦρον ὅτι ἐνίκησεν, but ὅτι ἐνί- 
κησεν Ξενικῆσαι᾽ (A. J. P., ΧΧΧΤΠΗΠ, 4, p. 489). To go no further, 
Gildersleeve shows that the ὅτι construction is later than the 
ace. 6. inf. But the grammarians went astray and called this 
accusative the “‘subject”’ of the inf., and, when some other case 
appears with the inf., it is an ‘“‘exception”’ to the rules of the gram- 
marians, though in perfect harmony with the genius of the Greek 
inf. Even Moulton® says: “In classical Greek, as any fifth-form 
boy forgets at his peril, the nominative is used regularly instead 
of the accusative as subject to the infinitive when the subject of 
the main verb is the same.’’ Now, there is no doubt about the 
presence of the nominative in such an instance. But why say 
“imstead of the accusative’? The nominative is normal and 
natural in such a construction. This construction probably, al- 
most certainly, antedated the accusative with the inf. We still 
1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 162. 4 Hom. Gr., p. 162. 


2 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 269. Be Proke pe 412: 
8. Gk. Synt., p. 139. 6 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 162. 


1038 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


meet it in the N.T. The oldest idiom was to have no noun with — 
the inf., as in Lu. 24 : 23, ἦλθαν λέγουσαι καὶ ὀπτασίαν ἀγγέλων ἑωρα- 
κέναι. The context makes it perfectly clear that the word ὀπτασίαν 
is the object of ἑωρακέναι and the rest is matter of easy inference. 
Cf. Ac. -26 :.9 -Gvith: δεῖν); Jas.-2 145015303246, 090) elite δ 
In the majority of cases in the N. T. the noun is not repeated 
or referred to in the predicate. So in Lu. 20:7 we have ἀπεκρί- 
θησαν μὴ εἰδέναι, but in Ac. 25:4 Φῆστος ἀπεκρίθη τηρεῖσθαι τὸν Παῦ- 
λον εἰς Καισαρίαν, ἑαυτὸν δὲ μέλλειν. It is easy to see why Παῦλον 
has to be in the acc. if expressed at all. We could have had 
αὐτός rather than ἑαυτόν which probably is just co-ordinated with 
Παῦλον. Cf. κριτὴς εἶναι in Ac. 18:15; Mt. 19:21 τέλειος εἶναι, 
Ph. 4:11 ἔμαθον αὐτάρκης εἶναι, where the principle is the same, 
though not technically indirect discourse; it is the predicate 
nominative. So with βούλομαι, θέλω, ζητέω, etc. The personal 
construction is a good illustration of the nominative. Cf. Heb. 
11:4, ἐμαρτυρήθη εἶναι δίκαιος. ‘The nominative occurs also in 
Ro. 1:22, φάσκοντες εἶναι σοφοί. See further Ro. 9:3; 1 Cor. 3: 
18; 8 : 2; 14: 37. 2. Cor... 10.22; | Heb..5 cals 1588. BO 
(W. H. text). In a case like Lu. 20 : 20 δικαίους εἶναι is inevitable 
because of ὑποκρινομένους. But there are a good many examples 
in the. N. T. where the nominative could have been properly re- 
tained and where the accusative has crept in, perhaps owing to a 
tendency towards uniformity rather than to any special Latin 
influence as Blass supposed.! Moulton? notes the same tendency 
in the κοινή outside of Latin influence. Moulton (Prol., p. 249) 
refers to Aischylus, P. V. 268 f., with the note of Sykes and Wynne- 
Wilson, and to Adam’s note on Plato, Apol., 36 B., for classical ex- 
amples of ace. with inf. where nom. could have occurred. Cf. Ro. 
6: 11, ὑμεῖς λογίζεσθε ἑαυτοὺς εἶναι νεκρούς. It is rare in the classical 
Greek for the accusative to occur in such sentences... The N. T. 
undoubtedly shows an increase of the acc. where the nominative 
was the rule for the older Greek. So Ro. 2:19, πέποιθας σεαυτὸν 
ὁδηγὸν εἶναι τυφλῶν, Where αὐτός (cf. Ro. 9 : 3) would have been suf- 
ficient. Cf. also Ac. 5:36 (ef. 8:9) λέγων εἶναί τινα ἑαυτόν, (Ph. 
3:13) ἔγὼ ἐμαυτὸν οὔπω λογίζομαι κατειληφέναι, (Heb. 10 : 34) γινώ- 
σκοντες ἔχειν ἑαυτοὺς κρείσσονα ὕπαρξιν, (Eph. 4 : 22) ἀποθέσθαι ὑμᾶς 
(some distance from the verb ἐδιδάχθητε). See also Ac. 21:1; 
Ro. 1:20f. Blass thinks that in 2 Cor. 7: 11 the classical Greek 
would have had ὄντας, not εἶναι. Even so, but the N. T. has 


τ Gr, of the GEAN,. I), Dp. 238, 
2° Prolips2i2it: § Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 237. 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 1039 


εἶναι. An example like Lu. 20 : 20 (see above) is hardly pertinent, 
since the participle on which the inf. depends is itself in the accu- 
sative. Cf. Lu. 6:41 In Ac. 25:21, τοῦ Παύλου ἐπικαλεσαμένου 
τηρεῖσθαι αὐτόν, the pronoun could have been assimilated to the 
case of Παύλου (αὐτοῦ). Soalso in Rev. 2:9; 3:9, τῶν λεγόντων 
Ιουδαίους εἶναι ἑαυτούς (different order in 3:9). We find the same 
lack of assimilation in Ac. 22:17, μοι --- wou — με, and in 25 : 27 
μοι --- πέμποντα and in Heb. 2:10 αὐτῷ --- ἀγαγόντα. In 2 Pet. 3:3, 
γιψφώσκοντες 18 due to anacoluthon (cf. 1:20) as with ἀπέχεσθαι --- 
ἔχοντες (1 Pet. 2:11 f.) and with στελλόμενοι (2 Cor. 8:20). So 
Lu. 1:74 ἡμῖν ῥυσθέντας, 5: 7 μετέχοις ἐλθόντας. The Greek of the 
N. T. did sometimes have assimilation of case as in Ac. 16:21, 
ἃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν ἡμῖν παραδέχεσθαι οὐδὲ ποιεῖν Ῥωμαίοις οὖσιν. So also 
15 : 25, ἔδοξεν ἡμῖν γενομένοις ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἐκλεξαμένοις (--ους margin of 
W. H.) πέμψαι (cf. accusative retained in verse 22, ἐκλεξαμένους). 
Cf. also Lu. 1:3; 9:59; 2 Pet. 2:21. Contrast ἐδοξέ wou of Lu. 
1:3 with ἔδοξα ἐμαυτῷ of Ac. 26:9. The same situation applies 
to the cases with the articular infinitive. Cf. Mt. 26 : 32, μετὰ τὸ 
ἔγερθῆναί με προάξω. Here the με is not necessary and αὐτός could 
have been used. So with Lu. 2 : 4, διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτόν. The αὐτόν is 
superfluous, as in Heb. 7: 24.2 Cf. Lu. 10:35, ἔγὼ ἐν τῷ ἐπανέρχε- 
σθαί μὲ ἀποδώσω σοι. See further Lu. 1:57; 2:21; 24:30; Ac. 
18:3. It is easy to show from this use of the articular inf. that 
the inf. has no proper ‘‘subject.”’ The accusative is due to other 
reasons. Take Lu. 2:27, ἐν τῷ εἰσαγαγεῖν τοὺς γονεῖς τὸ παιδίον 
Ἰησοῦν, where the context makes plain that παιδίον is the object οἵ 
εἰσαγαγεῖν and γονεῖς the acc. of general reference. The article 
τῷ must be considered in explaining this instance. Cf. Lu. 18: 
5; Ac. 1:3; 27:4; Heb. 5: 12 (three accusatives in W. H.’s text). 
The ace. with the inf. was normal when the substantive with the 
inf. was different from the subject of the principal verb. Cf. Ro. 
3:8, φασίν τινες ἡμᾶς λέγειν bre (note inf. after φημί, and ὅτι after 
λέγω, but it is recitative ὅτι). In Lu. 24:28, λέγουσιν αὐτὸν ζῆν, 
we see λέγω with the acc. and inf. Typical examples are seen in 
Mt. 17:4, καλόν ἐστιν ἡμᾶς ὧδε εἶναι, Ac. 12:14; 14:19; 16:18; 
Bari el Pet.o ir; 6: 12: 1/Cor 14): ΠΗ 9.782 Seefurther 
Verbal Aspects of Inf., (d), in next chapter. 

The tense of the original is preserved in the inf. as a rule. A 
case like Mt. 14:7, ὡμολόγησεν αὐτῇ δοῦναι ὃ ἐὰν αἰτήσηται, May 

1 See also Lu. 29 : 2, λέγοντα αὑτὸν εἶναι. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 212. Cf. Zeitlin, The Accusative with Inf. and some 
Kindred Constr. in Eng. (1908). 


1040 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


seem a bit disconcerting since in the direct discourse in Mk. 6 : 23 
we find δώσω. But the future is aoristic anyhow. The line be- 
tween indir. discourse and the simple object inf. is not sharply 
drawn. Cf. Ac. 23:12. In Lu. 20:6, πεπεισμένος yap ἐστιν ᾿Ιωά- 
νην προφήτην εἶναι, the inf. represents ἦν of the direct. There was 
no help for this, since there is no imperfect inf. The future inf. 
in indir. discourse is rare, but see Jo. 21: 25; Ac. 23 : 30 (see Ten- 
ses). Examples of the perfect inf. in this idiom occur in Ac. 
12:14; 14:19; 16:27; 25:25; Heb. 9:8. Cf, ὁμολογεῖ εἰληφέναι, 
P. Oxy. 37 (a.p. 10) ἢ 

There is little more to say. The use of τοῦ and the inf. as sub- 
ject has already been commented on. See τοῦ ἐλθεῖν, Lu. 17: 1, 
where τὰ σκάνδαλα is the acc. of general reference while this geni- 
tive inf. is itself in the nominative case. See also Ac. 10: 25. 
We do not have ἄν with the inf. in indir. discourse. In 2 Cor. 10: 
9, ἵνα μὴ δόξω ws ἂν ἐκφοβεῖν, we have ws ἄντε “85 if.’ It is not the 
ἄν in apodosis. Nestle in his N. T. gives at 1 Pet. 5:8 ζητῶν 
τίνα καταπιεῖν, but surely τινὰ is the correct accent. W. H. places 
even this in the margin. Souter prints τινὰ, departing from R. V. 
which has twa. But Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 147) cites Cal- 
linicus in Vita Hypatii, 57, 12, ποῦ εὑρεῖν, and 1138, 11, τί ποιῆσαι 
(cf. German Was tun?). It may be worth while to add that 
sometimes we meet an inf. dependent on an inf. (cf. inf. on part. 
in Lu. 20 : 20). I have noticed the idiom only in Luke and Paul. 
Cf. Lu. 6 : 12, ἐξελθεῖν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ ὄρος προσεύξασθαι, where the first 
is in indirect discourse, and Ac. 18:2, διὰ τὸ διατεταχέναι Κλαύ- 
διον χωρίζεσθαι πάντας τοὺς ᾿Ιουδαίους, where the second is indirect 
discourse (indir. command). Cf. Ro. 15:8. 

(y) The Participle. Middleton! suggests that the use of the 
participle in indir. discourse is older than the inf. This may be 
true, since in the Sanskrit it developed much more rapidly than the 
inf. But there were cross-current§ at work in indirect discourse. 
Just as the inf. was circumscribed by the declarative ὅτι, so the 
participle was limited by ὅτι or the infinitive. Thus verbs of 
showing (δείκνυμι, δηλόω) and of manifesting (davepdw) no longer 
occur with the participle in the N. T. However, we have the 
participle with φαίνομαι (‘appear’), as in Mt. 6:16. Besides, the 
participle has disappeared from use with αἰσθάνομαι, μανθάνω, pé- 
μνημαι, συνίημι. The participles with μανθάνω in 1 Tim. 5:13 are 
additional statements, as the Revised Version correctly translates. 
With the inf. μανθάνω means ‘to learn how,’ not ‘to learn that.’ 

1 Analogy in Synt., p. 64. 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 1041 


Chain tori ls τὺ 9 14. Butvsome verbs in the N. Ὃς still 
have the participle in indir. discourse. They are verbs of percep- 
tion by the senses (hearing, seeing, knowing). In the ancient 
Greek the nominative was used when the participle referred to 
the subject of the verb. Thus ὁρῶ ἡμαρτηκώς meant ‘I see that I 
have sinned.’ In the N. T., however, we have declarative ὅτι in 
such clauses (Mk. 5:29; 1 Jo. 3:14).! Viteau? rightly insists on 
a real difference between the participial conception and the de- 
clarative ὅτι or the inf. If the idea is one of intellectual appre- 
hension merely, an opinion or judgment, we have ὁρῶ ὅτι (Jas. 
2:24). If it is a real experience, the participle occurs as in Mk. 
8:24, ws δένδρα ὁρῶ περιπατοῦντας. So in Ac. 8: 28, εἰς σύνδεσμον 
ὁρῶ σε ὄντα. ‘There is something in this distinction. Cf. βλέπω 
ὅτι (Jas. 2 : 22), but the participle in Heb. 2:9, Ἰησοῦν ἐστεφανω- 
μένον. In Mk. 8:24 we have ὅτι with βλέπω and the part. with 
ὁρῶ. The realistic quality of the part. is finely brought out in 
Mk. 9:1, ἕως ἂν ἴδωσιν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἔληλυθυῖαν ἐν δυνάμει. 
Note the tense as in Lu. 10:18, ἐθεώρουν τὸν Σατανᾶν --- πεσόντα. 
Cf. 9:49; 21:20; Ac. 11:13; 17:16. See Jo. 19:33, ὡς εἶδον 
ἤδη αὐτὸν τεθνηκότα. The tense of the direct is preserved. See 
for Oewpew, Mk. 16:4 and Lu. 24:39, καθὼς ἐμὲ θεωρεῖτε ἔχοντα. 
For ἐπίσταμαι take Ac. 15:7 and 24:10. Cf. also μνημονεύω with 
ὅτι (Ac. 20:31) and the part. (2 Tim. 2:8). It is very clear in 
εὑρίσκω (see ὅτι in Ro. 7:21) which, as in classic Greek, is com- 
monly used with the participle. See Mt. 1:18; 12: 44; Lu. 238: 
2; Ac. 9:2. In Mt. 1:18 we have the personal construction 
εὑρέθη ἔχουσα. In Lu. 23 : 2 we find three participles. Δοκιμάζω in 
the N. T. has only the inf. (Ro. 1:28) and the participle (2 Cor. 
8 : 22). So with ἡγέομαι (Ph. 2:6;3:7). Cf. also ἔχε με παρῃτη- 
μένον (Lu. 14:18). In 2 Jo. 7 note the part. with ὁμολογέω. In 
verse 4, περιπατοῦντας with εὑρίσκω, the case agrees only in sense 
with ἐκ τῶν τέκνων. The difference between ὅτι with οἶδα (Ac. 23 : 
5) and the part. is clear (2 Cor. 12:2), though this is the only in- 
stance of the part. with this verb. It prefers ὅτι, but may have the 
inf. (Lu. 4:41). The difference is even clearer in γινώσκω. See ὅτι 
in Mt. 21:45, the inf. in Heb. 10:34. The usual idiom is ὅτι, 
but note Lu. 8 : 46, ἔγνων δύναμιν ἐξεληλυθυῖαν ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ, where Christ 
thus graphically describes the terrible nervous loss from his heal- 
ing work. He felt the power “gone” out of him. In our ver- 
nacular we speak of a sense of ‘‘goneness.’’ See also Ac. 19 : 35; 
Heb. 13:23. But see Mk. 5:29, ἔγνω τῷ σώματι ὅτι tartar. In 
1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 246. 2 Le Verbe, p. 53 f. 


1042 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Mk. 5:30 ἐπιγινώσκω has the attributive participle after it. 
᾿Ακούω also occurs with declarative ὅτι (Mt. 5: 21; so usually), 
the inf. (Jo. 12:18; 1 Cor. 11:18) or the part. (Ac. 7:12; 14: 
9: 3 Jo. 4; 2 Th. 3:11, etc.). These examples have the accu- 
sative when the thing is understood. Blass! curiously calls the 
acc. incorrect in Ac. 9:4; 26:14. The genitive with φωνή does 
occur in 11:7; 22:7. Blass has an overrefinement on this 
point. As with the acc. construction of the part. with ἀκούω, so 
most of the genitive examples are found in the Acts. So 2:6; 
6:11; 14:9, etc. But see also Mk. 12 : 28, ἀκούσας αὐτῶν συζη- 
τούντων. ‘So 14:58; Lu. 18:36; Jo. 1:37. The perfect part. in 
this construction is seen in Lu. ὃ : 46; Jo. 19:33, etc. For the 
aorist see Lu. 10:18. In Mk. 6:8 we have oratio variata. The 
sentence starts with ἵνα and concludes with the inf. Hence the 
part. ὑποδεδεμένους is construed with the inf. See the acc. part. in 
Rev. 4:4 as explained by εἶδον in verse 1, though ἰδού and the 
nominative have come between. 

(δ) Καὶ éyévero. One hardly knows whether to treat this con- 
struction as indirect discourse or not. It is a clear imitation of 
the Hebrew "7" and is common in the LXX with two construc- 
tions. It is either καὶ ἔγένετο καί with finite verb (or ἐγένετο δέ) as 
in Gen. 24:30; 29:18; Josh. 5:1, etc.), or we have asyndeton, 
καὶ ἔγένετο plus finite verb (Gen. 22:1; 24:45, etc.). For ἐγένετο 
we often find ἐγενήθη (1 Sam. 4:1; 11:1, ete.). This asyndeton 
is also common in the future as καὶ ἔσται with finite verb (15. 
9:16; 10:20, 27, etc.). This καὶ ἔσται construction is quoted a 
few times in the N. T. (Ac. 2:17, 21; Ro. 9 : 26) from the LXX. 
For καὶ ἔσται καί see Ex. 138:11f. W. F. Moulton? has pointed 
out that the idiom occurs when the principal sentence has some 
note of. time. J. H. Moulton* quotes Driver (Tenses, ὃ 78) as 
describing the "771 construction in a similar fashion, ‘‘a clause 
specifying the circumstances under which an action takes place.” 
All the examples of these two constructions in Luke fit this de- 
scription. Luke has in the Gospel eleven of the καὶ éyévero καί ex- 
amples and twenty-two of the καί éyévero type. For καὶ ἐγένετο καί 
see Lu. 17:11; without the second καί 17:14. See in particular 
Lu. 8 and 9. It is frequently the case that Luke has ἐν τῷ and the 
inf. with the idiom. So 9 : 51, éyévero δὲ ἐν τῷ συμπληροῦσθαι — καὶ 
αὐτὸς ἐστήρισεν. Here καὶ is almost equivalent to ὅτι. So καὶ ἐγέ- 
vero ἐν τῷ εἶναι --- εἶπέν τις (11:1). We have καὶ éyévero καί also in 


τ of N: ΟΣ pe 246. 
2 W.-M., p. 760, n. 2. * Prol., p. 16. 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 1043 


Mt. 9:10. The form καὶ ἔγένετο Moulton! counts outside of 
Luke only twice in Mark and five times in Matthew with the 
phrase ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν. Cf. Mt. 7:28. Moulton is concerned 
to show against Dalman that the idiom is not Semitic. He ad- 
mits the Hebraism in καὶ éyévero καί, but doubts as to καὶ éyévero 
(asyndeton). But surely the LXX has left its mark in this point 
also. The LXX does not have ἐγένετο (or γίνεται) and the infini- 
tive (but οἵ. 2 Macc. 3:16 ἦν — τιτρώσκεσθαι). In the N. T. we 
find it in Mt. 18 : 18; Mk. 2 : 15; five times in Luke and seventeen 
times in Acts. Cf. ὑμῖν γίνοιτο κρατεῖν, P. Par. 26 (B.c. 163-2). 
The other two constructions are absent from the Acts, showing 
that in the Gospel Luke was more directly using Semitic sources 
or imitating the LX X on the point. But even so inf. with ἐγένετο 
is not ancient Greek, which used συνέβη. We do have συνέβη and 
the inf. in Ac. 21:35. The modern Athenian vernacular has 
συνέβη ὅτι While the country districts? use ἔτυχε va. Moulton finds 
the inf. with γίνεται in the papyri and rightly sees in the vernacu- 
lar κοινή the origin of this idiom. There is no essential difference 
between the inf. with γίνεται and ἐγένετο. Cf. Ac. 6:1; 16:16; 
9 : 32, 37, 48; 11:26, ete. Outside of Luke (Gospel and Acts) 
the inf. with ἔγένετο is confined to Mk. 2 : 29, which Moulton calls 
“a primitive assimilation of Lu. 6 : 1. See Ac. 10:25, eye 
vero τοῦ εἰσελθεῖν. This is Moulton’s presentation, which is cer- 
tainly more just than the mere description of ‘‘Hebraism’’ for 
all these constructions.? We do not have the ὅτι clause with 
γίνεται or ἔγένετο in the N. T. 

(g) Indirect Questions. 

(a) Tense. See (c) under Indirect Discourse. It may here be 
simply stated that when the principal verb is primary no change 
in tense occurs. When it is secondary, still no change appears as 
a rule, though occasionally one does see it, as in Jo. 2: 25; 6:6; 
18:32. But note ἐπυνθάνετο ποῦ γεννᾶται (Mt. 2 : 4); ἐθεώρουν ποῦ 
τέθειται (Mk. 15:47). Cf. Ac. 10:18. Note difference between 
present perfect in Mk. 15:44 and the aorist in the same verse. 
For the future ind. see Jo. 21:19; Mk. 11:13. 

(8) Mode. It is only necessary to say that as a rule the same 
mode is retained in the indirect question that was in the direct. 
Thus see-Mk.5 : 14; 15 : 47; Lu. 8 : 36; 23 : 55; Ac. 10 : 29, where 
the indicative occurs. We have the ind. after secondary as well 
as primary tenses. This is the common idiom in the N. T. as in 


1 ΤΡ. SR Tad 
3 Asin Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 142 f. 


1044 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the κοινή. In all instances where a subj. appears in this con- 
struction it is due to the fact that the subj. would have been 
present in the direct (deliberative subj.). Note τί φάγωμεν; in 
Mt. 6 : 31 and τί φάγητε (6 : 25). See also ποῦ μένεις; of Jo. 1:38 
and εἶδαν ποῦ μένει of verse 39 for the retention of the indicative. 
The Latin changed the ind. to the subj. in indirect questions, but 
the Greek did not. This deliberative subj. occurs after primary 
tenses as in Lu. 9 : 58, οὐκ ἔχει ποῦ τὴν κεφαλὴν κλίνῃ, and after sec- 
ondary tenses also as in Mk. 9 : 6, οὐ yap ἤδει τί ἀποκριθῇ. Cf. also 
Mk. 6:36; Lu. 5:19; 12 : 36. So also the optative occurs a few 
times where it was in the direct. This is the construction with ἄν 
which has already been discussed twice. See Ac. 17:18, τί ἂν 
θέλοι, for the direct form, and Lu. 1 : 62, ri ἂν θέλοι, for the indirect. 
Cf. Lu. 9 : 46; Ac. 5 : 24. In 2 Tim. 2 : 25, μή ποτε δῴη (W. H. have 
δώῃ in margin), we have the optative without ἄν after a primary 
tense if δῴη be correct. Moulton! considers the subj. here a 
“syntactical necessity.” We need not moralize, therefore, on 
this instance of the optative even if it is genuine. Radermacher 
(Neut. Gr., p. 132) shows that the Atticists frequently used the 
opt. after a primary tense, as copyists often fail to catch the spirit 
of a thing. The papyri (2b.) have some illustrations of the same 
idiom. The other examples of the opt. in indirect questions are 
all after secondary tenses and the change is made from an indica- 
tive or a subj. to the optative. These examples all occur in Luke. 
As instances of the opt. where the direct had the ind. see Lu. 1: 
20: 3:15; 18:36. See Ac. 21 : 33 for both modes. In Ac. 17: 
27, εἰ dpaye Ψηλαφήσειαν, the opt. represents a subj. with ἐάν after 
a primary tense. So in Ac. 27:12. In no instance where the 
opt. without ἄν occurs in the indirect discourse is it necessary. 
In all these examples the indicative or the subj. could have been 
retained. The infinitive with τίνα in 1 Pet. 5:8 is read by Nestle, 
but not by W. H. or Souter. See under (f), (6). 

(y) Interrogative Pronouns and Conjunctions Used. One notes 
at once the absence of ὅστις in this construction, the common 
classic idiom. We do have ὅτι once in Ac. 9:6, λαληθήσεταί σοι 
ὅτι σε δεῖ ποιεῖν. Klsewhere the most usual pronoun is τίς and τί 
as in Ac. 10 : 29; 21:33. We even have τίς τί ἄρῃ in Mk. 15 : 24 
(double interrogative). Tischendorf reads τίς τί in Lu. 19 : 15, 
but W. H. have only τί. This double use appears rarely in the 
older Greek.2 As a rule the distinction between ris and ὅς is pre- 


1 Prol., pp. 55, 198. Cf. Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 134. 
2 Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 68. 


MODE (EPKAISI) 1045 


served in indirect questions, as in Jo. 18 : 24 (cf. 18:12). The 
occasional confusion between ris and ὅς was discussed under Pro- 
nouns. See 1 Tim. 1:7 and Jas. 3:13. Now and then the sim- 
ple relative pronoun or adverb is used in an indirect question, as 
was true of classical Greek also. So Mk. 5:19 f. ὅσα, Lu. 8 : 47 
δὶ ἣν. αἰτίαν, Ac. 15:14 καθώς, 1 Th. 1:5 οἷοι, and the various 
examples of ws discussed in connection with Indirect Assertions 
(Lu. 8:47; Ac. 10:28, 38, etc.) which are more likely to be 
understood in the sense of ‘how,’ and so indirect questions. Cf. 
‘Lu. 6:3f. (6 and os), Mt. 10:19 (δοθήσεται πῶς ἢ τί λαλήσητε) 
and Lu. 17:8. Other interrogative words used are ποῦ (Mt. 
2:4), πόθεν (Jo. 8: 14), ποῖος (Rev. 3:3), πότε (Lu. 12: 36), πῶς 
(Lu. 8 : 36), πηλίκος (Gal. 6:11), πόσος (Mt. 16:9), ποταπός (Lu. 
1:29). The correlative words, besides the lone instance of ὅτι 
in Ac. 9:6, are ὅπως (Lu. 24 : 20), ὁποῖος (1 Th. 1:9). In Mk. 
14:14 (Lu. 22:11) ποῦ — ὅπου φάγω; some writers take the ὅπου 
clause as an indirect question with the deliberative subj., but 
it may be the volitive subj. simply. There are plenty of in- 
stances of εἰ in indirect questions (see Conditional Sentences) as 
in Mk. 15 :44 after θαυμάζω and érepwraw; Lu. 14 : 28 after ψη- 
φίζω; 14:31 after βουλεύομαι; Mt. 26 : 63 after εἶπον; 27:49 after 
dpaw; Mk. 3:2 after παρατηρέω; Jo. 9:25 after οἶδα; Ac. 4:19 
after κρίνω; 10: 18 after πυνθάνομαι; 19 : 2 after ἀκούω; 2 Cor. 2 :9 
after γινώσκω; 13:5 after repatw. There are, besides, those 
passages! where a word is suppressed, like Mk. 11 : 18; Eph. 3 : 2; 
Ph. 8:12; 2 Th. 2:15. See also the optative with εἰ in Ac. 
17 : 27; 25:20; 27:12. This is all quite classical and gives no 
trouble. We find μή likewise used in an indirect question after 
oxorew With the indicative (Lu. 11:35) and μή ποτε after διαλογί- 
ζομαι with the opt. (Lu. 3:15). In Jo. 7:17 an alternative indi- 
rect question occurs with πότερον --- 7. The only other alternative 
construction in an indirect question is in 2 Cor. 12 : 2 f. after οἶδα, 
and is εἴτε --- εἴτε. In all these points the N. T. is in harmony 
with the κοινή. The use of τί with the subj. (Mk. 6 : 36) or the 
future ind. (Ac. 25 : 26 possibly subj. aor.) may be compared with 
ποῦ after ἔχω in Lu. 9:58. In Col. 4:6 πῶς after εἰδέναι is to be 
distinguished from the use of the inf. after οἶδα (‘know how to 
do.’ Cf. Lu. 11:13). In Mk. 2 : 24, ἴδε τί ποιοῦσιν; the ἴδε is prob- 
ably just the interjection as in Mt. 25:25. For the acc. and the 
ind. question side by side see Mt. 16: 9. 

(6) The Article with Indirect Questions. This classical idiom 

1 Cf. Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 62. 


1046 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


appears in Luke and Paul. See τὸ ri (Lu. 1 : 62), τὸ ris (9 : 46), τὸ 
πῶς (22:4). So Paul has τὸ πῶς in 1 Th. 4:1 and 76 7i in Ro. 
8:26 (cf. τί τό in’ 8: 27)., See alsoabu. 22°.2345 Ac. 4221; 
22:30. The substantive nature of the indirect question is mall 
shown also in Jo. 4:10. Cf. Lu. 24:19f. 

(h) Indirect Command. As already explained, this construction 
is somewhat vague and the line is hard to draw between this and 
other idioms. 

(a) Deliberative Question. A direct command may be turned 
into a deliberative question in the indirect with the subjunctive. " 
The volitive idea of the imperative thus glides into the delibera- 
tive. In Lu. 12:5, ὑποδείξω δὲ ὑμῖν τίνα φοβηθῆτε" φοβήθητε τὸν, κτλ. 
we have the point illustrated both in the direct (imperative) and 
the indirect (deliberative subj.). Here the only difference be- 
tween the two forms is the accent. Cf. μὴ φοβηθῆτε in verse 4. In 
Mt. 10:28 we have φοβεῖσθε. Obviously this is a natural, though 
not very frequent, turn for the command to take. 

(8) The Conjunctions ἵνα and ὅπως. These may be used after 
verbs of commanding and beseeching. This idiom does not differ 
clearly from the sub-final construction. It is a species of purpose 
(or sub-final. See Final Clauses). The examples there given 
might suffice, but note the following: Mk. 6:8 παρήγγειλεν αὐτοῖς 
iva μηδὲν αἴρωσιν, Mt. 16:20 ἐπετίμησεν τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἵνα μηδενὶ εἴπω- 
σιν, 2 Th. ὃ : 12 παραγγέλλομεν καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν ἐν κυρίῳ ᾿Ι]ησοῦ 
Χριστῷ ἵνα — ἐσθίωσιν, Ac. 25:3 αἰτούμενοι ὅπως μεταπέμψηται. See 
further Mt. 8: 34; Lu. 16:27; 1 ον 1 In Lu. 16: 27f. we 
have the purely final idea in both ὅπως and ἵνα which are sub- 
ordinate to the first a after ἐρωτῶ. But we cannot follow this 
use of iva after θέλω and such verbs where it is more or less purely 
objective. The recitative ὅτι with the imperative in 2 Th. 3:10 
is not an instance of indirect command, but simply the direct 
command preserved. 

(y) The Infinitive. It seems more obvious and is still common 
in the κοινή, though retreating before ἵνα. The negative is, of 
course, μή. This use of the infinitive must not be confounded 
with the idiom for indirect assertion (declarative) as in Mk. 12: 
18, οἵτινες λέγουσιν ἀνάστασιν μὴ εἶναι. Note Ac. 21:21, λέγων μὴ 
περιτέμνειν αὐτοὺς τὰ τέκνα μηδὲ τοῖς ἔθεσιν περιπατεῖν, Where we have 
prohibition, not assertion (note incidentally the two accusatives) 
with λέγων (same verb as above). So also 23 : 12, λέγοντες μήτε 
φαγεῖν μήτε πεῖν. Cf. 21:4. Simple enough is the construction 
after εἶπα in Lu. 9: 54, εἴπωμεν πῦρ καταβῆναι; See also Mk. 8: 


MODE (ΕΓΚΛΙΣΙΣ) 1047 


7. In Mt. 16 : 12, συνῆκαν ὅτι οὐκ εἶπεν προσέχειν (cf. προσέχετε in 
verses 6 and 11), we have the declarative ὅτι and the indicative 
followed by the inf. in indirect command. In Lu. 2 : 26, ἣν αὐτῷ 
κεχρηματισμένον μὴ ἰδεῖν θάνατον, the construction is like that of in- 
direct command, but the sense comes nearer to the mere object 
infinitive. See the direct δώσω in Mk. 6:23 reproduced in the 
indirect by δοῦναι (Mt. 14:7). There is a certain amount of free- 
dom taken in such transference to the indirect. In Ac. 18 : 2, διὰ 
τὸ διατεταχέναι Κλαύδιον χωρίζεσθαι πάντας, the inf. is dependent on 
an inf. Other instances of the inf. in indir. command are seen in 
Ac. 25 : 24, βοῶντες μὴ δεῖν αὐτὸν ζῆν, 20 : 20, ἀπήγγελλον μετανοεῖν. 
In 2 Th. 3:6 we have παραγγέλλομεν στέλλεσθαι, while in verse 
12 we have iva. In verse 10 the direct quotation follows this 
same verb. In Mk. 6:8f. we have both ἵνα μὴ aipwow and μὴ 
ἐνδύσασθαι (marg. of W. H., Μὴ ἐνδύσησθε) after παρήγγειλεν. Luke 
(9 :'3-5) gives it all in the direct form. In. 2 Th. 3:14, τοῦτον᾽ 
σημειοῦσθε, μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι αὐτῷ, the inf. is not in indirect com- 
mand, but rather the inf. used in the direct as the equivalent of 
the imperative. But in 1 Cor. 5:11, ἔγραψα ὑμῖν μὴ συναναμίγνυ- 
σθαι (so also verse 9), we do have indirect command. 

(ἢ Mixture. Strictly this point belongs to the chapter on 
Figures of Speech (cf. also, Oratio Variata, The Sentence), but 
a word is called for here. We have mixture of several sorts as 
in the classic Greek. In Ac. 19:1 f., Παῦλον ἐλθεῖν καὶ εὑρεῖν, 
εἶπέν τε, we have the infinitive (object-clause subject of ἐγένετο) 
and the finite clause εἶπέν re side by side. Cf. Ac. 4: δ ἢ. for 
inf. followed by καί and the indicative. So in Lu. 9:19 we 
have the infinitive construction and the ὅτι construction side by 
side after ἀποκριθέντες εἶπαν. In Ac. 14: 22, παρακαλοῦντες ἐμμένειν 
τῇ πίστει καὶ ὅτι --- δεῖ, the construction glides from the inf. into 
ὅτι. In Ro. 3:8 the recitative ὅτι is dependent on the inf. 
λέγειν after φασίν. In Ac. 9: 27, διηγήσαντο πῶς ἐν TH ὁδῷ εἶδεν τὸν 
κύριον καὶ ὅτι ἐλάλησεν αὐτῷ, καὶ πῶς κτλ., we have a change from ind. 
question to indirect assertion and then back again to indirect 
question. The change may be from the indirect to the direct 
as in Ac. 1:4, περιμένειν τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πατρὸς ἣν ἠκούσατε μου. 
Cf. also 28 :22. See also Jo. 12:29. This change appears in 
Mk. 6:8f., if the true text is ἐνδύσησθε. But the change may 
be just the reverse, from the direct to the indirect, as in Ac. 23: 
23, εἶπεν ᾿Ετοιμάσατε — κτήνη τε παραστῆσαι. In 27:10 ὅτι occurs 
with the inf., a mixture of the ὅτι and the infinitive constructions 
in indirect assertions. This use of ὅτι with the inf. appears in 


1048 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


classic Attic (cf. Xen., Cyr., 1, 6, 18, etc.). See Jannaris, Hist. 
Gk. Gr., p. 570. Moulton (Prol., p. 213) gives a papyrus example, 
O. P. 237 (ii/A.D.), δηλῶν ὅτι εἰ τὰ ἀληθῆ φανείη μηδὲ κρίσεως δεῖσθαι 
τὸ πρᾶγμα. See further Winer-Moulton, p. 426. 

(j) The Subordinate Clause. A complex sentence may be 
quoted in indirect discourse as readily as the simple sentence. 
This principal clause follows the usual laws already discussed. 
Secondary tenses of the indicative in the subordinate clause 
suffer no change at all in mood or tense.! This is obviously true 
after primary tenses, as in Gal. 4:15, μαρτυρῶ ὑμῖν ὅτι εἰ δυνατόν 
- ἐδώκατέ por. Here the copula ἦν is suppressed. In Lu. 19:15 
note εἶπεν φωνηθῆναι--- οἷς δεδώκει. So after primary tenses the pri- 
mary tense follows, as in Mk. 11 : 29, λέγω ὅτι ὃς ἂν εἴπῃ — ἔσται 
αὐτῷ. Cf. Ac. 25:14f. But even after secondary tenses the rule 
is to retain the tense and mode of the direct much more than in 
the Attic where the mode was quite optional.? See Lu. 9 : 33, εἶπεν 
μὴ εἰδὼς ὃ λέγει. Another example of the relative clause appears in 
Mt. 18 : 25, ἐκέλευσεν --- πραθῆναι --- καὶ ὅσα ἔχει. Even after a con- 
dition of the second class the primary tense may be retained, as 
in Lu. 7:39, ἐγίνωσκεν ἂν τίς Kal ποταπὴ ἡ γυνὴ ἥτις ἅπτεται αὐτοῦ 
ὅτι ἁμαρτωλός ἐστιν. For a causal sentence see ἐκωλύομεν αὐτὸν ὅτι 
οὐκ ἀκολουθεῖ μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν (Lu. 9:49). A temporal clause with the 
subjunctive appears in Mt. 14 : 22, ἠνάγκασεν --- προάγειν — ἕως οὗ 
ἀπολύσῃ. See also Ac. 23:12, ἀνεθεμάτισαν --- ἕως οὗ ἀποκτείνωσιν. 
In 25:16, however, we have the optative in the subordinate 
clause of time with πρὶν ἢ (ἔχοι, λάβοι) after ἀπεκρίθην, the sole ex- 
ample. It is in Luke, as one would expect. The change here is 
from the subj. to the opt. In Lu. 7: 43, ὅτι ᾧ, only the subordinate 
relative clause is given. 

10. SERIES OF SUBORDINATE CLAUSES. It is interesting to 
observe how rich the Greek language is in subordinate clauses 
and how they dovetail into each other. It is almost like an end- 
less chain. The series may run on ad infinitum and yet all be in 
perfect conformity to the genius of the language. I have col- 
lected quite a number of examples to illustrate this complexity of 
structure, some of which are here given. A typical one is Mk. 
11:23. After λέγω ὅτι we have ds ἂν εἴπῃ which has oratio recta, 
but the relative clause proceeds with καὶ μὴ διακριθῇ ἀλλὰ πιστεύῃ 
ὅτι ὃ λαλεῖ γίνεται. The relative ὃ λαλεῖ is the fourth involution of 
subordinate clauses after λέγω. Cf. also Jo. 17:24. A similar 
multiplicity of subordinate clauses is found in Ac. 25: 14-16. 

1 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 273. 45Ib;, poates 


MODE (ΕΓΆΛΙΣΙΣ) 1049 


After ἀνέθετο λέγων we have oratio recta. The first step is the rela- 
tive clause περὶ οὗ — ἐνεφάνισαν, on which hangs πρὸς ols ἀπεκρίθην, 
which in turn is followed by ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν and that by χαρίζεσθαι, 
and this again by πρὶν ἢ ἔχοι --- λάβοι. The πρὶν 7 clause is the 
fifth involution in the oratio recta. Cf. also Ac. ὃ : 19 ff. (πρὸς τὸ 
ἐξαλιφθῆναι, ὅπως av, ὃν δεῖ δέξασθαι, wv). In Ac. 11:18 there are 
five involutions. The complications are not, of course, always 
somany. In Lu. 7: 39 the oratio recta has a series of three (ris — 
ἥτις --- drt). See the threefold series in Ro. 3:8, καθώς φασίν τινες 
ἡμᾶς λέγειν ὅτι, κτλ. So also Mk. 6:55, περιφέρειν ὅπου ἤκουον ὅτι 
ἔστιν (infinitive, relative, declarative). So again 1 Cor. 11:23 f. 
(ὅτι, 7, εἶπεν and oratio recta). Here also the 6 clause is in appo- 
sition with the ὅτι clause. Cf. Lu. 19:15 (inf., ἵνα, τί). In Ac. 
7:25, ἐνόμιζεν συνιέναι τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ὅτι, KTA., We have two forms of 
indirect assertion (the inf., then ὅτι), one dependent on the other. 
So also ὅτι follows διὰ τὸ λέγεσθαι in Lu. 9:7f. In Ph. 4:10 we 
have the ὅτι clause and then the articular inf. In Jo. 6: 24 the 
ὅτι Clause is subordinate to the ὅτε clause. In 1 Jo. 5:9 we have 
a ὅτι Clause dependent on a ὅτι clause. In Jo. 4:1 we have ws — 
ὅτι --- ὅτι. In Mt. 16:20 the sequence is ἵνα --- ὅτι. So Jo. 16: 
4: 17: 28. In Mk. 14:14 we have two cases of oratio recta, one 
dependent on the other. In Lu. 24:7 it is as — ὅτι. Cf. ἵνα --- 
wa in Gal 3:14. In Col. 1: 9 the ἵνα clause and the infinitive 
περιπατῆσαι are parallel. The instances are numerous where 
one infinitive is dependent on another infinitive. Thus ἐξελθεῖν 
πρσεύξασθαι (Lu. 6 : 12); δοθῆναι φαγεῖν (ὃ : 55); πρὸς τὸ δεῖν προσεύ- 
χεσθαι (18:1); διὰ τὸ τεταχέναι Κλαύδιον χωρίζεσθαι, after ἐληλυθότα 
(Ac. 18 : 2); δεῖν πρᾶξαι (20 : 9); γεγενῆσθαι εἰς τὸ βεβαιῶσαι (Ro. 15: 
8); κατηρτίσθαι εἰς τὸ γεγονέναι (Heb. 11:3). In Ac. 23 : 80, μηνυ- 
θείσης μοι ἐπιβουλῆς εἰς τὸν ἄνδρα ἔσεσθαι, the future inf. in indirect 
discourse is dependent on the participle in the genitive absolute. 
In. Heb. 9:8, τοῦτο δηλοῦντος τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου πεφανερῶσθαι, 
the perfect inf. follows the genitive absolute. There are various 
other combinations. These are given as illustrations. No rules 
are called for about the using of a series of subordinate clauses. 
The presence of so many of them in Luke, Paul and Hebrews 
shows the literary quality of a more periodic structure. 


CHAPTER XX 
VERBAL NOUNS (ὈΝΌΜΑΤΑ TOY ‘PHMATO2) 


I. Kinship. The finite verb, verbum finitum (das bestimmte 
Verb), has now been discussed as adequately as the space in this 
grammar allows. Originally there was no difference between 
verb and noun (see Conjugation of the Verb). But gradually 
there was developed a difference. It was done largely by the 
help of the pronouns which were added to the verb-stems. Nouns 
also had their own inflection. But a considerable body of words 
partook of the nature of both verb and noun and yet did not cut 
loose from either. In a sense therefore the finite verb is a com- 
bination of verb and pronoun while the non-finite verb combines 
verb and noun. These verbal nouns are the non-finite verb, ver- 
bum infinitum (das unbestimmte Verb)... They failed to add the 
personal pronominal endings of the finite verb and so did not 
become limited to a subject (finite). And yet they developed 
tense and voice and were used with the same cases as the finite 
verb. In so far they are true verbs. On the other hand they are 
themselves always in a case like other nouns. The verbal sub- 
stantive comes to drop its inflection (fixed case-form) while the 
verbal adjective is regularly inflected in the singular and plural 
of all three genders just like any other adjective. These verbal’ 
nouns may be regarded either as hybrids or as cases of arrested 
development, more properly deflected development, for they con- 
tinued to develop in a very wonderful way. The Greek of the 
Attic period would be barren indeed if robbed of the infinitives 
and the participles. The names are not distinctive, since both 
are participles? (partake of the nature of both verb and noun) 
and both are non-finite or infinitives (are not limited to a subject 
by personal endings). The root-difference between these lies not 


1 K.-BI., Bd. IT, p. 4. 

2 In K.-G. (Bd. I, p. 1) the ch. begins thus: “Lehre von den Partizipialen; 
dem Infinitiv und dem Partizipe.” Both are “participles’’ and both are 
“infinitives.”’ 

1050 


VERBAL NOUNS (ὈΝΌΜΑΤΑ TOT ‘PHMATO2) 1051 


in the verbal idea, but in the noun. It is the difference between 
substantive and adjective. Both are verbals, both are nouns, but 
one is a substantive and the other is an adjective. These general 
remarks may help one to understand the history and usage of 
both infinitive and participle. | 

II. The Infinitive (ἡ ἀπαρέμφατος ἔγκλισις or τὸ ἀπαρέμφατον 
ῥῆμα). 

1. ΟΗΙαΙΝ. There is no real ground for difference of opinion 
on this subject, however much scholars may argue as to the sig- 
nificance of the infinitive.! In the Sanskrit the infinitive did not 
have tense or voice. The root used was that of a substantive 
closely connected with a verb.” But it is verbal in Sanskrit also 
in the notion of action, nomina actionis. In the Veda and Brah- 
mana the number of these verbal nouns is very large. They are 
used with cases, the cases corresponding to the verb, but that 
_ phenomenon appears in Latin and Greek. In Plautus ‘we ‘even 
find the abstract noun factio in the nominative governing its 
case just as if it were tangere. Classical Greek has a few well- 
known examples of a noun or adjective governing the case ap- 
propriate to the verb with which it is closely connected.”’? The 
same thing occurs in the N. T. also. Cf. κοινωνία φωτί (2 Cor. 
6:14). See chapter on Cases. These substantives have enough 
“verbal consciousness”? to “govern’’ cases.2 In the old San- 
skrit these verbal substantives occur in any case (except the 
vocative, which is not a real case). The later Sanskrit has only 
one such case-ending so used, the accusative in -twm or —itum 
(cf. the Latin supine). But for the developments in other lan- 
guages, especially in the Greek and Latin, these Sanskrit verbal 
substantives would not have been called infinitives. But they 
show beyond controversy the true origin of the infinitive before 
tense and voice were added. They were originally substantives 
in any case, which were used as fixed case-forms (cf. adverbs) 
which had a verbal idea (action), and which were made on verbal 
roots. The Latin shows three cases used in this way: the loca- 
tive as in regere, the dative as in reg? and the accusative as in 
the supine rectum.’ The Greek infinitive shows only two case- 
endings, the dative —ac as in λῦσαι (cf. also dofévar, δοῦναι, with 
Sanskrit davdné; Homeric Fiduevor with Sanskrit vidmdné) or the 


1 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 297. 8 ΤΌ,, Ρ. 208. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 202. 4 Whitney, Sans. Gr., pp. 347 ff. 

δ Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 202; Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 469; Vogrinz, 
Gr. d. hom. Dial., 1889, p. 139. 


1052 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


locative in λύειν: Thus in the Greek and Latin it is only oblique 
cases that were used to form the infinitives.2 It is then as a 
substantive that the infinitive makes its start. We see this in the 
Sanskrit davdné vdstindm = δοῦναι τῶν ἀγαθῶν. This substantive 
aspect is clearly seen in the use of παντός with τοῦ ζῆν in Heb. 
2:15. The first’ step towards the verbal idea was in the con- 
struction δοῦναι τὰ ἀγαθά. Moulton® illustrates the border-land of 
the English inf. by the sentence: ‘‘He went out to work again.” 
If we read “hard work” we have a substantive; but if we read 
“work hard,” we have a verbal notion. Strictly speaking, δοῦναι 
τὰ ἀγαθά =‘for giving the good things,’ while ἰδεῖν τὰ ἀγαθά = ‘in 
seeing the good things.’ This was the original etymological sense 
as the Sanskrit makes clear. See further chapter on Conjugation 
of Verb. 

2. DeveLopmMentT. In the Sanskrit we see the primitive in- 
finitive without tense or voice. In the modern Greek the in- 
finitive, outside of the Pontic dialect, has disappeared save with 
auxiliary verbs, and even so it is in a mutilated state, as with 
θέλει λύει, ἤθελα δεθεῖ, ἔχω δέσει, remnants of the ancient infini- 
tives λύειν, δεθῆναι, δέσαι (Thumb, Handb., pp. 162, 167). Between 
these two extremes comes the history of the rise and fall of the 
Greek infinitive. We may sketch that history in five periods.® 

(a) The Prehistoric Period. ‘The infinitive is simply a substan- 
tive with the strict sense of the dative or locative case. Cf. the 
Sanskrit. We may infer also that there was no tense or voice. 
This original epexegetical use of the inf. as the dative of limita- 
tion has survived with verbs, substantives and adjectives. So 
ὁ χρόνος τοῦ τεκεῖν (Lu. 1:57). Cf. our “8. wonder to behold.”’ 
See δύναται δουλεύειν (Mt. 6 : 24), ὁρμὴ ὑβρίσαι (Ac. 14:5), ἱκανὸς 
λῦσαι (Mk. 1:7). See also Jas. 1:19, ταχὺς εἰς τὸ ἀκοῦσαι, where 
els τὸ reproduces the dative idea. 

(b) The Earliest Historic Period. The case-form (dative or lo- 
cative) begins to lose its significance. In Homer the dative idea is 
still the usual one for the infinitive, in harmony with the form.’ 
With verbs of wishing, commanding, expecting, beginning, being 
able, etc., the dative idea is probably the original explanation of 


1 Cf. Giles (Man., p. 470) for λύ-ειν and its relation to the Sans. —san-t. 
2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 515. 4 ΤΌ, 
Δ Ss Prolki pe 203: 


® Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 148, has four. But see Robertson, Short Gr. 
of the Gk. N. T., p. 188. 
7 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 154. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) 1053 


the idiom. Cf. οἴδατε διδόναι (Mt. 7:11), ‘knows how to give’ 
(for ‘giving’). Homer has βῆ δ᾽ iévac=‘stepped’ for ‘going.’ But 
already in Homer there are signs that the case-form is getting 
obscured or stereotyped. It occurs as apparent subject with 
impersonal verbs and as the logical object of verbs of saying in 
indirect discourse.!. The use of πρίν with the inf. is common also 
in Homer. Πρίν would naturally be used with the ablative, like 
pura and the infinitive in Sanskrit,? and so the Greek idiom must 
have arisen after the dative or locative idea of the inf. in Greek 
was beginning to fade. In Homer the inf. is already a fixed 
case-form. The disappearance of —a as a distinct case-ending in 
Greek may have made men forget that the usual inf. was dative. 
This dative inf. was probably a survival of the old and once 
common dative of purpose. Gradually the inf. passed from 
being merely a word of limitation (epexegetic) to being subject 
or object. We see the beginning of this process in Homer, 
though there is only* one instance of the article with the inf., 
and that is in the Odyssey (20. 52), τὸ φυλάσσει. But even 
here τό may be demonstrative.’ But in Homer the inf. has tense 
and voice, a tremendous advance over the Sanskrit inf. This 
advance marks a distinct access of the verbal aspect of the inf. 
But there was no notion of time in the tense of the inf. except in 
indir. discourse where analogy plays a part and the inf. represents 
a finite mode. This use of the inf., afterwards so common in 
Latin, seems to have been developed first in the Greek.’ But it 
was the loss of the dative force as an essential factor that allowed 
the inf. to become distinctly verbalized.’ As it came to be, it 
was an imperfect instrument of language. As a verb it lacked 
person, number and time except in indirect discourse. As a 
substantive it lacked inflection (without case or number) after it 
came to be limited to two cases. Even after the case-idea van- 
ished and it was used in various cases it was still indeclinable.? 


1 Ib., pp. 157, 159. 2 Whitney, Sans. Gr., § 983. 

3 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 158. It seems a bit odd to find Radermacher 
(N. T. Gr., p. 145) saying of the inf.: “in seiner urspriinglichen Bedeutung 
als Modus.” The inf. is not a mode and the original use was substantival, 
not verbal. 

4 Monro, ib., p. 179. 

6 Birklein, Entwickelungsgesch. des substantivierten Infin., 1888, p. 2 f. 

6 Monro, Hom. Gk., pp. 158 ff. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 515. 

7 Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, p. 299. 

8 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1882, p. 195. 

9 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 568. 


1054 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


The addition of tense and voice to the fixed case-form of the 
substantive with verbal root was possible just because of the 
obscuration of the case-idea. 

(c) The Classic Period from Pindar on. The articular infini- 
tive is often used and there is renewed accent on its substanti- 
val aspects. The inf. is freely used with or without the article 
in any case (except vocative) without any regard to the dative or 
locative ending. Pindar first uses the neuter article τό with the 
inf. as the subject.!. ‘By the assumption of the article it was 
substantivized again with a decided increment of its power.’’? 
It is to be remembered, however, that the article itself is a de- 
velopment from the demonstrative and was very rare in Homer 
with anything. Hence too much must not be made of the later 
use of the article with the inf. Hesiod shows two examples of the 
article with the inf. Pindar has nine and one in the accusative.’ 
The absence or ambiguous character of the article in early Greek 
makes it necessary to be slow in denying the substantival aspect 
or character of the inf. in the Homeric period.’ Hence it is best 
to think of the article as being used more freely with the inf. as 
with other nouns as the article made its onward way. The greatly 
increased use of the article with the inf. did serve to restore the 
balance between the substantival and verbal aspects of the inf. 
now that tense and voice had come in. The enlarged verb-force 
was retained along with the fresh access of substantival force. 
“The Greek infinitive has a life of its own, and a richer and 
more subtle development than can be found in any of the cog- 
nate languages.’”’® The infinitive, thus enriched on both sides, 
has a great career in the classic period of the language, especially 
in Thucydides, the Orators, Xenophon and Plato. It has a 
great variety of uses. In general, however, it may be said that 
the inf. was not as popular in the vernacular as in the literary 
style for the very reason that it was synthetic rather than analytic, 
that it lacked clearness and emphasis. But it was not till the 
κοινή period that the inf. began to disappear.’ 

(d) The Kown Period. The inf. begins to disappear before ἵνα 


1 Burton, N. T. M. and T.,; p. 143. 

2: Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1882, p. 195. 

8. Birklein, Entw. d. subst. Infinitivs, p. 4 f. 

* Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 576. Hesseling (Essai hist. sur Vinfinitif grec, 
1892, p. 5) puts the matter too strongly. 

® Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1882, p. 195. 

6 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 569. 7 Ib., p. 480. 


—— | 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ῬΗΜΑΤΟΣ) 1055 


on the one hand and ὅτι on the other. Jannaris! outlines the 
two chief functions of the iff. in its developed state to be pro- 
spective (purpose like ἵνα) and declarative (subject or object like 
ὅτι, and ἵνα ultimately also). The fondness for analysis rather 
_ than synthesis, particularly in the vernacular, gradually pushed 
the inf. to the wall. The process was slow, but sure. There is 
indeed a counter tendency in the enlarged use of τοῦ and the 
inf. in the κοινή, particularly in the LXX under the influence of 
the Hebrew infinitive construct, and so to some extent in the 
N. T. So from Polybius on there is seen an increase of τοῦ and 
the inf. side by side with the enlarged use of ἵνα and ὅτι. The 
two contradictory tendencies work at the same time.2 On the 
whole in the κοινή the inf. has all the main idioms of the classic 
age (with the marked absence of ἐφ᾽ @ re) and the new turn given 
to τοῦ and ἐν 7G. The Hebrew did not use the inf. as much as 
the Greek and never with the article. Certainly the inf. is far 
less frequent in the LXX than in the comparatively free Greek 
of the N. T., about half as often (2.5 to the page in the LXX, 
4.2 in the N. T.).2. But the Hebrew has not, even in the LXX, 
introduced any new uses of the inf. in the Greek. The Hebrew 
inf. construct had no article and was thus unlike τοῦ and the 
inf. The total number of infinitives in the N. T., according 
to Votaw,’ is 2,276. The number of anarthrous infs. is 1,957, 
of articular 319. The inroad of ἵνα and ὅτι is thus manifest as 
compared with the Attic writers. The writings of Luke show 
the largest and most varied use of the inf., while the Johannine 
writings have the fewest. Paul’s use is very uneven. Votaw® 
finds the same inequality in the case of the apocryphal books. 
The papyri show a similar situation. Different writers vary 
greatly, but on the whole the inf. is dying save in the use with 
auxiliary verbs, and it is going even there as is seen from the 
use of ἵνα with θέλω in the N. T. Cf. Mk. 9:30. In the κοινή 
we find ἵνα with βούλομαι and δύναμαι in Polybius, the LXX and 
later κοινή writers.’ As the inf. disappears in the later Greek 
strange combinations appear, as in Malalas and Theophanes we 


1 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 568. 

2 Kalker, Questiones de Elocutione Polyb., 1880, p. 302. 

3 Votaw, The Use of the Inf. in Bibl. Gk., 1896, p. 55. 

4 Tb., p. 50. 

§ Ib., p. 52. 6 Tb. 

7 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 248. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 574, 
for list of verbs with iva in late Gk. 


1056 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


meet πρὸ τοῦ with the subjunctive (πρὸ rod ἐπιρρίψωσιν, πρὸ τοῦ 
ἑνωθῶσιν). The inf. never had a monopoly of any construction 
save as the complement of certain verbs like βούλομαι, θέλω, etc. 
This was probably the original use of the inf. with verbs and it 
was true to the dative case-idea.2 It was here alone that the inf. 
was able to make a partial stand to avoid complete obliteration. 

(ὁ) The Later Period. Outside of the Pontic dialect the inf. is 
dead, both anarthrous and articular, save with the auxiliary 
verbs.2 The use of θέλω as a mere auxiliary is common enough 
in Herodotus and probably was frequent in the vernacular then 
as it was later.4 ‘The fortunes of the infinitive were determined 
by its nature.’”’> The increased use of abstract nouns made it 
less needed for that purpose, as the fondness for ἵνα and ὅτι made 
it less necessary as a verb. The N. T. is mid-stream in this cur- 
rent and also midway between the rise and the end of this river. 
The writers will use the inf. and ἵνα side by side or the inf. and 
ὅτι parallel. Even in the classical Attic we find ὅπως after πει- 
ράομαι (Xenophon). As ὅπως disappeared iva stepped into its 
place. In Latin ut was likewise often used when the inf. could 
have occurred. The blending of ἵνα and ὅτι in the κοινή helped 
on the process. 

In the N. T. the exclusive province of the inf. is a rather nar- 
row’ one. It still occurs alone with δύναμαι and μέλλω. It has a 
wide extension of territory with rod. But on the whole it has 
made distinct retreat since the Attic period. The story is one of 
the most interesting in the history of language. 

3. SIGNIFICANCE. Originally, as we have seen, the infinitive 
was a substantive, but a verbal substantive. This set case of an 
abstract substantive has related itself closely to the verb.’ The 
Stoic grammarians® called it a verb, ἀπαρέμφατον ῥῆμα, ἀπαρέμφα- 
tos ἔγκλισις. Apollonius Dyskolos’ called it a “‘fifth mode” and 
the later grammarians followed his error. Some of the Roman 
grammarians actually took infinitiwus in the sense perfectus, 


1 Rueger, Beitr. zur hist. Synt. d. griech. Sprache, 1895, p. 11. 

2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 154. 

3 Jebb in V. and D.’s Handb., p. 324. 

4 Ib., p. 326. G. Meyer (Essays und Studien, 1885, p. 101) says that the 
Albanians are the only Slavic folk “dem ein Infinitiv abgeht.” It is due to 
the mod. Gk. 

5 Thompson, Synt. of the Attic Gk., p. 247. 

$ Blass, Gr. of NT) Gk. p. 221: 7 Ib., p. 222. 

8. Curtius, Erlaut., p. 296. 

9. Jolly, Gesch. des Inf. im Indoger., 1873, p. 16. 10 Tbh., p. 22. 


VERBAL NOUNS (‘ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) 1057 


just as they mistranslated γενική by genitivus.. Bopp? rightly 
perceived that the inf. has a nominal origin and was later ad- 
justed to the verb in Greek. It is not a real verb in the very 
height of its glory.2 And yet the consciousness of the nominal 
origin was partially obscured even in the time of Homer. The 
original case-form is so far forgotten that this dative may appear 
in the nominative and the accusative. The tenses and voices 
have developed. But Brugmann‘ seems to go too far in saying 
that already the inf. was “only” a verb in the popular feeling. 
Moulton,®> indeed, harks back to Apollonius Dyskolos: “The 
mention of ‘The Verb’ has been omitted in the heading of this 
chapter, in deference to the susceptibilities of grammarians who 
wax warm when λύειν or λύσας is attached to the verb instead of 
the noun. But having thus done homage to orthodoxy, we pro- 
ceed to treat these two categories almost exclusively as if they 
were mere verbal moods, as for most practical purposes they 
are.’ He states, it is true, that every schoolboy knows that in 
origin and part of the use the inf. is a substantive, but ‘nearly 
all that is distinctive is verbal.’’® I venture to say that this is 
overstating the case. It is not a mere question of the notion of 
the user of the infinitive in this passage or that. The history is 
as it is. In the full development of the inf. we see the blending 
of both substantive and verb. In this or that example the 
substantival or the verbal aspect of the hybrid form may be dom- 
inant, but the inf. in the historical period is always both substan- 
tive and verb. It is not just a substantive, nor just a verb, but 
both at the same time. The form itself shows this. The usage 
conforms to the facts of etymology. It is not true that the article 
. makes the inf. a substantive as Winer’ has it. As a matter of 
fact, therefore, the inf. is to be classed neither with the noun nor 
with the verb, but with the participle, and both stand apart as 
verbal nouns. The article did enlarge® the scope of the inf. just 
as the use of tense did. The Germans can say das Trinken and 
French le savoir like the Greek τὸ γνῶναι. -There is no infinitive 
in Arabic. As a matter of fact, the inf. because of its lack of end- 
ings (here the participle is better off with the adjective endings) 
is the least capable of all parts of speech of fulfilling its functions.® 


1 Ib., pp. 31 ff. 2 Vergl. Gr., p. 3. 

3 Cf. Schroeder, Uber die formelle Untersch. der Redet. im Griechischen 
und Lateinischen, p. 10. 

4 Griech: ατ., Ρ. 515. 65 Ib. 8 Goodwin, Μ. and T., p. 298. 

5 Prol., p. 202. 7 W.-M., p. 406. 9 W.-M., p. 399. 


1058 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 


In its very nature it is supplementary. It is either declarative or 
prospective,! but always a verbal substantive. There is a differ- 
ence between τὸ πράσσειν and ἡ πρᾶξις. Both have verbal stems 
and both are abstract. The difference? lies in the tense and 
voice of πράσσειν. But πράσσειν has all that is in πρᾶξις plus tense 
and voice. I decline, therefore, to divide the infinitive into the 
anarthrous and articular uses so popular in the grammars. These 
uses do exist, but they simply represent two uses of the inf. in 
its substantival aspects. They do not affect the verbal side of 
the inf. at all. The inf. may properly be discussed under its sub- 
stantival and its verbal aspects. But even so a number of uses 
cross over as indirect discourse, for instance, or the inf. to express 
purpose (with or without the article). We must look at both 
sides of the inf. every time to get a total idea οἵ .its value. A 
number of points of a special nature will require treatment. 

4. SUBSTANTIVAL ASPECTS OF THE INFINITIVE. 

(a) Case (Subject or Object Infinitive). Here I mean the cases 
of the inf. itself, not the cases used with it. The inf. is always in a 
case. Asa substantive this is obvious. We have to dismiss, for 
the most part, all notion of the ending (dative or locative) and treat 
it as an indeclinable substantive. A whole series of impersonal 
expressions has the inf. as subject besides the ordinary verbs. 
Thus note 1 Cor. 9:15 καλόν pou μᾶλλον ἀποθανεῖν, (Heb. 4 : 6; 
9 : 27) ἀπόκειται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἅπαξ ἀποθανεῖν, (Mt. 18 : 13) ἐὰν γένη- 
ται εὑρεῖν αὐτό, (3:15) πρέπον ἐστὶν ἡμῖν πληρῶσαι, (Ac. 21:35) 
συνέβη βαστάζεσθαι, (Lu. 6 : 12) ἐγένετο ἐξελθεῖν αὐτόν, (18 : 25) εὐκο- 
πὠτερόν ἐστιν εἰσελθεῖν, (JO. 18 : 14) συμφέρει ἀποθανεῖν, (Mt. 22:17) 
ἔξεστιν δοῦναι, (Heb. 9:5) οὐκ ἔστιν νῦν λέγειν, (Ac. 27: 24) δεῖ παρα- 
στῆναι, (Ac. 2 : 24) ἦν δυνατὸν κρατεῖσθαι, (Ph. 3:1) τὰ αὐτὰ γρά- 
φειν οὐκ ὀκνηρόν. So Ac. 20:16; 2 Pet. 2:21. All this is simple 
enough. The articular inf. is likewise found in the nominative 
as in Mk. 9 : 10, τί ἐστιν τὸ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστῆναι. Here the article is 
not far removed from the original demonstrative. Cf. 10 : 40, τὸ 
καθίσαι οὐκ ἔστιν ἐμὸν δοῦναι, where δοῦναι is probably the original 
dative ‘for giving.’ One naturally feels that the articular inf. 
is more substantival than the anarthrous, as in Ro. 7: 18, τὸ 6é- 
Aew παράκειταί por, but that is not correct. The subject-inf. oc- 
curs freely both with and without the article in the N. T. as in 
the κοινή generally. See Mt. 15:20 τὸ φαγεῖν, (Mk. 12 : 33) τὸ 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 568 f. Cf. Henry, Revue de Linguistique de la 
Philologie Comparée, vol. XX, ii. 
2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 153. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATOS) 1059 


ἀγαπᾶν, (Ro. 7:18) τὸ θέλειν and τὸ κατεργάζεσθαι. Add 1 Cor. 
eG all. ΟΡ Cor. θ᾽: be Phi: 213624) 29" 60 510: 315 Ro: 14: 
21. The origin of this nominative or subject is probably due 
to its use with impersonal expressions. Moulton! illustrates it 
by the Latin humanum est errare, where the force of the locative 
form errare may be seen by translating: ‘There is something 
human in erring.’ This may have been the original idiom, but 
it has gone beyond that to mean: ‘Erring is human.’ English 
students often forget that ‘erring’ is here infinitive, not parti- 
ciple, both in sense and history. It isa step further in the N. T. 
to see rod and the inf. used as subject nominative. Cf. Lu. 17: 
1; Ac. 10:25; 1 Cor. 16:4. In 2 Cor. 7:11 the substantival as- 
pect of the inf. is shown by the use of the pronoun αὐτὸ τοῦτο τὸ 
λυπηθῆναι In the nominative with κατειργάσατο. Cf. the inf. in the 
predicate nom. with τοῦτο in Ro. 1:12, τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν συνπαρα- 
κληθῆναι. So in Ro. 18:11, Spa ἤδη ὑμᾶς ἐξ ὕπνου ἔγερθῆναι, where 
the inf. is in predicate apposition with ὥρα. Originally it was 
doubtless ‘time for arising.’ In 1 Th. 4:6 we have both the 
anarthrous and articular inf. in apposition with τοῦτο. Cf. also 
the appositive inf. in Ac. 15:28; Jas. 1:27; 1 Th. 4:3; Ro. 
4:13. 

The object-infinitive in the accusative is even more common 
both with and, particularly, without the article. In the N. T. 
more than half of the instances of the inf. come in here, the ob- 
ject-inf. with verbs of various sorts.2, In the LX X, however, it 
is rare in proportion to the other uses. ~The accusative case is 
to us more manifest when the article occurs. See Ph. 2 : 6, οὐχ 
ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, where the articular inf. is the 
direct object of ἡγήσατο. So in 2:13, with ὁ ἐνεργῶν καὶ τὸ θέλειν 
καὶ τὸ ἐνεργεῖν. Cf. Ac. 25:11, οὐ παραιτοῦμαι τὸ ἀποθανεῖν. See 
further 1 Cor. 14:39; 2 Cor. 8:10. In Ph. 4:10, ἀνεθάλετε τὸ 
ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν, the acc. may be that of general reference. Cer- 
tainly in 1 Th. 3: 3, τὸ σαίνεσθαι, this is true. Blass* calls it 
here “quite superfluous.” In Ro. 14:13 τὸ μὴ τιθέναι is in ap- 
position with the accusative τοῦτο, as in 2 Cor. 2:1. In 2 Cor. 
10:2, δέομαι τὸ μὴ παρὼν θαρρῆσαι, we should naturally look for 
the ablative with δέομαι. The instances without the article are 
more numerous. A fairly complete list of the verbs in the N. T. 
that have the inf. in indirect discourse was given in the chapter 
on Modes (Indirect Discourse, (f), (8)). These infs. are in the acc., 


1 Prol., p. 210. 2 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 57. 
3 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 284. Cf. 2 Esd. ὁ : ὃ τὸ μὴ καταργηθῆναι. 


1060 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


though some of them may possibly preserve the original dative 
or locative idea. But the ace. with the inf. is that of general 
reference, while the inf. itself is in the acc. case, the object of the 
verb of saying or thinking. Cf. Lu. 2 : 44, νομίσαντες αὐτὸν εἶναι. 
The occasional use of the nom. predicate, as in Ph. 4:11, ἔμαθον 
αὐτάρκης εἶναι, accents the acc. character of the object-inf. This 
point is clear also in the case of indirect commands where the 
noun or pronoun is in the dative and the inf. in the acc., as in 1 
Cor. 5:11, ἔγραψα ὑμῖν μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι. The illustrations are 
numerous and need not be multiplied (see list under Indirect 
Discourse). With βούλομαι, δύναμαι, θέλω the dative makes a good 
idea and was probably so understood in the beginning.! It may 
be questioned, however, if in actual usage this idiom is not also 
the ace. Cf. Mt. 1:19 ἐβουλήθη ἀπολῦσαι, (1: 20) μὴ φοβηθῇς παρα- 
λαβεῖν, (5:34) Aeyw ὑμῖν μὴ ὀμόσαι, (16:12) οὐκ εἶπεν προσέχειν, 
(Lu. 18 : 1) πρὸς τὸ δεῖν προσεύχεσθαι (both infs. in the 866., one with 
πρός, the other general reference with δεῖν), (Ro. 15:8) λέγω 
Χριστὸν διάκονον γεγενῆσθαι (cf. Ac. 27: 18), (2 Cor. 10:2) λογίζομαι 
τολμῆσαι, (1 Th. 4:11) παρακαλοῦμεν περισσεύειν καὶ φιλοτιμεῖσθαι 
ἡσυχάζειν καὶ πράσσειν τὰ ἴδια καὶ ἐργάζεσθαι (note the interrelation 
of these infs.). See further Mk. 5:28; 12:12; 1110 Ὁ Jo. 5: 
18; Ro. 14:2; Gal. 3:2; 1 Cor. 10:13. In the acc. also are the 
articular infs. with prepositions like eis (Ro. 1:11); διά (Ac. 8: 
11); wera (Lu. 22 : 20); πρὸς (Mt. 5 : 28). 

But the inf. occurs in the other oblique cases also with more 
or less frequency. The genitive, for instance, appears with the 
prepositions ἀντί (Jas. 4:15); διά (Heb. 2:15, διὰ παντὸς τοῦ 
ζῆν); ἕνεκα (2 Cor. 7:12); ἕως (Ac. 8:40). The only instance of 
an attribute with the infinitive in the N. T. is Heb. 2:15, 
except in apposition with τοῦτο. It was rare in classic Greek 
and confined to pronouns. Cf. τὸ αὐτοῦ πράττειν, Plato, Rep. 
433. The genitive may be found with ἐπιλανθάνομαι as in Mk. 
8 : 14, ἐπελάθοντο λαβεῖν (cf. ἐπιλαθέσθαι τοῦ ἔργου in Heb. 6: 10. 
But we have τὰ ὀπίσω in Ph. 3:13). ‘At any rate in Lu. 1:9, 
ἔλαχε τοῦ θυμιᾶσαι (cf. 1 Sam. 14:47), we have an undoubted 
genitive. Cf. also μετεμελήθητε τοῦ πιστεῦσαι (Mt. 21:32). The 
very common use of τοῦ with the inf. must also be noted. Most 
of these are genitives, as in τοῦ ἀπολέσαι (Mt. 2:13). The free use 
of τοῦ with the inf. where the case is not genitive will be discussed 
under a special section under the article with the inf. Cf., for 
instance, Lu. 17:.1; Ac. 10); 25° 20:3; 27:1. MD hevcen occurs 

1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 154. 


pon eet Se ee ee 


VERBAL NOUNS (ὈΝΌΜΑΤΑ TOY ‘PHMATOS) 1061 


with substantives just as other substantives are used. This is 
a fairly common idiom. See Ac. 27:20 ἐλπὶς πᾶσα τοῦ σώζε- 
σθαι, (1 Cor. 9:10) ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι τοῦ μετέχειν, (Ro. 15:23) ἐπιπόθειαν 
δὲ ἔχων τοῦ ἐλθεῖν, (1 Pet. 4:17) καιρὸς τοῦ ἄρξασθαι, (Heb. 5:12) 
χρείαν τοῦ διδάσκειν. Note, in particular, Ro. 11: 8, ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς 
ὁ θεὸς πνεῦμα κατανύξεως, ὀφθαλμοὺς τοῦ μὴ βλέπειν, καὶ ὦτα τοῦ μὴ 
ἀκούειν, where the infs. are parallel with κατανύξεως. Cf. Lu. 1:57, 
74; 2:6; 10:19; 21:22; 22:6, etc. Note especially Ph. 3:21, 
κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν τοῦ δύνασθαι αὐτὸν καὶ ὑποτάξαι. Let these suffice. 
They illustrate well how the inf. continued to be regarded as a 
real substantive. The genitive occurs also with adjectives as in 
βραδεῖς τοῦ πιστεῦσαι (Lu. 24:25); ἕτοιμοί ἐσμεν τοῦ ἀνελεῖν (Ac. 
23:15). The genitive is found with ἄξιος (the anarthrous inf.) as 
in Lu. 15:19, 21, ἄξιος κληθῆναι (cf. Rev. 5:4, 9). In 1 Cor. 16:4 
Tov πορεύεσθαι may be due to ἄξιον, but is probably used as subj. 
nominative in a rather loose way. ‘The inf. in the genitive is 
specially common in Luke and also in Paul.! 

The ablative illustrations are not very numerous, but they are 
clear. Thus we have the abl. with verbs of hindering as in Mt. 
19:14, μὴ κωλύετε αὐτὰ ἐλθεῖν πρός με, and Lu. 4:42, κατεῖχον αὐτὸν 
τοῦ μὴ πορεύεσθαι. The classical Greek had also 76 and the inf., as 
in 1 Cor. 14:39, and τὸ μή after verbs of hindering, which last 
does not occur in the N. T., so that it is probable that an inf. 
without the art. as in Mt. 19:14 is in the abl., though not cer- 
tain. Moulton (Prol., p. 220) illustrates Lu. 4:42 and Ac. 14: 
18 by B. U. 164 Gi/iii A.D.) πεῖσαι αὐτὸν τοῦ ἐλθεῖν, J. H. S., 1902, 369 
(Lycaonian inscription) τῷ διχοτομήσαντί με τοῦ τὸ λοεπὸν ζῆν, B. U. 
36 (ii/ili A.D.) τοῦ ζῆν μεταστῆσαι, Ν. P. 16 (11,,Α.}0.} κωλύοντες τοῦ 
μὴ σπείρειν. See further Lu. 24:10 ἐκρατοῦντο τοῦ μὴ ἐπιγνῶναι 
αὐτόν, Ac. 10 : 47 δύναται κωλῦσαί τις τοῦ μὴ βαπτισθῆναι, 14:18 
κατέπαυσαν τοῦ μὴ θύειν. Cf. also Ac. 20:20, 27; Ro. 11:10; 
M22 τ ors SitHeb. 323s) bet. 5 10; ΟΥ̓ the LXX, 
Gen: 16:2; 20:6; Ps. 38:2; 68:24 (quoted in Ro. 11:10); Is. 
24:10; 1 Sam. 8:7; Jer. 7: 10.2 The abl. occurs also with prep- 
ositions as ἐκ in 2 Cor. 8:11, ἐκ τοῦ ἔχειν and πρό, in Mt. 6:8 
πρὸ τοῦ αἰτῆσαι. In Ac. 15: 28, τούτων τῶν ἐπάναγκες, ἀπέχεσθαι, the 
inf. is in the abl., in apposition with the preceding words. 

The only instance of the inf. in the instrumental in the N. T. 
occurs in 2 Cor. 2:13, τῷ μὴ εὑρεῖν με Τίτον. The inf. is not found 
with σύν in the N. T. Votaw (Unf. in Biblical Greek, p. 29) notes 
six examples of the instrumental τῷ and the inf. in the LXX text 

1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 234. 2 Cf. Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 172. 


1062 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


of B (2 Chron. 28 : 22; Eccl. 1:16; Is. 56:6; 4 Macc. 17: 20, 
21). But other MSS. vary. Moulton (Prol., p. 220) cites L. Pb. 
(11/B.C.), ἄλλως δὲ τῷ μηθέν᾽ ἔχειν. 

The locative occurs with ἐν as in ἐν τῷ εὐλογεῖν (Lu. 24 : 51). 
It is extremely frequent in the N. T., especially in Luke. The 
possible Hebraistic aspect of the idiom comes up under Prep- 
ositions with the Inf. There remains, of course, a possible loc- 
ative use of a form like λύειν. But one doubts if this original 
idea is preserved in the Ν. Τ.1} Cf. Mt. 16:3, γινώσκετε διακρίνειν, 
which is more naturally explained as a dative: ‘ye have knowl- 
edge for discerning,’ though ‘in discerning’ makes sense. But 
with the dative it is different. There is no instance of the dative 
inf. with a preposition, but the original dative is clear in all ex- 
amples of purpose without τοῦ or a preposition. Thus Mt. 5: 18, 
οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι, ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι, ‘I came not for destroying, but 
for fulfilling.’ So Lu. 12:58, δὸς ἐργασίαν ἀπηλλάχθαι, ‘give dili- 
gence for being reconciled.’ Cf. Mt. 7:11; 16:3 with oféa and 
γινώσκω. See further Mt. 2:2, ἤλθομεν προσκυνῆσαι, ‘we came for 
worshipping’; Jo. 21:3, ὑπάγω ἁλιεύειν, ‘I go a-fishing.’ So Ro. 
3:15, ὀξεῖς ἐκχέαι αἷμα, ‘swift for shedding blood.’ The substan- 
tive also has the dative inf. in Ro. 9: 21, ἐξουσίαν ποιῆσαι, ‘power 
for making.’ See further 1 Pet. 4:3, κατειργάσθαι, ‘for having 
wrought’; Gal. 5:3, ὀφειλέτης ποιῆσαι, ‘debtor for doing’; Heb. 
11:15, καιρὸν ἀνακάμψαι, ‘time for returning.’ This was the orig- 
inal idiom and, with all the rich later development as verbal 
substantive, the inf. did not wholly get away from the dative 
idea. 

(b) The Articular Infinitive. We have to cross our tracks fre- 
quently in discussing the inf. in a lucid fashion. Numerous ex- 
amples of the articular inf. have already been given in treating 
the cases of the inf. But the matter is so important that it calls 
for special investigation. If we pass by the doubtful articular 
inf., τὸ φυλάσσειν, in the Odyssey,? we still find (as already shown) 
a few examples in the oldest Greek (two in Hesiod, nine in Pin- 
dar, nine in the Lyrics). The use of the article with the inf. grew 
with the growth of the article itself. But it is not to be overlooked 
that in Homer the anarthrous inf. had already developed nearly 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 210. 
2 Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 179. Gildersl. (Am. Jour. of Philol., 1912, p. 
488) gave this name (cereal ar infinitive’) to the idiom. “I wai the fate 
of my little things with a benevolent detachment.” 
8. Birklein, Entwickelungsgeschichte, p. 91. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOZ) 1063 


all the constructions of this verbal substantive... The addition of 
the article made no essential change in the inf. It was already 
both substantive and verb. But the use of the article greatly en- 
larged the range of the inf. It is extended to new uses, especially 
with prepositions. The article was first used with the nom., then 
the acc. and then the other cases. The use of τοῦ and τῷ with 
the inf. is wholly post-Homeric.2 In the Dramatists and Herodo- 
tus it is still chiefly in the nom. and acc., though we do find τοῦ 
and τῷ, and we see the inf. used with prepositions also.2 In Thu- 
cydides the articular inf. suddenly jumps to great prominence, 
occurring 298 times,‘ especially in the speeches. Of these 163 
occur with prepositions. He even uses τό with the future inf. 
and with ἄν and the inf. The orators likewise use the art. inf. 
very freely. It was especially in Demosthenes that “‘the power 
of taking dependent clauses” was fully developed.6 Only the 
Pontic dialects, as already noted, keep the inf. as a living form, 
and a few substantives preserve a mutilated form, like τὸ φαγί 
(‘eating’)=7d φαγεῖν, τὸ φιλί (‘kissing’)=7d φιλεῖν (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 117). In the N. T. we see all this power still retained 
with the further development in the use of τοῦ. The inf. itself, as 
we have seen, is retreating in the N. T., but it still possesses the 
full range of its varied uses. The articular inf. has all the main 
uses of the anarthrous inf. Votaw (The Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 51) 
finds 22 uses of the inf. (19 anarthrous, 15 articular), but some 
of these overlap and are artificial. Moulton (Prol., p. 214) con- 
cludes from a study of the inscriptions that the articular inf. 
only invaded the dialects as the κοινή was starting. There is no 
essential difference in idea, and the mere presence or absence of 
the article is not to be pressed too far. Jannaris’ admits that 
sometimes the verbal character is completely obscured. On that 
point I am more than sceptical, since the inf. continues to have 
the adjuncts of the verb and is used with any voice or tense. 
Jannaris® thinks that in late Greek the substantival aspect grew 
at the expense of the verbal and the articular inf. had an in- | 
creasing popularity. I admit the popularity, but doubt the dis- 

1 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 315. 

2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 164. 3 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 315. 

4 Birklein, Entwickelungsgeschichte, p. 91. 

5 Gildersl., Contrib. to the Hist. of the Inf., Transac. of the Am. Philol. 
Asso., 1878, pp. 5-19. 

6 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 315. Hypereides, he adds, even exceeds Demos- 


thenes. 
7 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 576. 8 Ib., p. 577. 


1064 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


appearance of the verbal aspect. Jannaris makes the mistake of 
taking ‘“substantival inf.” as coextensive with “articular inf.” 
Blass! questions if the article always has its proper force with the 
inf. and suggests that perhaps sometimes it merely occurs to show 
the case of the inf. Here again I am sceptical. Why does the 
case of the inf. need to be shown any more than other indeclin- 
able substantives? In Mt. 1 the article does serve to distinguish 
object from subject. I have never seen an articular inf. where 
the article did not seem in place. Moulton? considers the use of 
the article “the most characteristic feature of the Greek infinitive 
in post-Homeric language.’’ Blass? seems puzzled over the fre- 
quency of the articular inf. in the N. T., since it is chiefly confined 
to Luke and Paul, whose writings have most affinity with the 
literary language. Jannaris* notes how scarce it is in the writings 
of John and in unlearned papyri and inscriptions, doubtful in the 
medieval period, and absent from the modern vernacular. ‘‘The 
articular infinitive, therefore, could not resist any longer the ten- 
dency of the time, whether it was conceived as a noun or as a 
verb.”®> The analytic tendency drove it out finally. Moulton® 
has made some researches on the use of the articular inf. in the 
dialect inscriptions. He does not find a single instance in Lar- 
field’s Boeotian inscriptions. He finds one from Lesbos, one from 
Elis, one from Delphi, a few from Messene, etc. He notes the 
silence of Meisterhans on the subject. The conclusion seems to 
be inevitable that the articular inf. is as rare in the Attic ver- 
nacular as it was common in the Attic orators. It is ‘mainly a 
literary use, starting in Pindar, Herodotus and the tragedians, 
and matured by Attic rhetoric.’”’ Aristophanes uses it less than 
half as often as Sophocles and Aristophanes gives the Attic ver- 
nacular. And yet it is not absent from the papyri. Moulton’ 
counts 41 instances in yol. I of B. U. The N. T. uses it about as 
often to the page as Plato. He scores a point against Kretsch- 
mer’s view that the Attic contributed no more to the κοινή than 
any one of the other dialects, since from the literary Attic ‘the 
articular inf. passed into daily speech of the least cultured people 
in the later Hellenist world.’’* Polybius® deserves to rank with 
Demosthenes in the wealth of his use of the inf. He employs the 


+ Gr. of NeToGK.; pi23as3: 5 Tb. 

2 Prol., p. 213. 6 Prol., pp. 213 ff. 
δι τ; of INGEAGKS peas: ΠΡ 213. 

4 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 579. 81D: peo. 

9 


Allen, The Inf. in Polyb. Compared with the Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 47. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA ΤΟΥ ‘PHMATOS) 1065 


inf. in all 11,265 times, an average of 7.95 to the page. He has 
the articular inf. 1,901 times, an average of 1.35 to the page. In 
the N. T. the inf. occurs 2,276 times, an average of 4.2 times to 
a page. The articular inf. is found in the N. T. 319 times, an 
average of .6 times to a page. The N. T. shows fewer uses, in 
proportion, of the articular inf. than the O. T. or the Apocrypha. 
Of the 303 (Moulton) instances, 120 are in Luke’s writings and 
106 in Paul’s Epistles. But Votaw! counts 319 in all. The 
MSS. vary in a number of instances and explain the difference. 
Moulton? gives the figures for all the N. T. books thus: James 
7, Hebrews 23, Gospel of Luke 71, Paul 106, Acts 49, 1 Peter 
4, Matthew 24, Mark 13 (14), John 4, Revelation 1. The other 
N. T. books do not have it at all. Luke has the most varied use 
of the articular inf., and Paul’s is somewhat uneven.? The use 
of the articular inf. in the various cases has already been suf- 
ficiently discussed. In general one may agree with Moulton‘ 
that “the application of the articular infin. in N. T. Greek does 
not in principle go beyond what is found in Attic writers.”’ The 
special use of the articular inf. with prepositions is reserved for 
separate discussion. There is little doubt that the first use of 
τό with the inf. was demonstrative as it was with everything.’ 
In Mk. 9:10, τί ἐστιν τὸ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστῆναι, the article is almost 
demonstrative, certainly anaphoric (cf. verse 9). The same thing 
is true of 10:40 where τὸ καθίσαι refers to καθίσωμεν in verse 37. 
It is not necessary to give in detail many examples of the articu- 
lar inf. in the N. T. I merely wish to repeat that, when the 
article does occur with the inf., it should have its real force. 
Often this will make extremely awkward English, as in Lu. 2 : 27, 
ἐν τῷ εἰσαγαγεῖν τοὺς γονεῖς τὸ παιδίον. But the Greek has no con- 
cern about the English or German. It is simply slovenliness not 
to try to see the thing from the Greek standpoint. But we are 
not to make a slavish rendering. Translation should be idio- 
matic. It is hardly worth while to warn the inept that there is 
no connection between the article 76 and the English to in a sen- 
tence like Ph. 1:21, ἐμοὶ yap τὸ ζῆν Χριστὸς καὶ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν κέρδος. 
Here the article τό has just the effect that the Greek article has 
with any abstract substantive, that of distinction or contrast. 
Life and death (living and dying) are set over against each other. 
See further Mt. 24:45; Lu. 24:29; Ac. 3:12; 10:25; 16:9; 21: 


1 Inf. in Bibl. Gk., pp. 50 ff. 4"Prol., pi 215: 
2 Prol., p. 216. 5 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 164. 
3 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 52. 


1066 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


12° 25.:11;} Ro. 4.111, 13)16) 185: 15:5: Ieee 2 Cormeen One, 
9» 13.Ph. 13:23) θ᾽ ΣΟ ΟΕ ΟΝ ΣΝ: 

Some special words are needed about τοῦ and the inf. The 
question of purpose or result may be deferred for separate dis- 
cussion. We have seen how the genitive inf. with rod occurs with 
verbs, substantives, adjectives and prepositions. The ablative 
inf. with τοῦ is found with verbs and prepositions. The ablative 
use is not here under discussion, since it involves no special diffi- 
culties save the redundant μή. - We may note that in Critias τοῦ 
was very common with the inf.t We see it also in Polybius in 
various uses named above.” It is an Attic idiom that became 
very common in the postclassical and Byzantine Greek.? Cf. μὴ 
ἀμελήσῃς τοῦ ἐνοχλῆσαι Θωνίῳ, O. P. 1159, 11-13 (ili/a.p.). There 
is no special difficulty with τοῦ and the inf. with verbs as object 
except in a case like Mt. 21:32 where τοῦ πιστεῦσαι “gives rather 
the content than the purpose of perewednOnre.’’4 

The instances with substantives like Ac. 14:9, ἔχει πίστιν τοῦ 
σωθῆναι, give no trouble on the score of the article. It is the case 
(objective genitive) that has to be noted. So with Ph. 3:21, τὴν 
ἐνέργειαν τοῦ δύνασθαι. As to adjectives, -as already noted, it is 
doubtful if in 1 Cor. 16:4, ἐὰν δὲ ἄξιον 7 τοῦ κἀμὲ πορεύεσθαι, the 
inf. is to be taken with ἄξιον as genitive. Moulton® so regards it, 
but it may be a loose nominative, as we shall see directly. But 
there is a use of τοῦ and the inf. that calls for comment. It is 
a loose construction of which the most extreme instance is seen 
in Rev. 12:7, ἔγένετο πόλεμος ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Μιχαὴλ καὶ of ἄγγελοι 
αὐτοῦ τοῦ πολεμῆσαι μετὰ τοῦ δράκοντος. ‘This inf. (note the nom. 
ἢ it) is in explanatory apposition with πόλεμος. Moulton® 
cleverly illustrates it with the English: ‘There will be a cricket 
match — the champions to play the rest.’ It is a long jump to 
this from a case like Ac. 21:12, παρακαλοῦμεν τοῦ μὴ ἀναβαίνειν 
αὐτόν, where the simple object-inf. is natural (cf. 1 Th. 4 : 10 f.). 
Cf. also Ac. 23:20, συνέθεντο τοῦ ἐρωτῆσαι σε ὅπως καταγάγῃς. 
“This loose inf. of design’’ is found twelve times in Thucydides, 
six in Demosthenes and five in Xenophon.” These writers prefer 
the prepositions with τοῦ and the inf. Polybius in his first five 
books has this simple τοῦ and the inf. only six times, all negative.® 


1 Birklein, Entwick., p. 9. 4 Moulton, Prol., p. 216. 
2. Allen, The Inf. in Polyb., pp. 29 ff. 5 Ib. 
5. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 578. δ Tb., p. 218. 


7 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 578. Cf. Birklein, Entwick., p. 101. 
8 Jann., ib. 


VERBAL NOUNS (‘ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATOZ) 1067 


The normal use of τοῦ with the inf. was undoubtedly final as it 
was developed by Thucydides, and in the N. T. that is still its 
chief use... But many of the examples are not final or consecu- 
tive. It is only in Luke-(Gospel 23, Acts 21) and Paul (13) that 
τοῦ with the inf. (without prepositions) is common.? They have 
five-sixths of the examples.? And Luke has himself two-thirds of 
the total in the N. T. Matthew has six. John avoids it. Moul- 
ton* shows that of Paul’s “thirteen” examples two (Ro. 6: 6; 
Ph. 3: 10) may be either final or consecutive, two (Ro. 15:22; 2 
Cor. 1: 8) are ablative, five occur with substantives (Ro. 15 : 23; 
1 Cor. 9:10; 16.:4; 2 Cor. 8:11; Ph. 3 : 21), four are epexegetic 
(Ro. 1:24; 7:3; 8:12; 1 Cor. 10:13). In Luke about half are 
not final. It is this loose epexegetical inf. that calls for notice. 
We find it in the LXX (ef. Gen. 3: 22; 19:19; 31:20; 47: 29, 
etc.).© It is possible that this very common idiom in the LXX is 
due to the Hebrew Ὁ. It does not occur in Polybius.6 In the 
LXX also we see rod and the inf. used as the subject of a finite 
verb in complete forgetfulness of the case of rod. Cf. 2 Chron. 
6:7, ἐγένετο ἐπὶ καρδίαν Δαυεὶδ τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ οἰκοδομῆσαι οἶκον. 
ΒΟΥ oan cuore eK al 820163 144Ps) 91.0.9: 15..49. 26}: Jer. 
2:18; Eccl. 3:12; 1 Esd. 5: 67.7 One must recall the fact that 
the inf. had already lost for the most part the significance of the 
dative ending —ac and the locative --ἰ (-ev). Now the genitive 
τοῦ and the dative —a are both obscured and the combination is - 
used as subject nominative. We have this curious construction 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 216. ΠΡ ΖΙ 
8 Mr. H. Scott gives the following list for τοῦ and the inf.: 








Pres. Aor. 
Paul 13 4 
Synoptics 9 22 
Acts 11 12 
, Heb: 1 3 
Rev. — 1 
Jas. — 1 
1 Pet. -- 1 
84 45 
79 
4 Prol., p. 217. Cf. also Gal. 3:10. 5 Cf. W.-M., p. 410f. 
6 Allen, Inf. in Polyb., p.53. Cf.Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., vol. XX VII, 


p. 105 f. 
7 Votaw, The Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 28. 


1068 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


in Lu. 17: 1, ἀνένδεκτόν ἐστιν τοῦ μὴ ἐλθεῖν. See also Ac. 10: 25, ἐγέ- 
vero τοῦ εἰσελθεῖν, and 27:1, ἐκρίθη τοῦ ἀποπλεῖν. Cf. further 20: 
3. It is naturally rarer in the N. T. than in the LXX. Moul- 
ton (Prol., p. 220) gives a papyrus example closely allied to it, 
O. P. 86 (iv/a.D.) ἔθος τοῦ παρασχεθῆναι. See Winer-Moulton, p. 
411, for numerous examples in LXX. But very much like it is 
the use of τοῦ as object-inf., with ἐντέλλομαι in Lu. 4:10 (Ps. 90: 
11); κατανεύω in ὅ : 7; στηρίζω in 9:51; ποιέω in Ac. 3:12; κακόω in 
7:19; ἐπιστέλλω in 15 : 20; wapaxadew in 21:12; συντίθεμαι in 28 : 
20. Cf. also ἕτοιμος τοῦ in Ac. 23:15. This is surely “a wide 
departure from classical Greek.’”! It is, however, after all in 
harmony with the genius and history of the inf., though the 
nominative use of τοῦ comes from the LXX. 

The vernacular papyri show a few examples of τοῦ and the 
inf. It is found in the inscriptions of Pisidia and Phrygia. Cf. 
Compernass, p. 40. Moulton? illustrates Lu. 1:9 with ἀμελεῖν 
τοῦ γράφειν, B. U. 665 (i/A.D.); Mt. 18: 25 and Jo. 5: 7 (ἔχω) with ἵν’ 
ἔχι ToD πωλεῖν, Β. U. 830 (i/A.D.); 1 Cor. 9:6 with ἐξουσίαν --- τοῦ 
— θέσθαι, C. P. R. 156; Lu. 22 : 6 with εὐκαιρίας --- τοῦ εὑρεῖν, B. U. 
46 (ii/A.D.). He concludes that the usage is not common in the 
papyri and holds that the plentiful testimony from the LXX 
concurs with the N. T. usage to the effect “that it belongs to 
the higher stratum of education in the main.” This conclu- 
- gion holds as to the N. T. and the papyri, but not as to the 
LXX, where obviously the Hebrew inf. construct had a consider- 
able influence. Moulton seems reluctant to admit this obvious 
Hebraism. 

(c) Prepositions. We are not here discussing the inf. as pur- 
pose or result, as temporal or causal, but merely the fact of the 
prepositional usage. The idiom cannot be said to be unusual in 
classical Greek. Jannaris’ agrees with Birklein’ that classical 
writers show some 2,000 instances of this prepositional construc- 
tion. The writers (classic and later) who use the idiom most 
frequently are Thucydides, Xenophon, Polybius, Diodorus, Diony- 
sius, Josephus, Plutarch, Dio Cassius. The most prolific user of 
the construction is Polybius (1,053 instances) and Josephus next 
(651 times). If the prepositional adverbs be added to the strict 


1 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 159. In late Gk. this use of τοῦ and the inf. 
came to displace the circumstantial participle and even finite clauses, only to 
die itself in time. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 483. 

ΡΟ yp, 219: 4 Hntwickelungsgesch., p. 103. 

§ Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 576. δ Krapp, Der substantivierte Inf., 1892, p. 1. 


VERBAL NOUNS (‘ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOZ) 1069 


list of prepositions, the number is very much enlarged, especially 
in Polybius, who has 90 with χάριν, 115 with ἅμα, 504 with διά, 
160 with πρός, 74 with εἰς, 24 with ἐν, 90 with ἐπί, 33 with μετά, 
41 with περί, only one with παρά. The idiom was here again later 
than the articular inf. itself and was also Attic in origin and 
literary. But it is common also in the Greek inscriptions accord- 
ing to Granit.? It is rare in the papyri, according to Moulton,’ 
save in the recurrent formula, eis τὸ ἐν μηδενὶ μεμφθῆναι, and particu- 
larly in the case of πρὸς τό. Cf. πρὸς τὸ τυχῖν, B. U. 226 (i/a.D.); 
πρὸς TO μὴ — ἐντυγχάνειν, O. P. 237 (1/A.D.); πρὸς τὸ --- δεηθῆναι (2b.). 
Votaw‘ finds the prepositional inf. almost one-half of all the 
articular infs. in the O. T., the Apocrypha and the N. T., the pro- 
portion being about the same in each section of the Greek Bible. 

Not quite all the prepositions were used with the inf. in ancient 
Greek, the exception® being ἀνά. ᾿Αμφί had it only with the geni- 
tive, κατά with the accusative, παρά with the acc., περί with the 
acc. and gen., πρός with acc. and loc., ὑπέρ with the ablative, ὑπό 
with the ablative. It was not therefore freely used with all the 
usual cases with the different prepositions. As a rule the article 
was essential if a preposition occurred with an inf. The reason 
for this was due to the absence of division between words. It 
was otherwise almost impossible to tell this use of the inf. from 
that of composition of preposition with the verb if the two came 
in conjunction. Cf. ἀντὶ τοῦ λέγειν in Jas. 4:15. A few instances 
are found without the article. Thus ἀντὶ δὲ ἄρχεσθαι (note pres- 
ence of δέ between) in Herodotus I, 210. 2. It appears thus three 
times in Herodotus. So also in Aischines, Hum. 737, we have 
πλὴν γάμου τυχεῖν. So Soph., Ph., 100. Winer® finds two in 
Theodoret (cf. IV, 851, παρὰ συγκλώθεσθαι). The papyri give us 
eis βάψαι, O. P. 36 (i/a.pD.), and the common vernacular phrase? eis 
πεῖν (‘for drinking’). Cf. δός μοι πεῖν in Jo. 4:10. Moulton” 
cites also an example of ἄχρι from Plutarch, p. 256 D, and one 
from an inscription of iii/B.c. (O. G. I. 8. 41, Michel 370) éri — 
λαμβάνειν. The instances without the article are clearly very few. 
Moulton (Prol., p. 81) suggests that the significant frequency of 

1 Allen, The Inf. in Polyb., p. 33. 

2 De Inf. et Part. in Inser. Dialect. Graec. Questiones Synt., 1892, p. 73. 

= Prol.y p.220. 4 Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 19. 

5 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 320. 

6 Cf. Birklein, Entwickelungsgesch., p. 104. These preps. “retain this dis- 
qualification in the N. T.”’ (Moulton, Prol., p. 216). 

7 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 246. 9 Moulton, Prol., p. 216. 

8 W.-M., p. 413. 10 Th. 


1070 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


els πεῖν in the papyri is due to Ionic influence. The LXX furnishes 
several instances of anarthrous εἰς, as εἰς ἐκφυγεῖν in Judg. 6 :11 
(cf. 2 Esd. 22:24; Sir. 38:27; Judith 4:15). Note also ἕως 
ἐλθεῖν in 1 Mace. 16 : 9; ἕως οὗ οἰκτειρῆσαι in Ps. 122: 2 (so Ruth 
3:3); μέχρις οὗ ἐγγίσαι in Tob. 11:1. Cf. also πλήν with anar- 
throus inf. in Polybius, etc. 

The tenses have their full force in this prepositional construc- 
tion, as in Mk. 5:4, διὰ 76 — δεδέσθαι καὶ διεσπάσθαι Kal — συντετρί- 
φθαι. Naturally some tenses suit certain prepositions better, as ἐν 
with the present tense.! The principles of indirect discourse apply 
also to the inf. with prepositions. Cf. μετὰ τὸ ἔγερθῆναί με mpoatw 
(Mk. 14: 28). In the N. T. the accusative seems to occur always 
even when the nominative predicate would be possible,? as in 
διὰ τὸ μένειν αὐτόν (Heb. 7: 24). So also Lu. 11:8. But note Xen., 
Cyr., 1, 4. 3, διὰ τὸ φιλομαθὴς εἶναι. 

It is not necessary for the article to come next to the inf. as 
in Mt. 13:25. Several words may intervene and the clause 
may be one of considerable extent. Cf. Mk. 5:4; Ac. 8:11; Heb. 
11:3; 1 Pet. 4:2. But the N. T. does not have such extended 
clauses of this nature as the ancient Greek, and the adverbs usu- 
ally follow the inf. The English “split inf.” is not quite parallel. 

In the O. T. there are 22 prepositions used with the inf. and 
the Apocrypha has 18, while the N. T. shows only 10.4 Of these 
only eight are the strict prepositions (ἀντί, διά, εἰς, ἐν, ἐκ, μετά, 
πρό, πρός) and two the prepositional adverbs ἕνεκα and ἕως. It 
remains now to examine each in detail. 

᾿Αντὶ τοῦ is not rare with the inf. and is chiefly found in the 
Greek orators.2 But we have it in Thucydides, Xenophon and 
Plato. Herodotus® has only 11 instances of the preposition with 
the inf., but 5 of them are with ἀντί. It does not occur in Polyb- 
ius. In the N. T. we have only one instance, Jas. 4:15, ἀντὶ 
τοῦ λέγειν. Votaw gives one for the LXX, Ps. 108:4, ἀντὶ τοῦ 
ἀγαπᾶν. 

Διά has 33 instances in the N. T., all but one (genitive, Heb. 
2:15, διὰ παντὸς τοῦ ζῆν) in the accusative. Mr. H. Scott reports 
the 33 exx. thus: Paul 1, Jas. 1, Heb. 4, Mk. 5, Mt. 3, Lu. 9, 
Ac. 9, Jo. 1. The O. T. has it with the inf. 35 times and the 


1 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 50. 

2 W.-M., p. 415. 5.10 p. 413. 

4 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 20. 

5 Birklein, Entwick., p. 104. 

δ. Helbing, Die Pripositionen bei Herod., p. 148. 


VERBAL NOUNS (‘ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATO®S) 1071 


Apocrypha 26,! all with the accusative. The idiom διὰ τό is 
so frequent in Xenophon and Thucydides that as compared with 
ὅτι it stands as 2 to 8.2 In later Greek (κοινή and Byzantine) it 
comes to displace even ἵνα and ὅπως, though finally shifting to 
διὰ va in modern Greek (cf. English ‘‘for that’). It is not sur- 
prising therefore to find it in the N. T. with comparative fre- 
quency. It is most frequent in Luke’s writings, and once in 
Paul’s Epistles, and rare in the other N. T. writers.4 It is usu- 
ally the cause that is given by διὰ τό, as in Mt. 13:5 f., διὰ τὸ μὴ 
ἔχειν. It is not merely the practical equivalent of ὅτι and διότι, 
but is used side by side with them. Cf. Jas. 4:2 f., διὰ τὸ μὴ αἰτεῖ- 
σθαι ὑμᾶς --- διότι κακῶς αἰτεῖσθε. It may stand alone, as in Lu. 9: 
7; 11:8, or with the accusative of general reference as in indirect 
discourse, as in Lu. 2:4; 19:11. Note two acces. in Ac. 4:2. 
The perfect tense occurs seven times, as in Mk. 5:4 (ter); Lu. 
6:48; Ac. 8:11; 27:9. In Mk. 5:4 it is rather the evidence 
than the reason that is given. Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 236) 
unnecessarily rejects Jo. 2 : 24. 

Eis 76 is common also with the inf. without much difference in 
sense from ἐπὶ τό and πρὸς τό with the inf.6 But the N. T. does 
not use ἐπί with the inf. There is no doubt about the final use of 
εἰς τό Whatever is true of the consecutive idea. In the late Greek 
Jannaris’ notes a tendency to use εἰς τό (cf. βραδὺς εἰς τὸ λαλῆσαι in 
Jas. 1: 19) rather than the simple inf. Οἵ. 1 ΤῊ. 4:9. But this 
tendency finally gave way to ἵνα. The O. T. has εἰς τό 124, the 
Apocrypha 28 and the N. T. 72 times.’ In the N. T. it is more 
common than any other preposition with the inf., ἐν coming next 
with 55 examples. Moulton® counts only 62 instances of els 76 
in the N. T., but Votaw is right with 72. Paul has it 50 times. 
There are 8 in Hebrews and only one each in Luke and Acts, a 
rather surprising situation. The papyri’ show scattered examples 
of it. Cf. els τὸ ἐν μηδενὶ μεμφθῆναι, P. Fi. 2 (iii/a.p.) 4 times. In 1 
Pet. 4:1, els τὸ --- βιῶσαι, note the long clause. There is no doubt 
that in the N. T. εἰς τό has broken away to some extent from 
the classic notion of purpose. That idea still occurs as in Ro. 
1:11, els τὸ στηριχθῆναι. This is still the usual construction. Cf. 
ΕΟ ΕΒ 20 eph. 1:12;)Ph. 1 :10;-10T hing Sydas. 


1 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 20. 6 Birklein, Entwick., p. 107. 

2 Birklein, Entwick., p. 107. 7 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 487. 

* Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 375 f. 8 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 20. 
4 Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 165. 9 Prol., p. 218. 


5 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 161. 10 Tb., p. 220, 


1072 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


1:18; 1 Pet. 3:7; Heb. 2:17, and other examples in Mt. and 
Heb., to go no further. In Paul we notice other usages. In 
Ph. 1 : 23, ἐπιθυμίαν εἰς τὸ ἀναλῦσαι, we have it with a substantive 
and in Jas. 1:19 it occurs with the adjectives ταχύς and βραδύς. 
It is epexegetic also with the verbal adjective θεοδίδακτοι in 1 
Th. 4:9. Besides, we find it as the object of verbs of com- 
mand or entreaty giving the content of the verb as in 1 Th. 
2:12; 3:10; 2 Th. 2:2, ἐρωτῶμεν εἰς τὸ μὴ ταχέως σαλευθῆναι. 
Ci..alsoi 1. Core 8.2510) Βο ἢ ΜΙ ηΟΣ λον 
there is a really dative idea in εἰς τό. Just as ἵνα came to be non- 
final sometimes, so it was with εἰς τό, which seems to express con- 
ceived or actual result (cf. τοῦ also) as in Ro. 1: 20; 12:3; 2 Cor. 
8:6; Gal. 3:17. Cf. the double use of ὥστε for ‘aim’ or ‘result.’! 
The perfect tense can be used with εἰς τό as in Eph. 1:18 εἰς τὸ 
εἰδέναι and Heb. 11:3 εἰς τὸ γεγονέναι, the only instances. But 
the present or aorist is usual. These developed uses of eis τό 
occur to some extent in the LXX (1 Ki. 22:8; 1 Esd. 2: 24; 
8 : 84). ; 

Ἔν τῷ appears in the tragedies.” It is found 6 times in Thu- 
cydides, 16 in Xenophon, 26 in Plato.* But Blass‘ observes that 
the classical writers did not use ἐν τῷ in the temporal sense of 
‘while’ or ‘during.’ Moulton® sought to minimize the fact that 
in the O. T. ἐν τῷ occurs 455 times (45 in the Apocrypha) and 
that it exactly translates the Hebrew 2 and held that it did not 
in principle go beyond what we find in Attic writers. But he 
took that back in the second edition® under the suggestion of 
Dr. E. A. Abbott that we must find Attic parallels for ‘during.’ 
So he now ealls this “possible but unidiomatic Greek.’”’ {In the 
N. T. we have é τῷ and the inf. 55 times and 3/4 in Luke. } 
In the Greek Bible as a whole it is nearly as frequent as all the 
other prepositions with the inf.’ The Semitic influence is un- 
doubted in the O. T. and seems clear in Luke, due probably to 
his reading the LXX or to his Aramaic sources.2 Cf. Lu. 1:8; 
8:5 (ἔν τῷ σπείρειν); 24:51; Ac. 3:26; 4:30; 9:3, etc. Jan- 
naris’ sees here a tendency also to displace the participle. The 

1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 286; Moulton, Prol., p. 219; Burton, N. T. 
M. and T., p. 161. 

2 Birklein, Entwick., p. 108. 

3 Moulton, Prol., p. 215. 5 Prol., p; 215. 

4 Gri of Nae ΟΠ 257 6 P, 249. 
7 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 20. 
8 
9 


But Dalman, Worte Jesu, p. 26 f., denies that it is an Aramzan constr. 
Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 379. 


VERBAL NOUNS (‘ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) 1078 


idiom is not confined to Luke’s writings. Cf. Mt. 13:4; 13 : 25; 
Mk. 4:4; Heb. 2:8; 3:12, ete. Ordinarily it is the present inf. 
as in Mt. 13:4; Lu. 8:5; Ac. 3:26, where the Attic writers 
would have the present participle. But in Luke we have also 
the aorist inf. as in 2 : 27 ἐν τῷ εἰσαγαγεῖν, (3 : 21) ἐν τῷ βαπτισθῆ- 
vat, Where Blass! sees the equivalent of the aorist participle (cf. 
Ἰησοῦ βαπτισθέντος) or a temporal conjunction with the aorist in- 
dicative. One questions, however, whether the matter is to be 
worked out with so much finesse as that. The aorist inf. with év 
τῷ occurs only 12 times in the N. T.? (it is more correctly just 
the simple action of the verb which is thus presented, leaving the 
precise relation to be defined by the context, like the aorist par- 
ticiple of simultaneous action. Cf. ἐν τῷ ὑποτάξαι in Heb. 2: 
8; Gen. 32:19, ἐν τῷ εὑρεῖν. This is all that ἐν τῷ should be 
made to mean with either the present or the aorist.| Cf. Mt. 
13 74; 27:12; Lu. 8:40; 9:29. The idea is not always strictly 
temporal. In Ac. 3: 26 (cf. Jer. 11:17), 4:30, it is more like 
means. Votaw® sees content in Lu. 12:15; Heb. 3:12. In 
Heb. 8:13, ἐν τῷ λέγειν, the notion is rather causal. The con- 
ception is not wholly temporal in Mk. 6:48; Lu. 1: 21.4 No other 
preposition occurs in the N. T. with the inf. in the locative case. 
But cf. ἐπὶ τῷ ἐμαὶ παραμένιν, O. P. 1122, 9 f. (a.p. 407). 

“Evexey τοῦ appears in Xenophon, Plato and Demosthenes, usu- 
ally as final, but also causal.? Sophocles in his Lexicon quotes 
the construction also from Diodorus and Apophth. There is 
only one instance of it in the N. T., 2 Cor. 7:12, ἕνεκεν τοῦ φανε- 
ρωθῆναι τὴν σπουδὴν ὑμῶν, Where it is clearly causal as with the two 
preceding participles, ἕνεκεν τοῦ ἀδικήσαντος, ἕνεκεν τοῦ ἀδικηθέντος 
(a good passage to note the distinction between the inf. and the 
part.). The case is, of course, the genitive. 

Ἔκ τοῦ, likewise, appears in the N. T. only once with the inf. 
(2 Cor. 8:11, ἐκ τοῦ ἔχειν), but the case is ablative. Its usual 
idea in Attic prose is that of outcome or result.6 Votaw’ gives no 
illustration from the O. T., but three from the Apocrypha. Blass ὃ 
takes it in 2 Cor. 8:11, to be equivalent to καθὸ ἂν ἔχῃ. More 


ΕΟ of Na ΟΡ. 237. 8 Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 20. 

2 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 50. Ὁ Blass ΟΝ Gk? py a7. 

5 Birklein, Entwick., p. 106. It is found in Polyb. also. Cf. Kalker, Ques- 
tiones, p. 302; Allen, Inf. in Polyb., p. 35. Lutz (Die Casus-Adverbien bei 
Att. Redn., 1891, p. 18) finds it “zuerst bei Antiphon.” 

6 Birklein, Entwick., p. 105. 

7 Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 20. 8 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 287. 


1074 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


likely it is meant to accent the ability growing ‘out of” the pos- 
session of property, whatever it may be. In Polybius ἐκ τοῦ with 
the inf. has a more varied use (departure, source of knowledge, 
source of advantage).! He uses it 25 times. 

“Ews τοῦ, likewise, occurs but once (Ac. 8:40, ἕως τοῦ ἐλθεῖν), 
and with the genitive. Birklein does not find any instances of 
éws tod and the inf. in the classic writers, though he does note 
μέχρι τοῦ and less frequently ἄχρι rod.2 Cf. μέχρι τοῦ πλεῖν, P. B. 
M. 854 (i/ii A.p.). But in the O. T. Votaw® observes 52 instances 
of ἕως τοῦ and 16 in the Apocrypha. Cf. Gen. 24:33; Judith 8: 
34. We have already noted the anarthrous use of ἕως ἐλθεῖν in 
1 Mace. 16:9. Cf. Gen. 10:19, 30, etc. So also ἕως οὗ and 
μέχρι(ς) οὗ and the inf., 1 Esd. 1:49, and Tob. 11:1 Β. It is rather 
surprising therefore that we find only one instance in the N. T. 
and that in the Acts. The construction is probably due to the 
analogy of πρίν and the inf. 

Mera τό is found only a few times in Herodotus, Plato and 
Demosthenes.‘ It appears, however, thirty-three times in Polyb- 
ius and usually with the aorist tense.® The idea is temporal and 
the aorist is a practical equivalent for the aorist participle. In 
the O. T. Votaw® finds it 99 times and only 9 in the Apocrypha. 
There are 15 examples in the N. T. and the case is the accusative 
always. Μετὰ τό vanished with the inf. in modern Greek.’ The 
aorist is always used in the N. T. save one perfect (Heb. 10 : 15). 
See Mk. 1: 14; 14: 28, μετὰ τὸ ἔγερθῆναί με. Hight of the examples 
occur in Luke’s writings (Lu. 12:5; 22:20; Ac. 1:3; 7:4; 10: 
41; 15:13; 19:21; 20:1). See also Mt. 26 : 32; Mk. 16:19; 1 
Cor. 11:25; Heb. 10:15, 26. 

Πρὸ τοῦ in the ancient writers was used much like πρίν and in 
the temporal sense.’ It gradually invaded the province of πρίν, 
though in the N. T. we only meet it 9 times. It is not com- 
mon in the papyri nor the inscriptions.? See Delphian inscr. 
220, πρὸ τοῦ παραμεῖναι. Polybius has it 12 times.!° In the 
QO. T. we find it 46 times, but only 5 in the Apocrypha." The 
tense is always the aorist save one present (Jo. 17: δ). Cf. Gal. 
3:23, πρὸ τοῦ ἐλθεῖν τὴν πίστιν. ‘There is no essential differ- 


1 Allen, Inf. in Polyb., p. 34 f. 7 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 386. 

2 Entwick., p. 105. 8 Birklein, Entwick., p. 105. 

3 Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 20. 9 Moulton, Prol., p. 214. 

4 Birklein, Entwick., p. 108. 10 Allen, Inf. in Polyb., p. 33. 

5 Allen, Inf. in Polyb., p. 41. 1 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 20. 
6 


Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 20. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) 1075 


ence in construction and idea between πρίν and the inf. and 
πρὸ τοῦ and the inf. The use of πρίν with the inf. was common 
in Homer before the article was used with the inf. The usage 
became fixed and the article never intervened. But the inf. with 
both πρίν and πρό is in the ablative case. Cf. ablative! inf. with 
purd in Sanskrit. Πρίν was never used as a preposition in com- 
position, but there is just as much reason for treating πρίν as a 
prepositional adverb with the ablative inf. as there is for so con- 
sidering ἕως τοῦ, not to say ἕως alone as in ἕως ἐλθεῖν (1 Mace. 16: 
9). The use of the article is the common idiom. The fact of πρίν 
and the inf. held back the development of πρὸ τοῦ. In modern 
Greek πρὸ rod as προτοῦ occurs with the subj. (Thumb, Handb., 
p. 193). In the N. T. πρίν is still ahead with 13 examples. The 
instances of πρὸ τοῦ are Mt. 6:8; Lu. 2:21; 22:15; Jo. 1: 48; 
1 109 so Ach δε: 1 δ. Gal? 2% 125-3 +23: 

Πρὸς τό is the remaining idiom for discussion. It was used by 
the ancients in much the same sense as εἰς τό and ἐπὶ τό, ‘looking 
to,’ ‘with a view to.’? The idiom is very common in Polybius,? 
150 examples, and there are 10 of πρὸς 7G. But in the O. T. we 
have only 14 examples and 12 in the Apocrypha.’ The N. T. 
shows 12 also. Some of the LX X examples are of πρὸς τῷ (Ex. 
1:16; 2 Mace. 7: 14), but in the N. T. they are all πρὸς τό. In 
the papyri Moulton® finds πρὸς τό rather more common than εἰς 
τό. In the N. T. Matthew has it five times (5 : 28; 6:1; 13 : 30; 
23:5; 26:12). These express aim unless 5: 28 is explanatory 
of βλέπων Mark has it once, 13:22. Luke has it twice (18: 
1, where πρὸς τὸ δεῖν means ‘with reference to’; Ac. 3:19 only 
NB, while other MSS. read εἰς). Paul’s four examples (2 Cor. 
3:13; Eph. 6:11, DEFG e’s; 1 Th. 2:9; 2 Th. 3 : 8) all give the 
“subjective purpose.’ Both present (8 times) and aorist (6 
times) tenses occur. Cf. πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι in Mt. 6: 1. 

(d) The Infinitive with Substantives. Numerous examples of 
the inf. with substantives were given in the discussion of the cases 
of the inf. The matter calls for only a short treatment at this 
point. The use of the inf. with substantives was ancient? and 
natural, first in the dative or locative and then in the genitive 


1 Whitney, Sans. Gr., ὃ 983; Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 158. Homer used πρίν 
with the inf. after both positive and negative clauses. 

2 Birklein, Entwick., p. 107. 6 Ib., p. 218. 

8. Allen, Inf. in Polyb., p. 33. 7 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 236. 

4 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 20. & W.-M., p. 414 note. 

5 Prol., p. 220. 9 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 154. 


1076 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


with τοῦ. It was always common in the classic Greek.! The 
usage is common in Polybius with both the anarthrous and the 
articular inf.2, The same thing is true of the O. T. and the Apoc- 
rypha.2 It is so frequent as not to call for illustration. The 
meaning is that of complement and the inf. most frequently oc- 
curs with words of time, fitness, power, authority, need, etc. It 
is abundantly used in the N. T. both with and without the article. 
Some anarthrous examples are (Mt. 3: 14) χρείαν βαπτισθῆναι, (Lu. 
2:1) δόγμα ἀπογράφεσθαι, (Jo. 1:12) ἐξουσίαν γενέσθαι, (19 : 40) 
ἔθος ἐνταφιάζειν, (Ac. 24:15) ἐλπίδα μέλλειν, (Ro. 18:11) ὥρα ἔγερ- 
θῆναι, (Gal. 5:3) ὀφειλέτης ποιῆσαι, (Heb. 7: 5) ἐντολὴν ἀποδεκατοῖν, 
(Rev. 11: 18) καιρὸς κριθῆναι, etc. These are all real datives and 
the construction is common enough in the N. T., more so than 
in the LXX. In Ph. 1: 23 note ἐπιθυμίαν. eis τὸ ἀναλῦσαι. The 
same substantives may have τοῦ and the inf., though now, of 
course, the case is genitive. Cf. (Lu. 1:57) χρόνος τοῦ τεκεῖν, (2: 
21) ἡμέραι τοῦ περιτεμεῖν, (10:19) ἐξουσίαν τοῦ πατεῖν, (Ac. 14: 9) 
πίστιν τοῦ σωθῆναι, (27: 20) ἐλπὶς τοῦ σώζεσθαι, etc. It occurs 
eight times in Luke’s writings and nine in Paul’s Epistles. It is 
about as common in proportion as in the LXX.* See further 
Lusi): 743-2 :.6:.21: 22: 22.36; Ac. 2033 Ro τον 
153.23; 1,Cors9 : 10310: 138+ 2:\Cor: 82145 Phas 22 leslie ΤΠ] 
Heb. 5:12, etc. Since the inf. is a substantive, the genitive re- 
lation with other substantives is obvious and natural. 

(e) The Infinitive with Adjectives. This idiom is likewise clas- 
sical and is common from Homer on.> As already shown, the 
case varies with different adjectives. This inf. is complementary 
as with substantives. It is natural with adjectives as any other 
substantive is. It held on longest with δυνατός, ἱκανός, but other 
adjectives in late κοινή began to give way to εἰς τό (cf. Jas. 1:19, 
ταχὺς eis τὸ ἀκοῦσαι, βραδὺς eis τὸ λαλῆσαι) rather than the simple 
inf. and finally this disappeared before ἵνα (cf. Mt. 8:8, ἱκανὸς 
ἵνα). In the LXX and the N. T. the inf. with adjectives is less 
frequent than with substantives. We have it with both the an- 
arthrous and the articular inf. See (Mt.3:11) ἱκανὸς βαστάσαι, 
(Mk. 10:40) ἐμὸν δοῦναι, (Lu. 15:19) ἄξιος κληθῆναι, (Jas. 3:2) δυ- 
νατὸς χαλιναγωγῆσαι, (1 Cor. 7:39) ἐλευθέρα γαμηθῆναι, (Heb. 5 : 11) 
δυσερμήνευτος λέγειν, (1 Pet. 4:3) ἀρκετὸς κατειργάσθαι, ete. It is 


1 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 301. 3 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., pp. 15, 26. 
2 Allen, Inf. in Polyb;pp.23.002-) 4clbei pees, 

® Monro, Hom. Gr., p.155 f. For Polyb. see Allen, Inf. in Polyb., pp. 23, 32. 
6 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 487. 


VERBAL NOUNS (‘ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATOS) 1077 


more common with ἄξιος, δυνατός, ἱκανός. The only adjective that 
often has τοῦ and the inf. in the O. T. is ἕτοιμος. We find it also 
with adverbs as in Ac. 21:18, δεθῆναι ἀποθανεῖν ἑτοίμως ἔχω (So 2 
Cor. 12:14). The articular examples are less frequent. But note 
(Lu. 24:25) βραδεῖς τοῦ πιστεύειν, (Ac. 28 : 15) ἕτοιμοι τοῦ ἀνελεῖν. 
Some would add 1 Cor. 10 : 4, ἄξιον τοῦ πορεύεσθαι, but see Cases 
of the Inf. 

(f) The Infinitive with Verbs. This usage came to be, of course, 
the most frequent of all. It started as a dative or locative, then 
a sort of accusative of reference,? then the object of verbs with 
whatever case the verb used. It is both anarthrous and articu- 
lar. It is not necessary to go over again (see Cases of the Inf.) 
the varied uses of the inf. with verbs, whether the object of verbs 
of saying or thinking in indirect discourse, verbs of commanding 
or promising, the direct object of verbs (auxiliary inf.), verbs of 
hindering,’ etc. Asa matter of fact they are all object-infs. what- 
ever the case (acc., gen., abl., dat., instr.). Votaw‘ notes that in 
the N. T. this use of the inf. is four times as common as any 
other. It is usually the anarthrous inf., but not always. Even 
δύναμαι and ἄρχομαι came to be used with τοῦ and the inf. Jan- 
naris® has made a careful list of the verbs that continued for a 
while in late Greek to use the inf. against the inroads of ἵνα. 
Radermacher (N. T’. Gr., p. 150) argues that in general the N. T. 
use of the inf. with verbs is like that of the κοινή. The inf. λαλῆσαι 
with ἐπαρρησιασάμεθα (1 Th. 2 : 2) is not a Hebraism, but a Hellen- 
ism. But surely it is not necessary to call this usage an Atticism. 
In the discussion of iva (see chapter-on Modes) the displacement 
of the inf. by iva even after verbs like θέλω was sufficiently treated. 
Schmid® ‘‘shows how this ‘Infinitivsurrogat’ made its way from 
Aristotle onwards.’ In the N. T. it is chiefly in the Gospel of 
John that we find this use of tva. ‘The strong volitive flavour 
which clung to iva would perhaps commend it to a writer of John’s 
temperament.’’® But after all, the inf. with verbs has not quite 
disappeared from John’s Gospel. Jannaris® has worked out the 
situation in John’s Gospel as between this use of the inf. and ἵνα. 


1 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 27. 

2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 154. 4 Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 7. 

3 See Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 487. 5 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 574 f. 

6 Atticismus, Bd. IV, p. 81. Cf. also Hatz., Einl., p. 215. 

7 Moulton, Prol., p. 211. 8 Tb. 

9 Hist. Gk. Gr., p.572f. For an extended list of the verbs in the N. Τὶ 
used with the complementary inf. see Viteau, Le Verbe, pp. 157 ff. 


1078 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


He finds ἵνα about 125 times and the inf. with verbs about 129 
times. Of these 57 belong to δύναμαι (37) and θέλω (20). There 
are besides, 10 with δεῖ and 12 each with ζητέω and with μέλλω. 
The rest are scattered with δίδωμι, ἔχω, ὀφείλω, δοκέω, ἀφίημι, 
airéw, ἐρωτάω, ἄρχομαι, etc. It is clear, therefore, that the inf. 
with verbs is by no means dead in the N. T., though the shadow 
of iva is across its path. As illustrations of the great wealth of 
verbs with the inf. in the N. T. note (Mt. 11: 20) ἤρξατο ὀνειδίζειν, 
(27:58) ἐκέλευσεν ἀποδοθῆναι, (Mk. 12:12) ἐζήτουν κρατῆσαι, (Lu. 
16:3) σκάπτειν οὐκ ἰσχύω, ἐπαιτεῖν αἰσχύνομαι. Almost any verb 
_that can be used with a substantive can be used with the inf. 
The use of the inf. with προστίθεμαι is a Hebraism. Cf. Ex. 14: 
13. See Lu. 20:12, προσέθετο πέμψαι. It means ‘to go on and 
do’ or ‘do again.’ It is the one Hebraism that Thumb! finds in 
Josephus. Cf. also Lu. 20:11f. The articular inf. with verbs is 
much less frequent. But note τὸ ἀγαπᾶν after ὀφείλω (Ro. 13:8); 
παραιτοῦμαι τὸ ἀποθανεῖν (Ac. 25 : 11); τοῦ περιπατεῖν after ποιέω (Ac. 
3:12); ἐπιστεῖλαι τοῦ ἀπέχεσθαι (15 : 20); κατεῖχον τοῦ μὴ πορεύεσθαι 
(Lu. 4:42). In 1 Ki. 18:16 we have τοῦ ἐπιστρέψαι with δύναμαι. 
These are just a few specimens. See Cases of the Inf. 

(0) The Appositional Infinitive. The grammars draw a dis- 
tinction here, but it is more apparent than real as Votaw? well 
says. The inf. in apposition is that with nouns; the epexegetical 
inf. is used with verbs. But at bottom the two uses are one. 
They are both limitative. With nouns the appositional inf. re- 
stricts or describes it. It is a common enough idiom in classical 
Greek? and is found also in the LXX. In the N. T. observe Ac. 
15:28 πλὴν τούτων τῶν ἐπάναγκες, ἀπέχεσθαι, (Jas. 1:27) θρησκεία 
καθαρὰ καὶ ἀμίαντος --- αὕτη ἐστίν, ἐπισκέπτεσθαι. Cf. further Ac. 
26 716592 Οὐτ 10713; δ. 3% 6, 81 4 7} ΤΠ ΠΗ oo ΕἼ ΗΠ 
9 :8;1 Pet. 2:15 (οὕτως). The articular inf. may also be apposi- 
tional as in Ro. 14: 18, τοῦτο κρίνατε μᾶλλον, τὸ μὴ τιθέναι. So also 
2 Cor) Ἱ  ΣΠΙ Ros4:2 8 ΤΣ 43 In the Nialeand 
the Apocrypha it is only τό (in the articular use) that is apposi- 
tional, but in the O. T. 15 out of the 17 instances have rod with- 
out any reference to the case of the noun.‘ It is worth noting 
that ἵνα is common also in appositional clauses (cf. Lu. 1:43; 
1 Cor. 9 : 18), especially in the writings of John (Jo. 4 : 34; 15:8; 


1 Hellen., p. 125. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 233. 

2 Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 17. 

3 Cf. Hadley and Allen, ὃ 950;.Goodwin, ὃ 1517. 
4 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 29. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) 1079 


17:3; 1 Jo. 3:11, 23; 4:21; 5:3, etc.). We find ὅτι also in 1 Jo. 
Bisa LO). 

5. VERBAL ASPECTS OF THE INFINITIVE. It is worth repeat- 
ing that the same inf. is substantive as well as verb. Each inf. 
does not, of course, have all the substantival and verbal uses, but 
each inf. has both substantival and verbal aspects. The uses 
vary with each example. The verbal aspects do not exclude the 
substantival, though some? writers say so. Per contra, Jannaris® 
holds that ‘‘the verbal nature of the substantival infinitive was 
sometimes completely lost sight οἵ. This I do not concede. 
After tenses came to the verbal substantive its dual character 
was fixed. But, as already shown, the inf. did not come to the 
rank of a mode. 

(a) Voice. The Sanskrit inf. had no voice. In Homer the inf. 
already has the voices, so that it is speculation as to the origin. 
It is possible that the original Greek inf. had no voice. This is an 
inference so far as the Greek is concerned, but a justifiable one. 
Moulton‘ illustrates it well by δυνατὸς θαυμάσαι, ‘capable for won- 
dering,’ and ἄξιος θαυμάσαι, ‘worthy for wondering,’ when the first 
means ‘able to wonder’ and the second ‘deserving to be wondered 
at.’ They are both active in form, but not in sense. ‘The middle 
and passive infinitives in Greek and Latin are merely adaptations 
of certain forms, out of a mass of units which had lost their in- 
dividuality, to express a relation made prominent by the closer 
connection of such nouns with the verb.’”’> There was so much 
freedom in the Greek inf. that the Sanskrit —twm did not develop 
in the Greek as we see it in the Latin supine. Gradually by 
analogy the inf. forms came to be associated with the voices in 
the modes. Practically, therefore, the Greek inf. came to be used 
as if the voices had distinctive endings (cf. the history of the 
imper. endings).6 Thus in Lu. 12:58, δὸς ἐργασίαν ἀπηλλάχθαι 
am’ αὐτοῦ, it is clear that the passive voice is meant whatever the 
origin of the form --σθαι. The reduplication shows the tense also. 
The same remark applies to Mk. ὅ : 4, διὰ τὸ δεδέσθαι καὶ διεσπάσθαι 
ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τὰς ἁλύσεις. See also ὅ : 49, εἶπεν δοθῆναι αὐτῇ φαγεῖν. No 
special voice significance is manifest in φαγεῖν, which is like our 


1 See Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 229. 

2 As) for instance, Szezurat, De Inf. Hom. Usu, 1902, p.17. He claims that 
the Hom. inf. came to serve almost all the ideas of the finite verb. 

3 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 576. 4 Prol., p. 203. ~* 5 Ib. 

6 In Ac. 26: 28, πείθεις Χριστιανὸν ποιῆσαι, one notes a possible absence of the 
strict voice in ποιῆσαι. But it is a hard passage. 


1080 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


‘eating’ and is the ace. of general reference with δοθῆναι which in 
turn is the direct object of εἶπεν. But δοθῆναι has the passive force 
beyond a doubt. Cf. further ἀπολελύσθαι ἐδύνατο in Ac. 26 : 32 and 
ἕνεκεν τοῦ φανερωθῆναι in 2 Cor. 7:12. In general, therefore, after 
the inf. is fully developed, the voice in the inf. appears exactly 
as in the modes. So τοῦ ἀπέχεσθαι (Ac. 15 : 20); ἀπογράψασθαι (Lu. 
2:5); ἐπιλαθέσθαι (Heb. 6:10); γαμηθῆναι (1 Cor. 7:39); κληθῆναι 
vids (Lu. 15:19). Cf. θεάσασθαι (Lu. 7: 24) and θεαθῆναι (Mt. 6: 1). 

(b) Tense. See chapter on Tenses for adequate discussion of 
this point. Some general remarks must here suffice. As the 
Sanskrit inf. had no voice, so it had no tense. In the original 
Greek there was possibly no tense in the inf., but in Homer the 
tense is in full force! There is no time-element in the inf. (cf. 
subj., opt. and imperative) except as the future inf. echoes the 
expectation of a verb like ἐλπίζω (or μέλλω) or as the inf. repre- 
sents a fut. ind. in indirect discourse (see Indirect Discourse under 
Modes). It is probably true that originally there was no distinc- 
tion between aorist (punctiliar) and present (linear) action in the 
inf. In Sanskrit and Latin the infinitives and supines have no 
necessary connection with the present stem (cf. supine tactwm and 
inf. tangere).2. ‘The o in λῦσαι has only accidental similarity to 
link it with that in ἔλυσα.᾽ 8 Moulton‘ tersely adds: ‘But when 
once these noun-forms had established their close contact with 
the verb, accidental resemblances and other more or less capri- 
cious causes encouraged an association that rapidly grew, till all 
the tenses, as well as the three voices, were equipped with infini- 
tives appropriated to their exclusive service.’?’ But even so at 
first the tense of the inf. had only to do with the kind of action 
(punctiliar, linear, state of completion), not with time. 

In general, as with the subj., opt. and imper., the aorist inf. 
came to be the natural’ one unless some reason for the present 
or perf. or fut. existed. Cf. καταβῆναι (Lu. 9 : 54); παθεῖν (Lu. 24: 
46); καταλῦσαι (Mt. 5:17); προσεύξασθαι (Lu. 18 : 10); ἀκοῦσαι (Ac. 
10 : 38); ἐκχέαι (Ro. 3:15), etc. Sometimes, as in ἔδει ποιῆσαι 
(Mt. 23: 23), the inf. was used to suggest antecedent action. But 
the timeless aorist may point to what is future, as in Lu. 24: 
46 above. Cf. also Lu. 2:26; Ac. 3:18. Essentially, it does 
neither. Cf. μέλλω with aor. inf. So μέλλοντα ἐνεγκ[εῖ]ν, P. Grenf., 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 160. . 5 10] 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 204 4 Ib. 

ὅ Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 59, notes 5,484 aorists and 3,327 presents in 
the Gk. Bible. In the N. T. the ratio is 4:3, in the O. T. 2:1. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATOS) 1081 


ii, 77 (i1i/A.p.). In indirect assertions the aorist inf. represents 
the aor. indicative, but the N. T. seems to show no instance like 
this... However, that is a mere accident, for note ἐν τῷ εἰσαγαγεῖν 
τοὺς γονεῖς TO παιδίον τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτούς (Lu. 2 : 27) where the same 
principle applies. Contrast the tense of ποιῆσαι and πείθεις in 
Ac. 26:28. In Lu. 24:46, γέγραπται παθεῖν τὸν Χριστόν, we have 
the timeless aorist in indirect discourse. 

The present inf. with some verbs would accent linear action 
and with others the inf. would not draw the point sharply. Some 
writers have a fondness for the present.2 One can see the 
force of linear action in ἡμᾶς δεῖ ἐργάζεσθαι (Jo. 9:4) and in τὸ 
ἀγαπᾶν αὐτόν (Mk. 12:33). Cf. also στοιχεῖν in Ph. 3:16. In 1 
Jo. 3:9, οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν, the linear notion_is prominent (cf. 
οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει in verse 6). It is alsq quite normal with μέλλω, with 
which it occurs 84 times in the N. T. to 6 of the aorist. See Mt. 
14: 22 for both aorist ἐμβῆναι and present προάγειν in same sen- 
tence. Cf. also Ac. 15:37 f. The usual tense-distinction may be 
assumed to exist, though in a case like λέγειν (Heb. 5:11) the 
point is not to be stressed. ‘The present inf. in indirect assertion 
represents the same tense of the direct, as in Mt. 22 : 23; Lu. 11: 
18, etc. Rarely the present inf. represents an imperfect indica- 
tive as in Lu. 20 : 6. 

fThe perfect inf. is common also in indirect discourse to stand 
for the same tense of the direct, as in Jo. 12 : 29; Ac. 12:14; 14: 
19; 16:27. This is natural enough. But the perfect inf. is found 
also in the complementary inf. as in Ac. 26 : 32, λελύσθαι ἐδύνατο. 
Note Lu. 12:58, δὸς ἐργασίαν ἀπηλλάχθαι. But we also find the 
perfect tense with the articular inf. (so aorist and present) as in 
Mk. 5:4; Lu. 6:48; Ac. 27:9. Inthe N. T. there are in all 31 
perfect infs. and the same number in the O. T.? Of the N. T. 
examples 23 are anarthrous, 8 articular. The papyri show the 
articular perf. inf. Cf. ἔπὶ τῷ γεγονέναι, P. Oxy. 294 (a.p. 22); 
ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀπολελύσθαι oe, P. Br. M. 42 (B.c. 168). 

The future inf. is increasingly rare. Thucydides even used τό 
with the future inf. The same construction is found in Polybius.4 
But in the κοινή the future inf. is weakening rapidly. This dis- 
appearance of the fut. inf. is partly due to the retreat of the fu- 


1 Burton,,N. T. M. and T., p. 53. 

2 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1882, p. 193. Madvig, Bemerkungen iiber 
einige Punkte des Griech., 1848, p. 321, shows how the inf. has only the time 
of the principal verb. 

8 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 59. 4 Allen, Inf. in Polyb., p. 48. 


1082. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ture tense in general! and partly to the apparent kinship between 
the future and aorist forms. In the papyri Moulton? notes that 
the future inf. is sometimes used in the κοινή as equivalent to the 
aorist or even the present, since the sense of the future was van- 
ishing. Cf. χωρήσειν in Jo. 21:25 (NBC), while the other later 
MSS. give χωρῆσαι. In the O. T. the fut. inf. (anarthrous always) 
occurs only 14 times and only 6 in the N. T. The Apocrypha 
has, however, 54, but almost all in 2 and 3 Maccabees.’ Three 
of the N. T. examples are with μέλλω (Ac. 11: 28; 24:15; 27:10). 
Another is in Ac. 23 : 30 and is dependent on a participle after a 
past indicative. In Ac. 26:7 the margin of W. H. (after B) has 
καταντήσειν (text --ῆἣσαι) with ἐλπίζει. In Heb. 3:18 note ὥμωσεν 
μὴ εἰσελεύσεσθαι (LX X). Another example is in Jo. 21: 25, after 
οἶμαι. Moulton (Prol., p. 219) cites χρὴ ἑτοιμάσειν, B.U. 830 (i/A.D.). 

(c) Cases with the Infinitive. In general the inf. uses the same 
case that the finite verb does. So the genitive in Heb. 6:10 
ἐπιλαθέσθαι τοῦ ἔργου, the dative in 1 Cor. 7:39 ᾧ θέλει γαμηθῆναι, 
the ace. in Ac. 23:15 τοῦ ἀνελεῖν, the instrum. in Mt. 15 : 20 τὸ 
ἀνίπτοις χερσὶν φαγεῖν, the locative in Ac. 21:21 μηδὲ τοῖς ἔθεσιν 
περιπατεῖν, the ablative in Ac. 15 : 20 τοῦ ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν ἀλισγημά- 
των, the predicate nominative in Ac. 17: 18 καταγγελεὺς εἶναι, the 
predicate accusative in Ro. 2:19 πέποιθας σεαυτὸν ὁδηγὸν εἶναι, OF 
the acc. of general reference in ind. discourse in Mk. 12:18. But 
this brings us again to the acc. in indirect assertion, a matter al- 
ready treated at some length. (See Accusative Case, Indirect Dis- 
course, and the next section.) But the thing to note is the real 
verbal nature of the inf. in the matter of cases. Note the three 
accusatives with τοῦ διδάσκειν in Heb. 5:11 f., two objects, one of 
general reference. The cognate neuter plural is seen in πολλὰ 
παθεῖν (Mt. 16: 21). 

(d) The Infinitive in Indirect Discourse. 'The frequent ob- 
scuration of the cases with the inf. in indirect discourse justifies 
some additional remarks besides those in the chapter on Modes. 
The inf. is not finite and, like the participle, has no subject. By 
courtesy the grammars often say so, but it beclouds more than 
it clears to do so. The case of the predicate’ with the inf. is the 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 486, 552 ff. 

? Prol., p. 204f. Cf. Hatz., Einl., pp. 142, 190; Kalker, Quest., Ρ. 281. ᾿Ἅ 

8. Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 59. 

4 Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., Tl. II, p. 460. Brug. (Griech. Gr., p. 518) 
takes the acc. as originally the obj. of the verb. That was not always true, 
as we have seen in Indirect Discourse. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) 1083 


place to start. Cf. Mt. 19:21, εἰ θέλεις τέλειος εἶναι. See also 2 
Cor. 10 : 2, δέομαι τὸ μὴ παρὼν θαρρῆσαι, where the nominative oc- 
curs within the domain of the accusative articular inf. But note 
Mk. 14: 28, μετὰ τὸ ἔγερθῆναί we προάξω. The true nature of the ace. 
with the inf. as being merely that of general reference comes out 
well in the articular inf., as in Jas. 4: 2, οὐκ ἔχετε διὰ τὸ μὴ αἰτεῖσθαι 
ὑμᾶς. It is not necessary here to go over again the steps taken 
under Modes, but simply to insist on the true nature of the ac- 
cusative with the inf. It stands, indeed, in the place of a finite 
verb of the direct statement, but does not thereby become finite 
with a subject. From the syntactical standpoint the construc- 
tion is true to both the substantival and verbal aspects of the 
inf. The subject of the finite verb, when thrown into the acc., 
takes this turn because of the limitations of the inf. When it is 
retained in the nominative, it is by apposition with the subject 
of the principal verb or by attraction if in the predicate. Draeger 
sees this point clearly in his treatment of the matter in Latin 
where the acc. with the inf. is much more frequent than in Greek.1 
“The name is confessedly a misnomer,” say King and Cookson.? 
Schmid? also sees the matter clearly and makes the ace. with the 
inf. the acc. of general reference. The usual beaten track is taken 
by Jolly,‘ but the truth is making its way and will win. Schmitt® 
admits that the acc. is not the grammatical subject, but only the 
logical subject. But why call it “subject” at all? Schroeder® 
properly likens it to the double accusative with διδάσκω, as in 
διδάσκω αὐτὸν περιπατεῖν. The late Sanskrit shows a few examples 
like English ‘if you wish me to live.’”’? The use of the acc. with 
the inf. early reached a state of perfection in Greek and Latin. 
Schlicher® notes 130 instances of it in Homer with φημί alone as 
against 15 with ws, 67¢. We see it in its glory in historians like 
Xenophon and Thucydides in Greek and Cesar in Latin. Vo- 
taw? notes the rarity of the construction in the O. T., while the 
Apocrypha and the N. T. have some 46 verbs which use the 
idiom. But even in the N. T., as compared with the ancient 
Greek, the construction is greatly narrowed. ‘The particular 

1 Hist. Synt., Bd. II, pp. 380, 446. 3 Uber den Infinitiv, p. 40. 

2 Introd. to Comp. Gr., 1890, p. 214. 4 Gesch. des Inf., p. 247. 

5 Uber den Urspr. des Substantivsatzes, p. 5. 

6 Uber die formelle Untersch. der Redet., p. 28. 

7 Wilhelmius, De Inf. linguarum Sanscritae, Beoticae, Persicae, Graecae, 
Oscae, Vmbricae, Latinae, Goticae Forma et Vsv, 1873, p. 65. 


8 Moods of Indirect Quotation, Am. Jour. of Theol., Jan., 1905. 
9 Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 9. 


1084 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


verbs in the N. T. which may use the acc. and the inf. in indirect 
assertion were given under Modes. A general view of the matter 
discloses a rather wide range still. But the idiom, being largely 
literary, is chiefly found in Luke, Paul and Hebrews. The other 
writers prefer ὅτι. Luke, in fact, is the one who makes the most 
constant use of the idiom, and he quickly passes over to the direct 
statement. There is with most of them flexibility as was shown. 
Blass! has a sensible summary of the situation in the N. T. There 
is, in truth, no essential difference in the Greek construction, 
whether the inf. is without a substantive, as in Ac. 12:15 διισχυ- 
ρίζετο οὕτως ἔχειν, with the acc., Ac. 24:9 φάσκοντες ταῦτα οὕτως 
ἔχειν, or with the nom. Ro. 1:22 φάσκοντες εἶναι σοφοί. Cf. Ac. 
17:30; 1 Pet. 3:17. Words like δεῖ, ἀνάγκη may be followed by 
no substantive (Mt. 23:23; Ro. 13:5). Cf. Lu. 2:26. In 1 
Pet. 2:11, we have only the predicate ws παροίκους --- ἀπέχεσθαι. 
Freedom also exists. In Mk. 9:47 we have καλόν σέ ἐστιν μονό- 
φθαλμον εἰσελθεῖν, while in Mt. 18:8 we read καλόν σοί ἐστιν μονό- 
φθαλμον εἰσελθεῖν. Even in Matthew the predicate adj. is acc., 
though it might have been dative, asin Ac. 16:21. Further ex- 
amples of the predicate dative when an accusative is possible are 
seen in Lu. 1:3; 9:59; Ac. 27:3 (NAB); 2 Pet. 2:21. But see 
Ac. 15: 22, 25; Heb. 2:10. Impersonal constructions may also 
use the acc. with the inf. There are besides verbs of willing, 
desiring, allowing, making, asking, beseeching, exhorting, some 
verbs of commanding, the inf. with πρίν, ὥστε, τό, τοῦ, prepositions 
and the articular infinitive. With all these the acc. may occur. 
A difficult inf. occurs in Ac. 26 : 28, ἐν ὀλίγῳ με πείθεις Χριστιανὸν 
ποιῆσαι. Is we the object of πείθεις or of ποιῆσαι Can πείθεις be 
‘try by persuasion’? Prof. W. Petersen suggests that this is a 
contamination of ἐν ὀλίγῳ με πείθεις Χριστιανὸν εἶναι and ἐν ὀλίγῳ με 
ποιήσεις Χριστιανόν. But verbs differ. Κελεύω, for instance, always 
has the acc. and the inf., while the dative comes with τάσσω (Ac. 
22 : 10), ἐπιτάσσω (Mk. 6 : 39), and verbs like ἐντέλλομαι, ἐπιτρέπω, 
παραγγέλλω, and impersonal expressions like συμφέρει, ἔθος ἐστίν, 
ἀθέμιτον, αἰσχρόν, etc. As shown above, καλόν ἐστιν is used either 
with the acc. or the dative, as is true of λέγω (cf. Mt. 5 : 34, 39 
with Ac. 21:21; 22:24). Blass? adds also Ac. 5:9, συνεφωνήθη 
ὑμῖν πειράσαι. He notes also that προστάσσω occurs with the ace. 
(Ac. 10:48) as is true of ἐπιτάσσω (Mk. 6:27) and τάσσω (Ac. 
15:2). Even συμφέρει appears with the acc. and inf. (Jo. 18 : 14) 
and ἔξεστιν (Lu. 6:4, where D has the dative, as is true of Mt. 
1 Gr. of N. Τὸ Gk., pp. 239-241. 2 Ib., p. 240. 


a Ὅν. ee ΣΝ 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA ΤΟΥ ‘PHMATOS) 1085 


12:4). With ἐγένετο Blass! observes how clumsy is ἐγένετό μοι —- 
γενέσθαι we (Ac. 22:17). The ace. and inf. occurs with ἐγένετο (Ac. 
9 : 32) and the dative also in the sense of it ‘befell’ or ‘happened 
to’ one, as in Ac. 20:16. In Ac, 22 : 6, ἐγένετό μοι --- περιαστράψαι 
φῶς, the two constructions are combined. Blass? further observes 
the independence of the inf. in adding an ace. of general reference 
besides the acc. with a verb of asking, as in Ac. 13 : 28 ἠτήσαντο 
Πειλᾶτον ἀναιρεθῆναι αὐτόν, (1 Th. 5:27) ὁρκίζω ὑμᾶς ἀναγνωσθῆναι 
τὴν ἐπιστολήν. In Ac. 21:12, παρεκαλοῦμεν --- τοῦ μὴ ἀναβαίνειν αὐτὸν 
εἰς Ἱερουσαλήμ, the αὐτόν is acc. of general reference with the inf., 
which is itself in the genitive as to form, though the real object of 
the verb. There is no instance in the N. T. of the inf. in a sub- 
ordinate clause unless we follow Nestle in 1 Pet. 5:8, ζητῶν τίνα 
καταπιεῖν. There are sporadic examples of such a construction 
due to analogy of the inf. in the main clause.’ Cf. O. P. 1125, 14 
(i/A.D.), ods καὶ κυριεύειν τῶν καρπῶν. 

(e) Personal Construction with the Infinitive. Many verbs and 
adjectives allowed either the personal or the impersonal con- 
struction with the infinitive. The Greek developed much more 
freedom in the matter.than the Latin, which was more limited 
in the use of the impersonal.* In the Ν. T. the impersonal con- 
struction occurs with fixed verbs like δεῖ, Ac. 25 : 24, βοῶντες μὴ 
δεῖν αὐτὸν ζῆν μηκέτι, where note inf. dependent on inf. as is com- 
mon: Πρ" Acs 26i:9; Lu. 5:34; Heb. 7:23; Mk.5.: 48; 
Lu. 6: 12;8:55). So also with ἔξεστιν, etc. The impersonal con- 
struction is seen also in Lu. 2: 26; 16:22; Ph. 3:1; Heb. 9: 26, 
etc. The inf. with impersonal verbs is somewhat more frequent in 
the N. T. than in the LX X. On the whole the personal construc- 
tion with the inf. is rare in the N. T.5 But in the N. T. δοκέω has 
the personal construction, as in Ac. 17: 18, δοκεῖ καταγγελεὺς εἶναι 
(cf. Jas. 1:26; Gal. 2:9, etc.), but we find ἔδοξε μοι in Lu. 1:3 
(cf. Ac. 15 : 28, ete.) and even ἔδοξα ἐμαυτῷ δεῖν πρᾶξαι (Ac. 26 : 9). 
The κοινή seems to use it less frequently than the ancient Greek. 
Radermacher (N. 7’. Gr., p. 148) quotes Vett. Valens, p. 277, 19, 
δόξει — ὑπάρχειν αὐτὴν τὴν αἵρεσιν. We have δεδοκιμάσμεθα πιστευ- 
θῆναι (1 Th. 2:4) and ἐμαρτυρήθη εἶναι (Heb. 11:4). One may 
compare the personal construction with ὅτι (1 Cor. 15 : 12; 2 Cor. 


τ ΟΥ̓ ΚΟΓΝ ΤῊ TT. Gk.jp. 241. 2. Ib: 

3. Cf. Middleton, Analogy in Synt., p. 9. Maximus of Tyre has it in a rel. 
clause. Diirr, Sprachl. Unters., p. 48. 

4 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 239. 

5 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 239. 


1086 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


3:3; 1 Jo. 2:19). The personal construction occurs with πρέπει 
(Heb. 7: 26). The impersonal has the acc. and the inf. (1 Cor. 
11:13), the dative and the inf. (Mt. 3:15), both the dative and 
the acc. (Heb. 2:10). Cf. W. F. Moulton in Winer-Moulton, p. 
402. The love of the passive impersonal appears in Ac. 13: 
28, ἠτήσαντο Πειλᾶτον, ἀναιρεθῆναι αὐτόν, and in 5:21, ἀπέστειλαν 
ἀχθῆναι αὐτούς (Radermacher, N. Τ'. Gr., p. 148). The nominative 
predicate with the inf. and the nom. in indirect discourse is to be 
noted also. 

(f) Epexegetical Infinitive. As already remarked, there is no 
essential difference between the appositional and the epexegetical 
use of the infinitive. The epexegetical inf. is added to a clause 
more or less complete in itself, while the merely appositional is 
more simple.! It is common in the dramatists. This use is prob- 
ably adnominal? in origin, but it drifts into the verbal aspect 
also. We see a free use of the limitative® inf. in ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, 
which only occurs once in the N. T. (Heb. 7:9). Brugmann does 
not agree with Griinewald that this is the original epexegetical or 
limitative inf., though it is kin to it. Blass‘ applies ‘“‘ epexegetical”’ 
merely to the appositional inf. It is in the epexegetical inf. that 
we see more clearly the transition from the original substantive 
to the verbal idea. It is hard to draw the line between δόγμα 
ἀπογράφεσθαι πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην (Lu. 2:1) and παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς els 
ἀδόκιμον νοῦν, ποιεῖν τὰ μὴ καθήκοντα (Ro. 1:28). The first is appo- 
sitional, the latter epexegetical. A good instance of the epexeget- 
ical inf. is seen in 2 Cor. 9 : 5, where ταύτην ἑτοίμην εἶναι ws εὐλογίαν 
is subsidiary to the ἵνα clause preceding, as is often the case. Vi- 
teau® notes that the construction is frequent in the Epistles. Cf. 
Eph. 1: 16-18 (iva — εἰς τὸ εἰδέναι), 3:16 f. (va — κραταιωθῆναι, κατοι- 
κῆσαι), Col. 1:10 (va — περιπατῆσαι), 4:3 (ἵνα --- λαλῆσαι). Further 
examples occur in Lu. 1:54 μνησθῆναι, 1:72 ποιῆσαι καὶ μνη- 
σθῆναι, 1:79 ἐπιφᾶναι τοῦ κατευθῦναι, Ac. 17:27 ζητεῖν, 2 Pet. 3: 
2 μνησθῆναι. The LXX®*® shows rather frequent instances of the 
articular inf. in this sense (cf. Gen. 3:22; Judg. 8:33; Ps. 
77:18). The N. T. shows very few. Indeed, Votaw finds only 
one, that in Gal. 3:10, ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὃς οὐκ ἐμμένει πᾶσιν τοῖς 
γεγραμμένοις ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτά. But certainly 


1 Thomspon, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 239. 

2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 517. 

5 Griinewald, Der freie formelhafte Inf. der Limit. im Griech., p. 21 f. 
ἜΝ ΠΟ ΡΟΣ 

5 Le Verbe, p. 161. § Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 26. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA ΤΟΥ ‘PHMATOS) 1087 


τοῦ ἀτιμάζεσθαι (Ro. 1: 24) after παρέδωκεν is Just as truly epexeget- 
ical as is ποιεῖν in verse 28 after παρέδωκεν. So also Ro. 7:3; 8: 
12; 1 Cor. 10:18. Burton! looks at the epexegetical inf. as ‘an 
indirect object,” as in Lu. 10:40, ἡ ἀδελφή μου μόνην με κατέλειπεν 
διακονεῖν. There is no doubt that in such instances the inf. is in 
the original dative case with the dative idea. See further Mk. 
ΠΡ 0 Lu. 7 403012 :45¢ Ac, 4:14 7 42.1.17. :.2101 23: 217%, 
ESO Lit 28 etc: 

(g) Purpose. It is but a step from the explanatory or epexe- 
getical inf. to that of design. Indeed, the epexegetical inf. some- 
times is final, a secondary purpose after iva, as in Eph. 1:18; 3: 
17; Col. 1:10, etc. The sub-final or objective use of the inf. is 
also a step on the way. This use was very common in the ancient 
Greek, but was partially taken up by ἵνα in the N. T.2. But many 
verbs, as we have seen, retain the sub-final inf. in the N. T. as 
in the rest of the κοινή. Blass’ careful lists and those of Viteau 
were given under Indirect Discourse. This notion of purpose is 
the direct meaning of the dative case which is retained. It is the 
usual meaning of the inf. in Homer,’ that of purpose. It goes 
back to the original Indo-Germanic stock.* It was always more 
common in poetry than in prose. The close connection between 
the epexegetical inf. and that of purpose is seen in Mk. 7:4, ἃ 
παρέλαβον κρατεῖν (‘for keeping,’ ‘to keep’). So Mt. 27:33, ἔδωκαν 
αὐτῷ πιεῖν οἶνον (‘for drinking,’ ‘to drink’). So Mt. 25 : 35, ἐδώ- 
κατέ μοι φαγεῖν. The inf. with the notion of purpose is exceedingly 
frequent in the LXX, second only to that of the object-inf. with 
verbs. It was abundant in Herodotus. Hence Thumb’ thinks 
its abundant use in the κοινή is due to the influence of the Ionic 
dialect. Moulton® agrees with this opinion. This is true both of 
the simple inf. of purpose and τοῦ and the inf. The Pontic dia- 
lect still preserves the inf. of purpose after verbs like ἀναβαίνω, 
etc. It is noteworthy that this inf. was not admitted into Latin 
except with a verb of motion. Moulton (Prol., p. 205) cites Par. 
Ρ. 49 (ii/B.c.) ἐὰν ἀναβῶ κἀγὼ προσκυνῆσαι, as parallel to Lu. 18: 

1 N. T. M. and T., p. 147. 

2 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 255 f.; Humphreys, The Problems of Greek, 
Congress of Arts and Sciences, 1904, vol. III, pp. 171 ff. 

§ Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 154. 

4 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 516; Delbriick, Grundr., IV, pp. 463 ff. 

5 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 10. 

6 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 240. 


7 Theol. Lit., 1903, p. 421. 
8 Prol., p. 205. 


1088 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


10, ἀνέβησαν — προσεύξασθαι. Moulton! notes this correspondence 
between the ancient and the modern vernacular and agrees with 
Thumb’s verdict again that the result is due to the two conflict- 
ing tendencies, one the universalizing of ἵνα, which prevailed in 
Western Hellenism and resulted in the disappearance of the inf. in 
modern Greece, while the localizing of the inf. in Pontus serves 
to illustrate to-day the N. T. idiom. The N. T. use of the inf. 
of purpose includes the simple inf., τοῦ and the inf., eis τό and 
the inf., πρὸς τό and the inf., ὥστε and the inf. There is no ex- 
ample of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ re. First-note the simple inf., all in the original 
dative case. This use had a wider range in Homer than in the 
Attic writers. Thus Mt. 2:2 ἥλθομεν προσκυνῆσαι αὐτῷ; (5:17) 
οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι, ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι; (7:5) διαβλέψεις ἐκβαλεῖν τὸ κάρ- 
gos; (11:7) τί ἐξήλθατε εἰς τὴν ἔρημον θεάσασθαι (so verse 8, ἐδεῖν) ; 
(20 : 28: Mk. 3:14) ἀποστξλλῃ αὐτοὺς κηρύσσειν; (5:32) περιεβλεέ- 
mero ἰδεῖν; (Lu. 18 : 10) ἀνέβησαν προσεύξασθαι; (Jo. 4:15) διέρχωμαι 
ἐνθάδε ἀντλεῖν; (Ac. 10:33) πάρεσμεν ἀκοῦσαι; (2 Cor. 11:2) ἡρμο- 
σάμην ὑμᾶς --- παραστῆσαι; (Rev. 5:5) ἐνίκησεν --- ἀνοῖξαι; (10 : 9) οὐ 
᾿μετενόησαν δοῦναι. ‘These examples will suffice. It is very com- 
mon in the N. T. It is not necessary to multiply illustrations of 
τοῦ after all the previous discussion. The O. 1. shows the idiom 
in great abundance, though the construction is classic. It was 
used especially by Thucydides.2 This was a normal use. We 
have already noticed that Paul makes little, if any, use of this 
idiom. It is possible in Ro. 6:6; Ph. 3:10. Indeed, Votaw4 
notes only 33 instances of τοῦ and inf. of purpose in the N. T., 
and these are chiefly in Matthew, Luke and Acts. Note (Mt. 2: 
13) ζητεῖν τοῦ ἀπολέσαι, (13:3) ἐξῆλθεν τοῦ σπείρειν, (Lu. 21: 22) 
τοῦ πλησθῆναι πάντα, (24: 29) τοῦ μεῖναι. See further Ac. 3:2; 5: 
31; 26:18; 1 Cor. 10 : 13; Gal. 3:10; Heb: 10:7, etc. The use 
of rod μή is, of course, the same construction. Cf. Ro. 6:6, τοῦ 
μηκέτι δουλεύειν ἡμᾶς. Cf. Ac. 21:12. In Lu. 2 : 22 note παραστῆ- 
σαι, and in verse 24 τοῦ δοῦναι. Purpose is also expressed by εἰς τό 
as inl Th. 3:5, ἔπεμψα eis τὸ γνῶναι, and by πρὸς τό as in Mt. 
6:1, πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι. In the N. T. ὥστε with the inf. of purpose 
is rare. Originally purpose was the idea with ὥστε, or conceived 
result. Actual result with ὥστε was expressed by the indicative. 


1 Prol., p. 205. Allen gives no ex. of the simple inf. of purpose in Polyb., 
only τοῦ, ὥστε, ἐφ᾽ @ te. Cf. Inf. in Polyb., p. 22. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 216. Thuc. was the first to use τοῦ and the inf. for 
purpose (Berklein, Entwickelungsgesch., p. 58). 

Pe borers PARSE 4 Inf. in Bibl-GE, peel: 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATOS) 1089 


In the LXX the notion of purpose is still common, especially in 
the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus.! In the N. T. there are 
only 7 instances, leaving out Ac. 20 : 24, according to W. H., and 
only 6 if we follow W. H. in Lu. 9:52. See Mt. 10 : 1, ἔδωκεν ai- 
τοῖς ἐξουσίαν ὥστε ἐκβάλλειν. Here the notion of ὥστε (ΞΞ ὡς, Te, 
‘and so’) is simply ‘so as,’ not ‘so that.’ See also Lu. 4: 29, ὥστε 
κατακῥημνίσαι. Cf. further Mt. 15 : 33; 27:1; Lu. 20:20. Burton? 
thinks that in Mt. 27:1 ὥστε gives rather content than pur- 
pose. One must not confuse with τοῦ and the inf. of purpose 
the somewhat analogous construction of τοῦ and τοῦ μή after 
verbs of hindering. This is in reality, as was shown, the abla- 
tive and the regular object-inf. (substantival aspect). Cf. Lu. 
4:42; Ac. 20:27; Ro. 15:22. Votaw? notes 22 verbs in the 
LXX and the N. T. that use this idiom. The only common one 
is κωλύω. See further Final Clauses in chapter on Modes for 
papyri examples. 

(h) Result. Purpose is only ‘‘intended result,” as Burton? ar- 
gues. Radermacher (N. 7. Gr., p. 153) says that the difference 
between purpose and result in the inf. is often only in the more 
subjective or objective colouring of the thought. It is hard to 
draw a line between conceived result and intended result. Blass® 
explains a number of examples as result that I have put above 
under Purpose, as Rev. 5:5; 16:9. It is largely a matter of 
standpoint. The line of distinction is often very faint, if not 
wholly gone. Take Rev. 5:5, for instance, ἐνίκησεν 6 λέων ἀνοῖξαι. 
The lion had opened the book and so it was actual result. So 
also Ac. 5:3, διὰ τί ἐπλήρωσεν ὁ σατανᾶς τὴν καρδίαν cov, ψεύσασθαί 
oc. Ananias had actually lied. In the ancient Greek also the 
distinction between purpose and result was not sharply drawn.® 
The inf. may represent merely the content’ and not clearly either 
result or purpose, as in Eph. 3 : 6, εἶναι τὰ ἔθνη. Cf. also 4: 22, ἀπο- 
θέσθαι. This is not a Hebraistic (Burton) idiom, but falls in na- 
turally with the freer use of the inf. in the κοινή. See also Ac. 
15:10 ἐπιθεῖναι ζυγόν, (Heb. 5:5) γενηθῆναι ἀρχιερέα. Where it is 
clearly result, it may be actual or hypothetical.? The hypothet- 
ical is the natural or conceived result. The N. T. shows but 12 


1 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 10. 2 N. T. M. and T., p. 150. 
3 Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 24. Cf. W.-M., p. 409. 

4 N. T. M. and T., p. 148. 

δ Gr. of Ν. T. Gk., p. 224. 6 Biumlein, Modi, p. 339. 
7 W.-M., p. 400. See Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 150 f, 

8 Allen, Inf. in Polyb., p. 21. 


1090 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


instances of the simple inf. with the notion of result, according to 
Votaw.! In the O. T. it is quite common. The 12 examples in 
the Ν. T. are usually hypothetical, not actual. So Ro. 1:10 εὐο- 
δωθήσομαι ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, (Eph. 8 : 17) κραταιωθῆναι, κατοικῆσαι, (6: 
19) γνωρίσαι, (Col. 4: 8) λαλῆσαι, (4: 6) εἰδέναι, (Heb. 6 : 10) ἐπιλα- 
θέσθαι. It is here that the kinship with purpose is so strong. Cf. 
Rev. 16:9. But some examples of actual result do occur, as in Lu. 
10:40; Ac. 5:3; Rev. 5:5. In the O. T.? we have actual result 
with τοῦ and the inf., but no examples occur in the N. T. Not 
more than one-half of the examples of τοῦ and the inf. in Luke, who 
gives two-thirds of the N. T. instances, are final.? Some of these 
are examples of hypothetical result. See discussion of Result in 
chapter on Mode for further discussion and, papyri examples. It 
is rather common in the O. T., though not so frequent in the 
N.T.4 It is possible to regard Mt. 21:32, μετεμελήθητε τοῦ πιστεῦ- 
σαι, thus, though in reality it is rather the content of the verb.° 
There is similar ambiguity in Ac. 7:19, ἐκάκωσεν τοῦ ποιεῖν. But 
the point seems clear in Ac. 18 : 10, οὐδεὶς ἐπιθήσεταί σοι τοῦ κακῶσαί 
oe, and in Ro. 7:3, τοῦ μὴ εἶναι αὐτὴν μοιχαλίδα. If rod can be oc- 
casionally used for result, one is prepared to surrender the point 
as to eis τό if necessary. It is usually purpose, but there is ambi- 
guity here also, as in Mt. 26: 2; 1 Cor. 11:22, where the purpose 
shades off toward hypothetical result. In Ac. 7:19 we seem to 
have hypothetical result, εἰς τὸ μὴ ζωογονεῖσθαι. So also Ro. 6 : 12, 
εἰς τὸ ὑπακούειν. It may be true also of Heb. 11: 3, εἰς τὸ γεγονέναι. 
See further Ro. 12 :3; 2 Cor. 8:6; Gal. 3:17.62 Votaw’ argues 
for actual result in Ro. 1: 20, eis τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀναπολογήτους. It 
is hard to deny it in this passage. But it is ὥστε and the inf. that 
is the usual N. T. construction for this idea with the inf. As 
already shown (see Mode) nearly all of the 51 examples of ὥστε 
and the inf. in the N. T. have the notion of result. Once Votaw$ 
notes an instance of hypothetical result in the N. T., 1 Cor. 13: 
2, Kav ἔχω πᾶσαν THY πίστιν ὥστε ὄρη μεθιστάνειν. Burton® goes fur- 
ther and includes in this category Mt. 10:1; 2 Cor. 2:7. But 
these debatable examples are in harmony with the usual am- 

1 Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 13. 

2 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 25. Cf. Ruth 2 : 10, τί ὅτι εὗρον χάριν ἐν ὀφθαλ- 
Hots σου τοῦ ἐπιγνῶναί με; See also 2 Chron. 33:9; 1 Mace. 14: 36. 

3 Moulton, Prol., p. 217. 

Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 25. 5 Moulton, Prol., p. 216. 
Cf. Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 161; Moulton, Prol., p. 219. 


4 

6 

7 Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 21. 

Sibi, 9 N. T. M. and T., p. 149. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) 1091 


biguity as to result and purpose. There is no doubt about the 
examples of actual result with ὥστε. Thus Mt. 13 : 54 ἐδίδασκεν 
αὐτοὺς ὥστε ἐκπλήσσεσθαι καὶ λέγειν, (Mk. 9 : 26) ὥστε τοὺς πολλοὺς 
λέγειν, (Lu. 12 : 1) ὥστε περιπατεῖν ἀλλήλους, (Ac. 5:15) ὥστε ἐκφέ- 
pew. ee also Ac. 15 739; Ro. 7:6; 2’Cor..7 27; Phi 2215; ete. 
There is one instance in the text of W. H. where ὡς occurs 
with the inf., Lu. 9: 52, ὡς ἑτοιμάσαι. Here hypothetical result 
or purpose is possible. Cf. as σχεῖν O. P. 1120, 19 f. (iii/a.p.). 
The use of ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν (Heb. 7:9) is the absolute idea, as 
already shown. Different also is ὡς ἂν ἐκφοβεῖν (2 Cor. 10: 9)= 
‘as if.’ A clear case of result occurs in Epictetus, IV, 1, 50, 
οὕτως — μὴ ἀποδύρασθαι. 

(ὃ Cause. There is only one example in the Ν. T. of the ar- 
ticular inf. without a preposition in this sense. That is in 2 Cor. 
2:13, τῷ μὴ εὑρεῖν, and it is in the instr. case as already shown. 
The LXX shows a half-dozen examples, but all with variant 
readings.! But it is common with διὰ τό to have the causal sense, 
some 32 times in the N. 1.2. See Prepositions and Substantival 
Aspects of the Infinitive. Cf. Mt. 13:5f.; Mk. 5:4; Lu. 6:48; 
Jas.4:2f. There is one instance of ἕνεκεν τοῦ in 2 Cor. 7: 12. 

(7) Time. Temporal relations are only vaguely expressed by 
the inf. See Tense in this chapter for the absence of the time- 
element in the tenses of the inf. except in indirect discourse. 
Elsewhere it is only by prepositions and πρίν (an adverbial prep- 
osition in reality) that the temporal idea is conveyed by the inf. 
Antecedent time is expressed by πρίν or πρὸ τοῦ. For πρὸ τοῦ, see 
Mt. 6:8; Lu. 2:21, etc. - piv or πρὶν 7 (so in Mt. 1:18; Mk. 
14:30; Ac. 7:2; W. H. have πρὶν 4 in the margin in Ac. 2 : 20) 
occurs with the inf. 11 times in the N. T. (all in Gospels and 
Acts). We have it only twice with finite verb after negative 
sentences, once with the subj. (Lu. 2 : 20), once with the opt. 
(Ac. 25:16), both in Luke (literary style). See, for the inf.,’ 
Mt. 26 : 34 πρὶν ἀλέκτορα φωνῆσαι, (Jo. 4:49) πρὶν ἀποθανεῖν. See 
further Mt. 26 : 75; Mk. 14:72; Lu. 22 : 61 (five of the instances 
are practically identical); Jo. 8:58; 14:29; Ac. 2:20. In He- 
rodotus, under the influence of indirect discourse, the inf. occurs 
with ὅκως, ἐπεί, ἐπειδή, εἰ, διότι and the relative pronouns. Con- 


1 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 29. 

2 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 161, mentions only 23. 

3 The inf. with πρίν is common in Hom. See Monro, p. 158. 

4 Bénard, Formes verbales en Grec d’aprés le Texte d’Hérodote, 1890, p. 
196. See also Sturm, Die Entwick. der Konstrukt. mit πρίν, 1883, p. 3. 


1092 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


temporaneous action is described by & 76, especially in Luke. 
Cf. Lu. 1: 21, ἐν τῷ χρονίζειν. See Prepositions with Infinitive for 
further remarks. Subsequent action is set forth by μετὰ τό as in 
Mt. 26 : 32; Lu. 12:5, etc. In Ac. 8:40, ἕως τοῦ ἐλθεῖν, we have 
the prospective future. 

(k) The Absolute Infinitive. This idiom is very common in 
Homer, especially as an imperative and in the midst of impera- 
tives. R. Wagner? notes that in Homer this use of the inf. oc- 
curs with the nom. The papyri still show examples like ὁ δεῖνα 
τῷ δεῖνα χαίρειν. Gerhard* holds that in such cases there is ellipsis 
of λέγει. The Attic inscriptions® frequently have the absolute 
infinitive as imperative. Deissmann (Light from the Anc. East, 
p. 75) notes that, as in German, it is common in edicts and no- 
tices. Cf. imperatival use of infinitive in modern French. He 
quotes from the ‘ Limestone Block from the Temple of Herod at 
Jerusalem” (early imperial period): Μηθένα ἀλλογενῆ εἰσπορεύεσθαι 
ἐντὸς τοῦ περὶ τὸ ἱερὸν τρυφάκτου καὶ περιβόλου, ‘Let no foreigner enter 
within,’ etc. See also Epictetus, IV, 10, 18, ἵνα δὲ ταῦτα γένηται, 
ov μικρὰ δέξασθαι οὐδὲ μικρῶν ἀποτυχεῖν. ‘The imperatival use was 
an original Indo-Germanic idiom.® It flourishes in the Greek 
prose writers.’ Burton*® and Votaw® admit one instance of the 
imperatival inf. in the N. T., Ph. 3:16, τῷ αὐτῷ στοιχεῖν. But 
Moulton” rightly objects to this needless fear of this use of the 
inf. It is clearly present in Ro. 12:15, χαίρειν, κλαίειν. The case 
of Lu. 9:3 is also pertinent where μή τε ἔχειν comes in between 
two imperatives. Moulton himself objects on this point that 
this inf. is due to a mixture of indirect with direct discourse. 
That is true, but it was a very easy lapse, since the inf. itself 
has this imperatival’ use. ἘΠ ΤῊ 5: 11362 Dh. Brill ieee 
there is the nominative case and the whole context besides the 
accent to prove that we have the optative, not the aorist ac- 
tive infinitive. See Mode for further discussion. Moulton! 
quotes Burkitt as favouring the mere infinitive, not ἔδει, in 
Mt. 28 : 28, ταῦτα δὲ ποιῆσαι κἀκεῖνα μὴ ἀφεῖναι, after the Lewis 
Syriac MS., and also καυχᾶσθαι --- in 2 Cor. 12:1 after &%. The 

1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 162. 

2 Der Gebr. des imper. Inf. im Griech., 1891, p. 12. 

5 Reinach, Pap. grecs et démotiques, 1905. 

* Unters. zur Gesch. des griech. Briefes, Phil. Zeitschr., 1905, p. ee 

5 Meisterh., p. 244. 

6 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 516. 9 Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 18. 
7 
8 


W.-M., p. 397. ΤᾺ Proks, purl? 9: 
N. T. M. and T., p. 146. 11 tT: psi 248; 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATOS) 1093 


imperatival use of the inf. was common in laws and maxims and 
recurs in the papyri.! So A. P. 86 (i/A.D.) ἐξεῖναι, μισθῶσαι. Rader- 
macher (N. 7. Gr., p. 146) quotes Theo, Progymn., Ὁ. 128, 12, 
φέρε ζητεῖν, where the inf. is used as a deliberative subj. would be. 
He gives also the Hellenistic formula, εἰς δύναμιν εἶναι τὴν ἐμήν, 
Inscr. Pergam., 13, 31; 13, 34. Hatzidakis? notes that in the 
Pontic dialect this construction still exists. The epistolary inf. 
has the same origin as the imperatival inf. It is the absolute inf. 
This is common in the papyri. See Ac. 15 : 23; 23 : 26; Jas. 1: 1, 
χαίρειν. The nom. is the nominative absolute also. Cf. 2 Jo. 10, 
where χαίρειν is the object of λέγετε. Radermacher (NV. 7. Gr., 
p. 146) notes how in the later language the acc. comes to be used 
with the absolute inf., as in C. Inscr. lat. V. 8733, dovve αὐτων ΞΞ 
δοῦναι αὐτόν. It is just in this absolute inf. that we best see the 
gradual acquirement of verbal aspects by the inf. It is probably 
the oldest verbal use of the inf.2 The construction in Heb. 7:9, 
ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, is but a step further on the way. There is but one 
instance of this sort with ὡς in the N. T.4 Cf. τοῦ πολεμῆσαι in 
Rey. 12 : 7, where it is an independent parenthesis. 

(ἢ Negatives. The ancient Greek used μή chiefly with the inf. 
except in indirect assertion where οὐ of the direct was retained. 
But we see οὐ with the inf. after verbs of saying as early as Ho- 
mer, φὴς οὐχ ὑπομεῖναι, Iliad, XVII, 174. Thus οὐ won a place for 
itself with the inf., but many verbs retained μή as verbs of 
swearing, hoping, promising, etc. But special phrases could have 
ov anywhere and strong contrast or emphasis would Justify ov.° 
Votaw® finds 354 instances in the Greek Bible where the inf. it- 
self is modified by the negative. Of these 330 have μή and the 
rest have compounds of μή. The anarthrous inf. with μή he notes 
59 times in the O. T., 32 in the Apocrypha and 47 in the N. T., 
139 in all. The articular inf. with μή he finds in the O. T. 136 
times (τοῦ 99, τό 37), in the Apocrypha 21 times (τοῦ 10, τό 11), in 
the N. T. 35 times (τοῦ 15, τό 20), 192 in all (τοῦ 124, τό 68). With 
the anarthrous inf. the negative more frequently occurs with the 
principal verb as in οὐ θέλω. We do have οὐ in infinitival clauses, 
as will be shown, but in general it is true to say that the inf. 
directly is always negatived by μή in the N. T. This is true of 


1 Ib., p. 179. 2 Hinl., p. 192. 3. Moulton, Prol., p. 203. 

4 For the variety of uses of the absolute inf. in ancient Gk. see Goodwin, 
M. and T., pp. 310 ff. 

δ Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 414. 

6 Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 58. 


1094. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


all sorts of uses of the inf. So the subject-inf. uses μή, as κρεῖτ- 
Tov ἦν αὐτοῖς μὴ ἐπεγνωκέναι (2 Pet. 2:21), both the anarthrous 
as above and the articular as in Lu. 17:1. The object-inf. 
likewise has μή, as in Lu. 21:14, θέτε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν μὴ 
προμελετᾶν. For the articular accusative with μή see Ro. 14: 13. 
We have it with indirect commands as in Mt. 5: 34, λέγω ὑμῖν 
μὴ ὀμόσαι, and in indirect assertion as in Ac. 23:8, λέγουσιν μὴ 
εἶναι ἀνάστασιν μήτε ἄγγελον μήτε πνεῦμα. We have it with rod μή 
as in Jas. ὅ : 17, τοῦ μὴ βρέξαι, and with prepositions as in 2 Cor. 
4:4, εἰς τὸ μὴ αὐγάσαι. With verbs of hindering and denying the 
negative μή is not necessary, but it was often used by the ancients 
as a redundant negative repeating the negative notion of the 
verb, just as double negatives carried on the force of the first 
negative. It was not always used. When the verb itself was 
negatived, then μὴ οὐ could follow.t. But we do not find this 
idiom inthe N.T. Examples of the N.T. idiom have already been 
given in this chapter. The variety in the N. T. may be illus- 
trated. See Lu. 23':2 κωλύοντα φόρους Καίσαρι διδόναι, (Ac. 4 : 17) 
ἀπειλησώμεθα αὐτοῖς μηκέτι λαλεῖν, (Gal. 5:7) τίς ὑμᾶς ἐνέκοψεν ἀλη- 
θείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι, (Ro. 15 : 22) ἐνεκοπτόμην τοῦ ἐλθεῖν, (Lu. 4: 42) 
κατεῖχον αὐτὸν τοῦ μὴ πορεύεσθαι, (Mt. 19 : 14) μὴ κωλύετε αὐτὰ ἐλθεῖν 
πρός με, (1 Cor. 14:39) τὸ λαλεῖν μὴ κωλύετε, (Ac. 14: 18) μόλις 
κατέπαυσαν τοὺς ὄχλους τοῦ μὴ θύειν αὐτοῖς, (Ac. 8:36) τί κωλύει με 
βαπτισθῆναι, (10 : 47) μήτι τὸ ὕδωρ δύναται κωλῦσαί τις τοῦ μὴ βαπ- 
τισθῆναι, (20 : 20) οὐδὲν ὑπεστειλάμην τοῦ μὴ ἀναγγεῖλαι. Rader- 
macher (N. 7΄. Gr., p. 149) illustrates “the Pauline τὸ μή with the 
infinitive” by Sophocles’ Electra, 1078, τό τε μὴ βλέπειν ἑτοῖμα, and 
the inser. (Heberdey-Wilhelm, Reisen in Kilikien, 170, 2), τὸ μηδέν᾽ 
ἄλλον — ἐπεισενενκεῖν. We may note also Ac. 4: 20, οὐ δυνάμεθα μὴ 
λαλεῖν, where the negative is not redundant. Cf. also Jo. 5:19, 
οὐ δύναται ποιεῖν οὐδέν, Where the second negative is redundant, but 
it repeats the ob. Some MSS. have a redundant negative μή with 
εἰδέναι in Lu. 22 : 34 (ef. 1 Jo. 2 : 22 after ὅτι) and with προστεθῆ- 
ναι in Heb. 12:19. So AP read ἀντιλέγοντες in Lu. 20 : 27. 
Kven in indirect discourse the same negative is repeated, as in 
Ac. 26:26, λανθάνειν αὐτὸν τούτων ob πείθομαι οὐθέν. Here οὐθέν 
strictly goes with λανθάνειν in spite of its position after πείθομαι, 
but οὐ is construed with πείθομαι, and so οὐθέν is used rather than 
μηθέν or μηδέν. But in Mk. 7: 24, οὐδένα ἤθελεν γνῶναι, it is not 
best to explain οὐδένα with the inf. in this fashion. This looks 
like the retention of the old classic use of οὐ with the inf. which 
1 See Thompson, Synt., pp. 425 ff. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATOZ) 1095 


the grammars are not willing to allow in the N. T.! Epictetus 
uses οὐ with the inf. as in IV, 10, 18, οὐ μικρὰ δέξασθαι οὐδὲ μικρῶν 
ἀποτυχεῖν. ASamatter of fact we have a number of other examples 
of οὐ with the inf., too many to rule out without ceremony. There 
is the case in Heb. 7:11, τίς ἔτι χρεία κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδὲκ 
ἕτερον ἀνίστασθαι καὶ οὐ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν λέγεσθαι; It is true that οὐ 
comes just before κατὰ τὴν τάξιν, but it is rather forced to deny it 
any connection with λέγεσθαι. See also Ro. 8:12, ὀφειλέται οὐ τῇ 
σαρκὶ Tov κατὰ σάρκα ζῆν, where, however, ov occurs outside of τοῦ 
and is directly concerned with τῇ σαρκί. Other examples of sharp 
contrast by means of οὐ are found, as in Ac. 10: 40 f., ἔδωκεν αὐτὸν 
ἐμφανῆ γενέσθαι, οὐ παντὶ τῷ λαῷ ἀλλὰ μάρτυσι; Ro. 7:6, ὥστε dov- 
λεύειν ἐν καινότητι πνεύματος καὶ οὐ παλαιότητι γράμματος; Heb. 18 :9, 
βεβαιοῦσθαι οὐ βρώμασιν (but here no contrast is expressed). In 
Ro. 4:12, 16, with εἰς τό, we find οὐ μόνον --- ἀλλὰ καί. 

(m) "Av with the Infinitive. This classic idiom has vanished 
from the N. T. save in 2 Cor. 10:9, ws ἂν ἐκφοβεῖν. Even here it 
is not a clear case, since ἐκφοβεῖν depends on δόξω and ws ἄν comes 
in as a parenthetical clause, ‘as if’ (‘as it were’). 

The treatment of the infinitive has thus required a good many 
twists and turns due to its double nature. 

III. The Participle (ἣ μετοχή). 

1. THE VERBALS IN —TOS AND —tTéos. These verbals are not ex- 
actly participles inasmuch as they have no tense or voice. They 
are formed from verb-stems, not from tense-stems, and hence 
are properly called verbal adjectives.2, In the broadest sense, 
however, these verbals are participles, since they partake of both 
verb and adjective. Originally the infinitive had no tense nor 
voice, and the same thing was true of the participle. For con- 
venience we have limited the term participle to the verbal ad- 
jectives with voice and tense. The verbal in —ros goes back to 
the original Indo-Germanic time and had a sort of perfect passive 
idea. This form is like the Latin -tus. Cf. yrwrds, ndtus; ἄγνω- 
tos, ignotus. But we must not overdo this point. Strictly this 
pro-ethnic -tos has no voice or tense and it never came to have 
intimate verbal connections in the Greek as it did in Latin and 
English. Thus amatus est and ἀγαπητός ἐστιν do not correspond, 
nor, in truth, does ‘he is loved’ square with either. ‘Even in 
Latin, a word like tacitus illustrates the absence of both tense 

1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 255. 


2 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 262. 
3 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 200. 4 Moulton, Prol., p. 221. 


1096 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 

and voice from the adjective in its primary use.’’! Already in 
the Sanskrit voice and tense appear with some of the participles, 
but “the division-line between participial and ordinary adjec- 
tives is less strictly drawn in Sanskrit than in the other Indo- 
Kuropean languages.’’? The ambiguity due to the absence of 
voice in the verbal in —ros was inherited from the original Indo- 
Germanic time.’ It becomes, therefore, a lexical, not a syntactical 
problem to decide in a given instance whether the verbal is 
“active” or “passive’’ in signification. In itself it is neither. A 
similar problem is raised in compound adjectives like θεο-μάχοι 
(Ac. 5 : 89), ‘fighting God.’ In modern Greek the verbal in —7os 
is rare and is little more than an adjective (Thumb, Handb., p. 
151), though the new formation in —aros has more verbal force. 
This ambiguity appears in Homer and all through the Greek 
language. Blass® overstates it when he says that in the N. T. 
“the verbal adjective has practically disappeared, with the ex- 
ception of forms like δυνατός, which have become stereotyped as 
adjectives.”” As a matter of fact the verbal in —7os is still com- 
mon in the N. T. as in the κοινή in general. Take, for instance, 
ἀγαπητός, ἄγνωτος, ἀδύνατος, ἀκατάγνωτος, ἀναμάρτητος, ἀνεκτός, ἀόρη- 
τος, ἄπιστος, ἀπόβλητος, ἀρεστός, ἀρκετός, γεννητός, γὙραπτός, διδακτός, 
δυνατός, εὐλογητός, ἵεστός, θαυμαστός, θνητός, θεόπνευστος, ὁρατός, παθη- 
TOS, παρείσακτος, πιστός, φθαρτός, χρηστός, etc. It is true® that the 
tendency is rather to accent the adjectival aspect at the expense 
of the verbal idea of these words. But this also was true at the 
start, as we have just seen in the Sanskrit. The point to note 
is that the verbal does not denote voice. In Ac. 14:8; Ro. 15: 
1, ἀδύνατον is ‘incapable,’ whereas usually it is ‘impossible,’ as 
in Mt. 19:26; Mk. 10:27, etc. In Ro. 8:3, therefore, it is 
doubtful whether τὸ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου is the ‘impotency’ or the 
‘impossibility’ of the law.? There is no’ notion of tense or of 
Aktionsart in these verbals in —ros and so ἀγαπητός does not dis- 
tinguish® between ἀγαπώμενος, ἀγαπηθείς and ἠγαπημένος. Moul- 
ton thus properly notes the fact that in Mt. 25:41 we have 
κατηραμένοι, ‘having become the subjects of a curse,’ not κατάρα- 
τοι, ‘cursed.’ It is interesting to note χαρᾷ ἀνεκλαλήτῳ καὶ δεδο- 
ξασμένῃ ἴῃ 1 Pet. 1:8, but here ἀνεκλάλητος is active in sense, 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 221. 4 Stahl, Krit.-hist. Synt., p. 761. 
2 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 347. Be Gr Oty Name Cake 7} ie 

3 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 200. 

6 Cf. Viteau, Essai sur la Synt. des Voix, Revue de Philol., p. 41. 

7 Moulton, Prol., p. 221. 8 Ib. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATO2) 1097 


‘inexpressible.’ The ambiguity comes also in our English parti- 
ciple ‘borne’ used for αἰρόμενον in Mk. 2:3, and the punctiliar 
‘brought’ used for ἐνεχθεῖσαν in 2 Pet. 1:18. With these Moul- 
ton! contrasts ἠρμένον (‘taken away’) in Jo. 20:1. It is worth 
. while to study a few more examples from the lexical point of 
view. In general? the passive sense is more common, as in ἀγαπη- 
vos (Mt. 3:17); εὔθετος (Lu. 9 : 62); διδακτός (Jo. 6 : 45); θεόπνευ- 
στος (2 Tim. 3 : 16); θεοδίδακτος (1 Th. 4:9); γραπτός and κρυπτός 
(Ro. 2:15 f.).2 Here (Ro. 2:15 f.) τὰ κρυπτά is used just like a 
substantive (neuter adjective in plural). But ζἵεστός (Rev. 3 : 15) 
is active in sense as is ἀσύνετος (Ro. 1:31), though ἀσύνθετος next 
to it (paronomasia) is made from the middle συντίθεμαι (‘cove- 
nant’).4 Συνετός, sometimes passive in sense in the old Greek, is 
always active in the N.T., as in Mt. 11:25, but θνητός (Ro. 6: 
12) is ‘liable to death,’ not ‘dying,’ as παθητός (Ac. 26 : 23) is 
‘capable of suffering.’ Cf. the Latin adjectives in —bilis. 

The verbal in —réos is later than that in —ros and does not oc- 
cur in Homer. It is probably a modification of the verbal —7os to 
express the idea of the predicate-infinitive, like ‘this is not to eat 
(to be eaten).’> It is really a gerundive and is used in the per- 
sonal or impersonal construction, more commonly the latter.® 
The personal is always passive in sense, while the impersonal 
is active and may be formed from transitive or intransitive 
verbs.’ It expresses the idea of necessity. It was never as com- 
mon as the verbal in —7os and is not unknown in the papyri,§ 
though not frequent. It is more like the verb (and participle) than 
the verbal in —ros in one respect, that it often uses the cases of the 
regular verb.2 This is seen in the one example in the N. Τ᾿ (Lu. 
δ: 38) οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς BAnreov. It is the impersonal construc- 
tion, though the agent is not here expressed. ‘This example of 
—réov in Luke is asurvival of the literary style (cf. Viteau, “ Essai 
sur la Syntaxe des Voix,’’ Revue de Philologie, p. 38). See Theo, 
Progymn., p. 128, 12, εἰ γαμητέον. 


1 Tb., p. 222. 2 Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 707. 

3 In Sans. the verbal adjs. in --ἰά are sometimes called passive participles 
(Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 340). This form does not belong to the tense 
system. 

4 Moulton, Prol., p. 222. 

5 Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 184, 525. 7 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 368 f. 

6 Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 707. 8. Moulton, Prol., p. 222. 

9 But even with —ros this sometimes appears as in διδακτοὶ θεοῦ (Jo. 6: 45) 
where we have the ablative. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 522. 


1098 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


2. HisToRY OF THE PARTICIPLE. 

(a) The Sanskrit Participle. This was more advanced in its 
development than the Sanskrit infinitive, which had no voice or 
tense. In the Veda the aorist, present, perfect and future tenses 
have participles.!. The distinction in the structure of the parti- . 
ciple as compared with the other verbal adjectives hes just in 
this point. The mere verbal is formed on the verb-stem, while 
the participle is formed on the tense-stem.? In the Sanskrit also 
both voices (active and middle) show these participles. Thus 
already in the original Indo-Germanic tongue it appears prob- 
able that the participle existed with voice, tense, Aktionsart and 
government of cases.2 The Greek participle is thus rooted in this 
pro-ethnic participle as seen by the very suffixes —nt—, —meno-, 
—wos— (—us).4 

(b) Homer’s Time. Already in Homer and Hesiod the parti- 
ciple occurs as a fully developed part of speech. It occurs on an 
average of 81 times per page of 30 lines.5 In Hesiod the parti- 
ciple is chiefly attributive, while the predicate participle is less 
common than in Homer.’ This use of the participle as the prac- 
tical equivalent of the hypotactic clause is a purely Greek develop- 
ment (copied by the Latin to some extent) within historical times.’ 
The participle is a literary device, and flourished best with 
writers of culture who were φιλομέτοχοι8 Broadus used to call 
the Greek ‘‘a participle-loving language,’”’ and, taken as a whole, 
this is true. Certainly the participle had its most perfect develop- 
ment in the Greek. The aorist participle died in the Sanskrit 
and did not appear in the Latin. It is the aorist active participle 
which made the participle so powerful in Greek. The English, 
like the Sanskrit and the Greek, is rich in participles, though the 
German is comparatively poor. ‘We gain a certain grandeur 
and terseness by the construction, a certain sweep, a certain περι- 
Born, such as Hermogenes recognises as lying in the participle.’ ? 
This wealth of participles gives flexibility and swing to the lan- 
guage. 

(c) The Attic Period. In Herodotus the participle jumps to 

1 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 202. 2 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 262. 

3 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 521 f. 

4 Brug., Indoger. Forsch., V, pp. 89 ff.; Giles, Man., p. 473; Moulton, Prol., 

. 221. 
ἡ 5 Williams, The Part. in the Book of Acts, 1909, p. 7. 
6 Bolling, The Part. in Hesiod, Cath. Univ. Bull., 1897, III, p. 423. 


Τ ΤΌ. 8 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 505. 
9 Gildersl., Stylistic Effect of the Gk. Part., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1888, p. 142. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) 1099 


173 times per page of 30 lines.! But Sophocles has it only 9 
times on the same scale. Williams? runs the parallel on with 13 
for Thucydides, 12? for Xenophon, 10} for Plato, 10? for De- 
mosthenes. It is thus in the historians and orators and not the 
poets, that we see the participle in its glory. 

(d) The Kown. Here we note a sharp difference in the several 
styles of writing. The Atticists like Josephus with 20, and 2 
Maccabees with 234, lead in conscious imitation of the ancients. 
They go beyond them in fact. But the writers of the literary 
κοινή follow close behind, as Polybius with 174, Strabo with 13} 
and Plutarch with 14. Certainly there is no sign of decay here. 
But in the LXX, Exodus, Deuteronomy and Judges give only 
62 while* the papyri show 6%. This confirms the judgment 
that the vernacular was not fond of the participle and found it 
clumsy. Jannaris‘ quotes striking passages from Thucydides, 
Plato and Demosthenes which illustrate well the clumsiness and 
ambiguity of the participle in long, involved sentences. Even in 
the older Greek in unconventional or unscholarly composition the 
accumulation of participles is shunned. The clearer and easier 
analysis of co-ordinate or subordinate clauses was used instead.® 
In the N. T. we see the participle used on the whole more fre- 
quently than in the LXX and the papyri. The Hebrew had a 
certain restraining influence on the participle in the LXX. In 
the vernacular papyri the participle was held back on the prin- 
ciple just stated above. It is Luke who makes most frequent 
use of the participle with 162 in the Gospel and 17} in the Acts 
per page of 30 lines. But 1 Peter follows close behind with 153 
and Hebrews with 14. In the other Gospels Matthew has it 
123, Mark 112 and John 102.7. James has it 10 per page, while in 
the Epistles and Revelation it drops back to 8 and 9. On the 
whole it is much as one would expect. The more literary books 
lead (after Paul with only 9 per page average in Gal., 1 Cor., 
and Rom.).8 The historical books surpass the Epistles, while 
Hebrews here reveals its hortatory, sermonic character. For a 
succession of participles see Ac. 12:25; 23:27; Heb. 1:18 f.; 
Mk. 5:15. The details of the N. T. situation will come later. 

(e) Modern Greek. The participle more and more came to be 


1 Williams, The Part. in Acts, p. 7. 

ΠΡ pL0. δ Ib., p. 505. 

3 Tb. 6 Williams, Part. in Acts, p. 23. 
4 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 504. 7 Tb. ; 


8 Ib., p. 22. Williams did not count 2 Cor. and the other Pauline Epistles. 


1100 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


scholastic and dropped out of the vernacular! In particular 
was this true of the circumstantial participle. The classic Greek 
by means of the participle developed the periodic style (λέξις 
κατεστραμμένη) and is seen at its highest in Isocrates. See, for 
example, the “Ciceronian period” in [socrates, p. 82. Jebb? con- 
trasts this with λέξις εἰρομένη, simply tacking clause to clause as in 
Mt. 7: 27 and the colloquial repetition of finite verbs as in Jo. 1: 
47;7:4. But βλέπετε, βλέπετε, βλέπετε (Ph. 3: 2) has rhetorical ef- 
fect. In the vernacular modern Greek, therefore, we see a retreat 
of the participle all along the line. It is not dead as the infinitive, 
but is dying, though some vernacular writers are bringing back 
the use of the participle for literary purposes (Thumb, Handb., 
p. 168). The analytic tendency of modern language is against 
it. See Jebb’s remarks for the various devices used instead of 
the participle. The only participles left in modern Greek are the 
indeclinable present active in -οντας (cf. gerund in Latin), some 
middle (or passive) parts. in —otmevos or —duevos and perfect pas- 
sives like δεμένος (no reduplication).? A few are made from aorist 
stems like ἰδωμένος (Thumb, Handb., p. 150). The use of the part. 
in the modern Greek is very limited indeed. 

3. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PARTICIPLE. 

(a) Originally an Adjective. The infinitive was originally a sub- 
stantive, as we have seen. In the Sanskrit it did not acquire 
voice and tense, though it had the verbal idea of action. The 
participle, as we have seen, had made more progress in the San- 
skrit, but it was also originally an adjective. It never got away 
from this original adjectival idea.*| But we are not left to history 
and logic to prove this point. It so happens that some participles 
in form never became participles in fact. They are merely ad- 
jectives. Homer shows a number of such words.> Cf. ἄσ-μενος. 
We see remnants of this usage in the N. T. like ἑκών (Ro. 8 : 20), 
ἄκων (1 Cor. 9:17). Other participles come in certain uses to be 
only substantives (adjectives, then substantives), though the true 
participial use occurs also. Cf. ἄρχων, ‘a ruler’ (Mt. 20 : 25); 
ἡγούμενος, ‘a governor’ (Ac. 7: 10); τὰ ὑπάρχοντα ὑμῶν, ‘your belong- 
ings’ (Lu. 12:33). In general “the adjective represents a qual- 
ity at rest, the participle represents a quality in motion.”® But 


i Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 505; 2 V. and D., Handb., p. 333. 
3 Thumb, Handb., p. 167. Cf. also Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 242. 

4 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 522. 

5 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 54. Cf. Stahl, Krit.-hist. Synt., p. 681. 

6 Bolling, The Part. in Hesiod, Cath. Univ. Bull., 1897, III, p. 422. 





VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) 1101 


not all verbs express motion. The mere adjectival notion is more 
common in the Latin, as in preteritus, quietus, tacitus, etc. In 
Mt. 17:17, γενεὰ ἄπιστος καὶ διεστραμμένη, the verbal adjective and 
participle occur together. 

(b) The Addition of the Verbal Functions. These functions are 
tense, voice and case-government. There was originally no no- 
tion of time in the tense, nor does the tense in the participle 
ever express time absolutely. It only gives relative time by sug- 
gestion or by the use of temporal adverbs or conjunctions.!. The 
verbal idea in the participle thus expands the adjectival notion 
of the word.? But the addition of these verbal functions does not 
make the participle a real verb, since, like the infinitive, it does 
not have subject.* 

(c) The Double Aspect of the Participle. The very name parti- 
ciple (pars, capio) indicates this fact. The word is part adjective, 
part verb. Voss calls it mules, which is part horse and part ass.‘ 
Dionysius Thrax says: Μετοχή ἐστι λέξις μετέχουσα THs τῶν ῥημάτων 
καὶ τῆς τῶν ὀνομάτων ἰδιότητος. In the true participle, therefore, we 
are to look for both the adjectival and the verbal aspects, as in 
the infinitive we have the substantival and the verbal. The em- 
phasis will vary in certain instances. Now the adjectival will be 
more to the fore as in the attributive articular participle like 6 
καλῶν Now the verbal side is stressed as in the circumstantial 
participle. But the adjectival notion never quite disappears in 
the one as the verbal always remains in the other (barring a few 
cases noted above). One must, therefore, explain in each in- 
stance both the adjectival and verbal functions of the participle 
else he has set forth only one side of the subject. It is true that 
the verbal functions are usually more complicated and interest- 
ing,® but the adjectival must not be neglected. 

(d) Relation between Participle and Infinitive. As already ex- 
plained, they are closely allied in use, though different in origin. 
Both are verbal nouns; both are infinitival; both are participial. 
But the participle so-called is inflected always, while the infinitive 
so-called has lost its proper inflection. The infinitive, besides, ex- 
presses’ the action in relation to the verb, while the participle ex- 
presses the action in relation to the subject or the object of the 


I Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 522. 4 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 169. 
2 Th. JeBrue, (τπ|6 0} (1 paves 
83. Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 53. 6 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 163. 


7 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 242. In general, on this point, see Goodwin, 
M. and T., p. 357. 


1102 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


verb (or some other substantive or pronoun).! The distinction 
between the participle and the infinitive thus becomes quite im- 
portant. Thus in Lu. 16:3, ἐπαιτεῖν αἰσχύνομαι, the idea is ‘I am 
ashamed to beg and do not do it,’ while ἐπαιτῶν αἰσχύνομαι would 
be ‘I beg and am ashamed of it.’? Cf. the analytic expression 
in 2 Tim. 1:12. In Xenophon, Mem., 2,6, 39, we have αἰσχύνο- 
μαι λέγων. So ἄρχομαι in Attic Greek took the infinitive as a rule, 
linking the infinitive with the verb. But sometimes the parti- 
ciple occurred, linking the action to the subject (or object) and 
so contrasting the beginning with the end.? In the N. T. all the 
examples have the inf., there being no occasion for the point of 
distinction. In Lu. 3:23, ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα, we have 
neither with ἀρχόμενος. Cf. Lu. 14 : 30, ἤρξατο οἰκοδομεῖν. Rader- 

macher (N. 7’. Gr., p. 169) compares ἀρξάμενος ἐξετίθετο (Ac. 11: 
4) with ἀρξαμένη — κατέχομαι (Xen. of Eph., p. 388, 31). On the 
other hand, in the N. T. παύομαι occurs only with the participle, 
as in Lu. 5:4, ἐπαύσατο λαλῶν: Cf. Ac. 5:42; 6:13; Eph. 1: 16; 
Col. 1:9; Heb. 10:2. But in Ac. 14:18 note κατέπαυσαν τοῦ μὴ 
θύειν, which well illustrates the difference between the inf. and 
the part. The use of ἐτέλεσεν διατάσσων (Mt. 11:1) Blass? calls 
unclassical. The part. alone occurs with ἐνκακέω (Gal. 6:9; 2 
Th. 8:13). Note also ἐπέμενον ἐρωτῶντες (Spurious passage in 
Jo. 8:7), but ἄσιτοι διατελεῖτε (Ac. 27:33) without ὄντες. Cf. 
Ac. 12 : 16, ἐπέμενεν κρούων, and Lu. 7: 45, οὐ διέλιπεν καταφιλοῦσα. 
Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 169) finds the part. with ἐπιμένω 
in ‘vulgar literature.”’ He observes that many of these neater 
classical idioms with the part. do not appear in the N. T. 
Contrast with this the inf. in Ac. 20 : 20, 27, οὐ yap ὑπεστειλάμην 
τοῦ μὴ ἀναγγεῖλαι. There is no example of the inf. with φαίνομαι 
in the Ν. T., but the part. occurs in Mt. 6:16, 18 (νηστεύων). 
The adjective alone is seen in Mt. 23:27, 28. Cf. also Ro. 
7:13. It is hardly on a par with the participle in Mt. 6:17 
in spite of Blass’s insistence. Thoroughly classical also are 
προέφθασεν αὐτὸν λέγων (Mt. 17: 25) and ἔλαθον ξἕενίσαντες (Heb. 13: 
2), specimens of literary style. The infinitive with προφθάνω 
occurs in Clem., Cor., 11, 8, 2. The part. with τυγχάνω does 
not occur in the N. T. In the later κοινή the inf. takes the 
place of the participle with λανθάνω, παύομαι and φθάνω (Rader- 
macher, N. 7. Gr., p. 169). The part. is found with ὑπάρχω 

1 Cf. Schoemann, Die Lehre von den Redet. nach den Alten, 1862, p. 34. 


2 Robertson, Short Gr., p. 194. 1}: 
8 Blass, Gr. of Ν. T. Gk., p. 245. ® Ib. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) 1103 


(Ac. 8:16) and προὐπάρχω (Lu. 23:12). It is doubtful if the 
participle belongs to the verb in 1 Tim. 5:18, ἀργαὶ μανθάνουσιν 
meprepxouevat, but, if so, it is not to be understood as like the inf.! 
In Ph. 4:11; 1 Tim. 5:4, the inf. occurs with μανθάνω according 
to classic idiom. At any rate, if περιερχόμεναι (1 Tim. 5:18) is a 
circumstantial part., something has to be supplied with dpyat. 
The part. in 1 Tim. 1:12, πιστόν με ἡγήσατο θέμενος, is certainly 
circumstantial. The distinction between the inf. and the part. 
comes out sharply in indirect discourse also. The inf. is more 
objective. Thus note ἤκουσαν τοῦτο αὐτὸν πεποιηκέναι τὸ σημεῖον 
(Jo. 12 : 18) and ἀκούομεν γάρ τινας περιπατοῦντας (2 Th. 8 : 11). 
The participle is a descriptive adjective even though in indi- 
rect discourse (cf. Lu. 4 : 23; Ac. 7:12). See 1 Cor. 11 : 18 for the 
inf. again. In Mt. 7:11, οἴδατε δόματα ἀγαθὰ διδόναι, the inf. with 
οἶδα means ‘know how to give.’ But in Lu. 4:41, ἤδεισαν τὸν 
Χριστὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι, it is Mere indirect discourse. For the part. see 
2 Cor. 12 : 2, οἶδα — ἁρπαγέντα τὸν τοιοῦτον (cf. Mk. 6 : 20). In Ac. 
3:9 note εἶδεν αὐτὸν περιπατοῦντα. Here we have the same root, 
though a different sense. Οἶδα is common with ὅτι. But γινώσκω 
occurs both with the inf. as in Heb. 10 : 34, γινώσκοντες ἔχειν ἑαυ- 
τοὺς κρείσσονα ὕπαρξιν, and the participle as in Heb. 18 : 23, γινώ- 
σκετε TOV ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν Τιμόθεον ἀπολελυμένον. Cf. Lu. 8:46, eyo 
ἔγνων δύναμιν ἐξεληλυθυΐαν, Where the tense and participle both ac- 
cent the vivid reality of the experience. But note the inf. in Mt. 
16:13. The same thing is true of ὁμολογέω as in Tit. 1:16, θεὸν 
ὁμολογοῦσιν εἰδέναι, and 1 Jo. 4: 2, ὃ ὁμολογεῖ ᾿Ιησοῦν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα 
(οἴ. 2 Jo. 7). Cf. also Ac. 24:10 ὄντα σε κριτὴν ἐπιστάμενος and 
δοκιμάζω in 1 Th. 2:4 and 2 Cor. 8:22. Note difference between 
iva εὕρωσιν κατηγορεῖν αὐτοῦ (Lu. 6 : 7) and εὑρίσκει αὐτοὺς καθεύδοντας 
(Mk. 14:37). Cf. Indirect Discourse. Further examples of the 
supplementary participle come later. These sufficiently illustrate 
the difference between the use of inf. and part. 

(e) Method of Treating the Participle. The hybrid character of 
the participle has led to a great deal of diversity in its treat- 
ment in the grammars. Prof. Williams? gives an interesting 
summary in his monograph. None of them are satisfactory be- 
cause they do not follow a consistent plan. Part of the divisions 
are from the adjectival, part from the verbal point of view. They 
are not parallel. Thus we have Kihner’s complementary, attrib- 
utive, adverbial participles; Goodwin’s attributive, circumstan- 
tial, supplementary; Burton’s adjectival, adverbial, substantival; 

1 W.-M., p. 436. 2 The Part. in Acts, pp. 1 ff. 


1104. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Jannaris’ adjectival and adverbial; Blass’ attributive and in 
additional clause; Hadley and Allen’s attributive and _ predi- 
cate; Delbriick-Brugmann’s external, objective, adverbial. Then 
Williams! adds another that is no better, ascriptive, adverbial, 
complementary. Thompson? gives the attributive and the supple- 
mentary participle after saying that the nominal and the verbal 
classification is more elastic. The only way to get symmetry in 
the treatment of the participle is to follow the line of its double 
nature (adjectival and verbal) and discuss the adjectival functions 
and the verbal functions separately. See the discussion of the 
infinitive. That is to say, each participle must be considered as 
both adjectival and verbal. Not all the adjectival aspects will 
be true of any one participle nor all of the verbal, but each one 
will have some adjectival and some verbal functions. Thus alone 
can one get a clear statement of the many participial combina- 
tions and permutations. As an adjective the participle is attrib- 
utive (anarthrous or articular) or predicate. It may even be 
substantival, especially with ὁ. It is always declinable. Asa yerb 
there is always voice and tense and there may be cases. But_any 
given anarthrous predicate participle may be either supplementar 


complementary) or circumstantial (additional) or wholly inde- 
pendent (as indicative or imperative). The articular participle is 


ruled out of this three-fold alternative, though it still has voice, 
tense and governs cases. The articular participle is always at- 
tributive (or substantival). The lines thus cross and recross in 
the nature of the case. But a clear statement of all the essential 
facts can be made by taking the adjectival and the verbal aspects 
separately. In any given instance there is thus a double problem. 
Both sides of the given participle must be noted. 

A, ADJECTIVAL ASPECTS OF THE PARTICIPLE. 

(a) Declension. The free declension of the participle in num- 
ber and gender and case (ef. per contra the infinitive) makes the 
task of noting the adjectival aspects comparatively simple. There 
are anomalies of agreement in these three points as with other 
adjectives. Thus in Rey. 3:12 ἡ καταβαίνουσα in apposition with 
τῆς καινῆς Ἴερ. does not conform in case. There is a difficulty 
of both case and gender in πεπυρωμένης in Rev. 1:15. See also 
πλῆθος κράζοντες (Ac. 21:36) where the number and gender both 
vary. In Mk. 4:31 note 6s — ὃν πάντων τῶν σπερμάτων where ὄν 
takes the gender of σπέρμα. Cf. also ἦν καθήμεναι (Mt. 27:61). 


1 The Part. in Acts, p. 5. 
2 Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 249. 






ath i aX (ae gta 


VERBAL NOUNS (‘ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATO2) 1105 


But these matters are discussed adequately in chapter on The 
Sentence. 

(b) Attributive Participle. 

(a) Anarthrous. The article is not of course necessary with 
the attributive participle any more than with any other attrib- 
utive adjective. Thus we have ὕδωρ ζῶν (Jo. 4: 10), ‘living water,’ 
which is Just as really attributive as τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ζῶν (Jo. 4 : 11). 
When the article is used there is no doubt about the participle 
being attributive. When it is absent, it is an open question to 
be examined in the light of the context. Note also 1 Cor. 13: 1, 
χαλκὸς ἠχῶν ἢ κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον. This construction (the anar- 
throus attributive) is not so common as the other uses of the 
participle,t and yet it is not wholly absent from the N. T. See 
ἦχος ὥσπερ φερομένης πνοῆς βιαίας (Ac. 2:2) and θύρα ἠνεῳγμένη 
(Rev. 4:1). Τὸ is not always easy to draw the line between the 
anarthrous attributive participle and the predicate participle of 
additional statement. Cf. ἀνὴρ γεγεννημένος ἐν Tapod, ἀνατεθραμ- 
μένος δὲ ἐν TH πόλει ταύτῃ (Ac. 22:3). If ὁ occurred before these par- 
ticiples, we should have the articular-attributive participle which 
is equivalent to a relative.2 So in Ac. 10:18, we have ὁ ἐπικαλού- 
μενος Πέτρος, but in 10:32, ds ἐπικαλεῖται Πέτρος. Cf. Lu. 6:48, 
ὅμοιός ἐστιν ἀνθρώπῳ οἰκοδομοῦντι οἰκίαν, With Mt. 7: 24, ἀνδρὶ ὅστις 
κοδόμησεν αὐτοῦ τὴν οἰκίαν. See also Lu. 6:49. Cf. Ro. ὃ : 24, 
ἐλπὶς βλεπομένη οὐκ ἔστιν ἐλπίς. Cf. Mt. 27:38. The problem is 
particularly real in Mk. 5 : 25, 27. W. H. indicate by the comma 
after ἐλθοῦσα that they regard the participles with γυνή (οὖσα, πα- 
θοῦσα, δαπανήσασα, ὠφεληθεῖσα, ἐλθοῦσα) up to that point as attribu- 
tive. They describe the woman who comes. ‘Then the sentence 
proceeds with the predicate-circumstantial participles (ἀκούσασα, 
ἐλθοῦσα) before ἥψατο. Luke (ὃ : 43) makes the matter plainer by 
putting a relative clause after the first participle. The anar- 
throus attributive participle is closely bound to the substantive 
or pronoun even when it is an additional statement. See Mt. 
12:25, πᾶσα βασιλεία μερισθεῖσα καθ᾽ ἑαυτῆς ἐρημοῦται. See also 
Lu. 6:40; 2 Th. 2:4; Rev. 2:15. In Mt. 13:19, παντὸς ἀκούον- 
τος, we probably have the genitive absolute and so predicate cir- 
cumstantial, but even here αὐτοῦ occurs, though remote. Cf. πᾶς ὁ 
ἀκούων (Mt. 7:26) and πᾶς ὅστις ἀκούει (7: 24), where we see how 
nearly these constructions approach each other.’ But the anar- 


1 Goodwin, M. and ΤΣ, p. 330. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 242. 
3 This use of πᾶς without art. occurs occasionally in class. Gk. See K.-G., 
II, p. 608 f. 


1106 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


throus indefinite participle is clearly found in Jas. 4:17, εἰδότι 
οὖν καλὸν ποιεῖν Kal μὴ ποιοῦντι, ἁμαρτία αὐτῷ ἐστιν. This passage 
may throw some light on Mt. 12:25. In Mt. 13:35, διὰ τοῦ 
προφήτου λέγοντος, We probably have the articular attributive 
participle, since the Greeks did not always place the attributive 
participle between the article and the substantive.!. The use of 
ἔχων is interesting in Rev.15 : 1, εἶδον ἀγγέλους ἑπτὰ ἔχοντας πληγάς. 
The anarthrous indefinite participle is seen also in a few con- 
structions like προσετίθεντο πιστεύοντες τῷ κυρίῳ (Ac. 5 : 14), where 
the participle means ‘believing men’ and has πλήθη in apposition 
with it. See also φωνὴ βοῶντος (Mk. 1:3, LXX), ἐξελεύσεται ἡ γοὐ- 
μενος (Mt. 2:6, LXX), οὐκ ἔστιν συνίων and οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκζητῶν (Ro. 
3:11, LXX) where 6 is more common, ἔχεις ἐκεῖ κρατοῦντας (Rev. 
2:14). It is worth noting in this connection also the fact that 
occasionally a preposition occurs with an anarthrous participle 
(cf. infinitive). So χωρὶς κηρύσσοντος (Ro. 10:14). Here the 
idea is not ‘without preaching,’ but ‘without one preaching,’ 
‘without a preacher.’ For ‘without preaching’ we must have 
χωρὶς τοῦ κηρύσσειν. See once more χαίρειν μετὰ χαιρόντων, κλαίειν 
μετὰ κλαιόντων (12:15) and ἐπὶ ποιοῦντας (1 Pet. 8ὃ: 12).. In 1 
Cor. 15 : 27, ἐκτὸς τοῦ ὑποτάξαντος, we have the usual articular 
construction. 

(8) Articular. The articular participle occurs a few times in 
Homer.? In general the Book of Acts has the articular participle 
in about the same proportion as the great Attic writers. All 
articular participles are, of course, attributive. But the matter 
has some points of interest and cannot be dismissed with this 
general statement. The examples are very numerous. The sub- 
stantives may be expressed as in τὴν ἡτοιμασμένην ὑμῖν βασιλείαν 
(Mt. 25 : 34); of γραμματεῖς of ἀπὸ ᾿Ιεροσολύμων καταβάντες (Mk. 3: 
22). Like other articular adjectives, the participle may come be- 
tween the article and the substantive, as in τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκα- 
hia (1 Tim. 1:10); τοῦ φαινομένου ἀστέρος (Mt. 2 : 7); τῆς προκειμένης 
αὐτῷ χαρᾶς (Heb. 12:2). Cf. Jude 3. The substantive may pre- 
cede and the article may be repeated, as τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ζῶν (Jo. 4 : 11); 
τὸ σῶμα τὸ γενησόμενον (1 Cor. 15 : 37); τῷ θεῷ τῷ διδόντι (1 Cor. 15: 
57) Cf. Mt.26 628327440 Jasco Rot 2 11 ΠῚ ΠΝ ΠῚ 9.8 
the article is repeated as in 12 : 40 (apposition) when the nom- 
inative reminds us of the common anacoluthon in Revelation. 

1 Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 330. 


2 Vogrinz, Gr. des hom. Dialektes, 1889, p. 184. 
§ Williams, The Part. in the Book of Acts, p. 46. 





VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) 1107 


With proper names note ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός (Mt. 1: 16); 
᾿ ὁ ἐπικαλούμενος Πέτρος (Ac. 10:18). Cf. 1 Th. 1:10; 2 Tim. 1: 
8f. Fora long passage see ὁ — διδάσκων (Ac. 21: 28). The order 
of the words is not insisted on and in long passages the participle 
may follow without the repetition of the article, as in Mt. 6 : 30, 
TOV χόρτον τοῦ ἀγροῦ σήμερον ὄντα Kal αὔριον εἰς κλίβανον βαλλόμενον. 
mee ΙΒ Ac. 12:10;:13 :32; 26.:4, 6; Heb. 2:2; Heb. 112: 3, 
where in the long clause the participle with τοιαύτην comes in be- 
tween τὸν and ὑπομεμενηκότα and a good distance from ἀντιλογίαν. 
Sometimes the article is used with the participle, but not with 
the substantive, as in παιδίοις τοῖς ἐν ἀγορᾷ καθημένοις (Lu. 7: 
32); χρυσίου τοῦ ἀπολλυμένου (1 Pet. 1:7); ὄνομα τὸ δεδομένον (Ac. 
4 :12); πολὺς ἀριθμὸς ὁ πιστεύσας (Ac. 11:21); πολλοὶ πλάνοι οἱ 
μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες (2 Jo. 7); ἄνθρωποι οἱ --- ἀρνούμενοι (Jude 4, where 
note the series of participles and one adjective ἀσεβεῖς parallel 
with the participles). Cf. also 1 Cor. 2:7. The articular parti- 
ciple also occurs with pronouns,! as in σὺ ὁ ἐρχόμενος (Mt. 11: 
3); τινὰς τοὺς πεποιθότας (Lu. 18:9); τις ὁ συλαγωγῶν (Col. 2 : 8); 
αὐτοῖς τοῖς πιστεύουσιν (Jo. 1:12); od ὁ κρίνων (Jas. 4:12); τινὲς 
οἱ ταράσσοντες (Gal. 1:7); πολλοὶ οἱ φρονοῦντες (Ph. 3:18 f.). 
Particularly in address do we find the articular participle, as in 
Mt. 7:23; 27:40; Lu. 6: 25 (but note dative in 6 : 24); Ac. 2: 
14; 13:16. The use of the articular participle with πᾶς is com- 
mon, as πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόμενος (Mt. 5 : 22); πᾶς ὁ ἀκούων (Mt. 7: 26), 
πᾶς ὁ λέγων (7:21). This is equal to the relative clause πᾶς ὅστις 
(Mt. 7:24). In Ro. 2:1 πᾶς ὁ κρίνων is used with ἄνθρωπε. Cf. 
πάντες of ἀκούοντες in Ac. 9:21. Here also ὁ πορθήσας is continued 
by καὶ ἐληλύθει as if it were a relative clause. The articular parti- 
ciple sometimes occurs where it is followed by an infinitive. Here 
it is still further complicated, but it is clear. See τὴν μέλλουσαν 
δόξαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι (Ro. 8 : 18); τὰ δοκοῦντα μέλη — ὑπάρχειν (1 Cor. 
12 : 22). Cf. also 2. Pet. 3:2. The use of ὁ ὧν in Acts calls for 
special remark. In Ac. 13:1, κατὰ τὴν οὖσαν ἐκκλησίαν, we see this 
idiom, which Moulton? translates ‘the local church.’ Note 14: 13 
D, τοῦ ὄντος Διὸς Προπόλεως (or πρὸ πόλεως). Cf. Ramsay’s remark 
(Ch. in Rom. Emp., p. 52, quoting J. A. Robinson), that in Acts 
ὁ ὥν “introduces some technical phrase, or some term which it 
marks out as having a technical sense (οἵ. 5 :17; 18 :1; 28:17), and 
is almost equivalent to rod ὀνομαζομένου. An ingenious person 
might apply this in Eph. 1:1 to the text with ἐν ’Edéow absent; 
but the usual view needs no defence against such an alternative. 

1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 243. 2 Prol., p. 228. 


1108 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


With ai οὖσαι in Ro. 18:1 we may compare Par. P. 5 (ii/B.c.), 
ἐφ᾽ ἱερέων καὶ leperdy τῶν ὄντων καὶ οὐσῶν. So N. P. 49. (iii/A.p.), 
τοῦ ὄντος μηνός ‘the current month.’ The passage in Ac. 5:17 
reads ἡ οὖσα αἵρεσις, and 28:17 has τοὺς ὄντας τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων πρώτους. 
Moulton agrees, we may note, with Sanday and Headlam (in 
loco) in taking ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων (Ro. 9 : 5) as referring to Jesus. As 
is well known, the difficulty here is a matter of exegesis and the 
punctuation of the editor will be made according to his theology. 
But it may be said in brief that the natural way to take ὁ ὧν and 
θεός iS in apposition to ὁ Χριστός. It is a very common thing in 
the N. T., as already noted, to have 6 and the participle where a 
relative clause is possible. But this idiom is common in the older 
Greek. See Ac. 10:18, 32, and chapter on Article. It remains 
then to speak of the frequent use of the articular participle with- 
out a substantive or pronoun. This idiom is too common for ex- 
haustive treatment, but some examples are given. Cf. Mt. 10: 
AQ, ὁ δεχόμενος ὑμᾶς ἐμὲ δέχεται, Kal ὁ ἐμὲ δεχόμενος δέχεται τὸν ἀποστεί- 
λαντά pe. Note also ὁ δεχόμενος and the next verse and ὃς ἂν 
ποτίσῃ in verse 42. See further Mt. 10:37; Ac. 10:35; Rev. 1: 
3. The question of the tense is interesting in some of these ex- 
amples, as in 6 εὑρὼν τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἀπολέσει αὐτὴν in Mt. 10 : 39, 
but that will be discussed a bit later. Like a relative clause, the 
articular participle may suggest! the notion of cause, condition, 
purpose, etc., as in Mt. 10:37, 39, 40, 41; Lu. 14:11; Ro. 3:5. 
But this notion is very indefinite. 

(ὦ Predicate Participle. From the adjectival standpoint all 
participles that are not attributive are predicate. This aspect of 
the participle must be elucidated further. The verbal aspect 
comes into special prominence with all the predicate participles. 
They will be touched very lightly here and receive full discussion 
under Verbal Aspects. It may be said at once that all the supple- 


mentary and circumstantial participles are predicate. One must 


« 


not confuse the articular participle in the predicate like σὺ εἶ ὁ 
ἐρχόμενος (Lu. 7:19) with the real predicate participle. Cf. Lu. 
16:15; 22 : 282 The predicate participle is simply the adjective 
in the predicate position. That is, it is not attributive. There 
are obviously many varieties of the predicate participle. But the 
predicate adjective has had adequate treatment. Cf. ἔχε we παρῃ- 
τημένον (Lu. 14:18). Cf. also Heb. 5:14; Ac. 9: 21. 

(d) The Participle as a Substantive. The adjective, though a 
variation from the substantive, is sometimes used as a substantive 

1 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 167. 2 Ib., p. 169. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) 1109 


as in τὸ ἀγαθόν. It is not strange, therefore, that the parti- 
ciple also shows substantival uses. These are sometimes anar- 
throus, as in ἄρχων (Mt. 9:18), ἡγούμενος (Mt. 2:6). But, as a 
rule, the participle as a substantive is articular. Cf. Lu. 12 : 33, 
Ta ὑπάρχοντα ὑμῶν, where the genitive shows the substantival 
character of this participle. Cf. further 2:27 τὸ εἰθισμένον τοῦ 
νόμου, (1 Cor. 7:35) πρὸς τὸ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν συμφέρον, (Ph. 8 : 8) διὰ τὸ 
ὑπερέχον τῆς γνώσεως, (Mt. 14 : 20) τὸ περισσεῦον τῶν κλασμάτων, (Ro. 
7:23) τῷ ὄντι, (Heb. 12 : 11) πρὸς τὸ παρόν, ete. There are also the 
many examples where 6 and the part. is used without a subst. or 
pron., as in Mt. 10: 39, ὁ εὑρὠν and ὁ ἀπολέσας (cf. 6 ἀγαθός, ὁ Ka- 
kos). The substantive use of the participle is a classic idiom.! 
The use of the neuter participle as an abstract substantive is not 
so common in the N. T. as in the ancient Greek.? But see further 
τὸ γεγονός (Lu. 8 : 56), τὰ γινόμενα (9 : 7), τὸ ἀπολωλός (19 : 10), τὰ 
ἐρχόμενα (Jo. 16:13), τὸ viv ἔχον (Ac. 24:25), τὰ μὴ ὄντα, τὰ ὄντα 
(1 Cor. 1: 28), τὸ αὐλούμενον (14: 7), τὸ δεδοξασμένον (2 Cor. 8 : 10 1.), 
τὸ δοκοῦν (Heb. 12 : 10), etc. In Lu. 22 : 49 note τὸ ἐσόμενον. One 
is not to confuse with this idiom the so-called “‘substantive parti- 
ciple’ of some grammars, which is a term used for the substanti- 
vizing of the verbal force of the participle, not the adjectival. 
Thus Burton’ calls the supplementary participle like that in 
Ac. 5:42, οὐκ ἐπαύοντο διδάσκοντες, and in Lu. ὃ : 46, ἔγνων δύναμιν 
ἐξεληλυθυῖαν ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ, the “substantive participle.” I confess that 
I see nothing to be gained by applying “substantive” to the 
purely verbal aspects of the participle. Confusion of thought is 
the inevitable result. See 5, (d), (6). 

(ὁ) The Participle as an Adverb. The formation of adverbs 
from participles is due to its adjectival function. Cf. ὄντως (Mk. 
11:32), ὁμολογουμένως (1 Tim. 3:16), ὑπερβαλλόντως (2 Cor. 11: 
23). Besides, the participle itself (cf. neuter adjective πολύ, etc.) 
sometimes has an adverbial force. In particular note τυχόν (1 
Cor. 16:6). See also ἐπιβαλὼν ἔκλαιεν (Mk. 14:72). This ob- 
scure participle expresses coincident action (cf. Moulton, Prol., 
p. 131). Cf. ἦλθαν σπεύσαντες (Lu. 2:16), σπεύσας κατάβηθι and 
σπεύσας κατέβη (19: 5f.). We cannot always draw a distinction 
between this use and the circumstantial participle of manner. 
The verbal and the adjectival standpoints come together. A 
number of the grammars apply the term ‘adverbial’ to all 
the circumstantial participles.‘ But it is more than doubtful if 


1 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 331. 3. N. T. M. and Το p. 175f. 
2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 244. 4 So Burton, N.T. M. and T., p. 169 f. 


1110 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


one gains as much as he loses thereby. It is true that logi- 
cally a sort of adverbial relation may be worked out, an adverbial 
addition to the sentence.!. But it does not help much from the 
syntactical point of view to insist on this fact in the exposition of 
the circumstantial participle. As to form the circumstantial par- 
ticiple is still adjectival. The adverbial notion is inferential and 
purely logical. There is something, however, to be said for the 
adverbial aspect of the redundant participle in βλέποντες βλέπετε 
(Mt. 13:14, LX X), which is on a par with ἀκοῇ ἀκούσετε. Both 
are attempts to translate the Hebrew inf. absolute. Moulton? 
has found the idiom in A’schylus and Herodotus, but the N. T. 
usage is clearly due to the LXX, where it is very common. Cf. 
also ἰδὼν εἶδον (Ac. 7:34), εὐλογῶν εὐλογήσω (Heb. 6: 14), from 
the LXX again. Blass (Gr. of the N. T. Gk., p. 251) calls this 
construction “thoroughly un-Greek.” There are other pleonastic 
participles like the common ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν (Mt. 3:15) which is 
somewhat like the vernacular: “He ups and says” (Moulton 
Prol., p. 15 1.). Cf. also τοῦτο εἰπὼν λέγει (Jo. 21:19), ἀπελθὼν 
πέπρακεν (Mt. 18:46), ‘he has gone and sold.’ So also ἀναστὰς 
ἦλθεν (Lu. 15: 20), ‘he arose and came.’ Once again note λαβοῦσα 
ἐνέκρυψεν (Mt. 13:33), ‘she took and hid.’ This idiom is more 
Aramaic than Hebraic and is at any rate picturesque vernacular. 
But it is also Greek. Pleonasm belongs to all tongues. Rader- 
macher (N. T. Gr., p. 179) quotes Herod. VI, 67, 10, εἶπε das; 
VI, 68, 5, ἔφη --- λέγων. Mr. Dan Crawford finds in the Bantu 
language ‘‘dying he died”’ for the irrevocableness of death. We 
now turn to the verbal aspects of the participle, which are more 
complex. 

5. VERBAL ASPECTS OF THE PARTICIPLE. 

(a) Voice. There is nothing of a distinctive nature to say about 
the voice of the participle in addition to what has already been 
said (see ch. on Voice). The voices run in the participles pre- 
cisely as in the verb itself. We find the voice in the earliest Greek 
‘as in the Sanskrit. All the nuances of the voices appear in the 
participle. Cf. the active in διδάσκων (Lu. 18 : 10), ζῶν (Jo. 4 : 10); 
the middle in προσδεχομένοις (Lu. 12 : 36), ἐπικαλεσάμενος (Ac. 22: 
16), σπασάμενος (Mk. 14:47); the passive in λυπούμενος (Mt. 19: 
22), τὴν ἀποκεκρυμμένην (1 Cor. 2:7), ἀπολελυμένον (Heb. 13 : 23), 
ἐπιστραφείς (Mk. 5:30), κωλυθέντες (Ac. 16:6). We may note 
in particular ἔχε με παρῃτημένον (Lu. 14:18 f.), ἔσεσθε μισούμενοι 
(Mt. 10 : 22) and ἔσεσθε λαλοῦντες (1 Cor. 14:9). In Mk. 5: 26, 

1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 523. 2 Prol:, pp. 145.76. 


VERBAL NOUNS (‘ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOZ) 1111 


παθοῦσα ὑπὸ πολλῶν ἰατρῶν, the active participle has the construc- 
tion of the passive, but this is due to the verb πάσχω, not to the 
voice. Cf. also Gal. 4:9, γνόντες θεὸν μᾶλλον δὲ γνωσθέντες ὑπὸ θεοῦ. 

(0) Tense. ᾿ 

(a) Timelessness of the Participle. It may be said at once that 
the participle has tense in the same sense that the subjunctive, 
optative and imperative have, giving the state of the action 
as punctiliar, linear, completed. In the beginning! this was all 
that tense meant in the participle. The participle was timeless. 
Indeed the participle in itself continued timeless, as is well shown 
by the articular participle.2, Thus in Mk. 6 : 14, ᾿Ιωάνης ὁ βαπτίζων, 
it is not present time that is here given by this tense, but the gen- 
eral description of John as the Baptizer without regard to time. 
It is actually used of him after his death. Cf. of ζητοῦντες (Mt. 
2:20). In Mt. 10: 39, ὁ εὑρὼν ἀπολέσει, the principal verb is future 
while the participle is aorist, but the aorist tense does not mean 
past or future time. So in Mt. 25: 20 and 24 ὁ λαβών and ὁ εἰλη- 
ows have no notion of time but only the state of the action. But 
the tenses of the participle may be used: for relative time. In 
relation to the principal verb there may be suggested time. Thus 
ὁ εὑρὼν ἀπολέσει above implies that εὑρών is antecedent to ἀπολέσει 
which is future. In Ac. 24:11, ἀνέβην προσκυνήσων, the principal 
verb is past, but the participle is relatively future, though abso- 
lutely past. The relative time of the participle approximates 
the indicative mode and is able to suggest antecedent (aorist, 
present, perfect tenses), simultaneous (aorist, present tenses) and 
subsequent (present, future tenses) action. The tenses of the 
participle must be studied with this distinction in mind. But 
this notion of relative time “15 deeply imbedded in the nature of 
the participle and the use is universal.’”’* Certainly this notion 
of relative time is more obvious in the Greek participle than in 
the Latin or in the modern languages.* In the chapter on Tense 
the participial tenses were treated with reasonable completeness, 
but some further remarks are necessary at this point. A word 
needs to be said about the idiom οὗτος jv ὁ εἰπών (Jo. 1:15), 
οὗτος ἦν ὁ --- καθήμενος (Ac. 3:10), where the principal verb is 
thrown into the past. 


1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 522. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 126. He notes Heb. 10: 14, τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους, as a good 
ex. of the timelessness of the part. 

3 Gildersl., Synt. of Class. Gk., Pt. I, p. 139. 

4 W.-M., p. 427. 


1112 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(8) The Aorist. The Aktconsart of the aorist participle is suf- 
ficiently illustrated in the discussion of the aorist tense. There is, 
of course, no reason for not having the constative, ingressive or 
effective aorist in the participle.! Schaefer? argues that in most 
cases the participle uses the effective aorist. That may be true, 
though there is nothing in the nature of the participle itself to 
cause it. Blass’ thinks that the aorist participle contains the idea 
of completion, but even so that notion may be merely constative 
or ingressive. Goodwin‘ holds that the aorist participle generally 
represents the action as antecedent to the principal verb. Bur- 
ton® has it more nearly correct when he insists that the aorist par- 
ticiple conceives of the event indefinitely or simply. So Blass® 
denies that the aorist tense implies antecedent action. It is usu- 
ally assumed that the proper use of the aorist participle is ante- 
cedent action and that only certain verbs (as exceptions) may 
occasionally express simultaneous action. But this is a misappre- 
hension of the real situation. It is doubtless true, as Burton? 
notes, that the antecedent use furnishes the largest number of 
instances, but that fact does not prove priority or originality of 
conception. ‘The aorist participle of antecedent action does 
not denote antecedence; it is used of antecedent action, where 
antecedence is implied, not by the aorist tense as a tense, but in 
some other way.’’® Moulton® is equally explicit: ‘The connota- 
tion of past time was largely fastened on this participle, through 
the idiomatic use in which it stands before an aorist indicative to 
qualify its action. As point action is always completed action, 
except in the ingressive, the participle naturally came to involve 
past time relative to that of the main verb.” It is probable that 
the original use of the aorist participle was that of simultaneous 
action. From this was developed quite naturally, by the nature 
of the various cases, the antecedent notion. Cf. νηστεύσας ἐπείνασεν 
(Mt. 4:2) where the fasting expressed by the participle is given 
as the reason for the hungering expressed by the principal verb. 
For further examples of antecedent action see Mt. 2: 14; 2: 16; 
27:3; 1 Cor. 6:16. For the articular aorist see Mt. 10 : 39; Lu. 
12 : 47; Jo.5:15. While this came to be the more common idiom 


1 Schaefer, Das Partizip des Aoristes bei den Tragikern, 1894, p. 5. 
#-Tb; * GraoteN. PGK. pe 1a 
4M. and T., p. 48. So Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 48. 

5 N. T. M. and T., p. 59. 

6 Gr. of N. T. Gk.; p. 197. 8 Ib. 

7 N. T. M. and T., p. 61. ® Prol., p. 130. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) {ΠῚ} 


from the nature of the case, the original use of the aorist participle 
for simultaneous action continued. One has no ground for as- 
suming* that antecedent action is a necessary or an actual fact 
with the aorist participle.! The aorist participle of simultaneous 
action is in perfect accord with the genius and history of the 
Greek participle. For numerous examples of both uses see the 
chapter on Tense. A good instance is seen in Mt. 27:3, ἥμαρ- 
Tov παραδοὺς αἷμα ἀθῷον. So also ὑπολαβὼν εἶπεν (Lu. 10:30). See 
Ac. 2:23, τοῦτον προσπήξαντες ἀνείλατε, where the slaying’ was 
manifestly done by the impaling on the cross. The two actions 
are identical per se. Moulton (Prol., p. 191) observes that when 
the verb precedes the aorist participle it is nearly always the 
participle of. coincident action. He (Prol., p. 132) cites O. P. 
530 (11/A.D.), ἐξ ὧν δώσεις --- λυτρώσασά μου τὰ ἱμάτια. It so happens 
that the Ν. T. shows a great number of such examples. See Mk. 
15:30 σῶσον καταβάς, (Lu. 2:16) ἦλθαν σπεύσαντες, (Ac. 10 : 33) 
καλῶς ἐποίησας παραγενόμενος. Cf. Mt. 26:75. In Ac. 10: 29, ἦλθον 
μεταπεμφθείς, the participle is antecedent in idea. Acts, however, 
is particularly rich in examples of the coincident aorist participle 
which follows the verb. See 10:39; 11:30; 13:33; 15:8, 9; 
ΤῸ ΟΣ 2d, 303) 25 713; 26:3 10. It is'im ‘point ‘of fact’ a 
characteristic of Luke’s style. to use frequently the coincident 
participle (both aorist and present) placed after the: principal 
verb. This fact completely takes away the point of Sir W. M. 
Ramsay’s argument? for the aorist of subsequent action in Ac. 
16:6, where, however, it is more probably antecedent action, as 
is possible in Ac. 23:22. The argument made against it under 
Tense need not be repeated here. Burton assents‘ to the no- 
tion of the aorist of “‘subsequent”’ action in the participle, but no 
real parallels are given. I have examined in detail the N. T. ex- 
amples adduced and shown the lack of conclusiveness about them 
all. See chapter on Tense. It is even claimed that subsequent 
action is shown by the participles (present as well as aorist) in 
Reo? 366) 511598's10, 187514): 22517726; 18 : 23; 28:14, but 
with no more evidence of reality. Actual examination of each 
passage shows the action to be either simultaneous or antecedent. 
See also Lu. 1:9, ἔλαχε τοῦ θυμιᾶσαι εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὸν ναόν, where it 
is obviously coincident. The same thing is true of Heb. 11: 27, 
κατέλιπεν Αἴγυπτον, μὴ φοβηθείς. Cf. also Ac. 7:35 ὃν ἠρνήσαντο 
1 Moulton, Prol., p. 131. 2 St. Paul the Traveller, p. 212. 


8 See Ballentine, Bibliotheca Sacra, 1884, p. 787, for discussion of N. T. exx. 
ΝΜ ΠΡ: θῦ: 


1114 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT | 


εἰπόντες, (13:22) εἶπεν μαρτυρήσας. A case like 1 Pet. 1:20f. is 
not, of course, pertinent. However, the common use of the aorist 
participle in indirect discourse (as with all the supplementary 
participles) without any notion of time is to the point. So Ac. 
9:12, εἶδεν ἄνδρα εἰσελθόντα καὶ ἐπιθέντα. So ἐθεώρουν τὸν Σατανᾶν 
πεσόντα (Lu. 10:18). The action is purely punctiliar with no 
notion of time at all. It is true that the articular participle is 
occasionally used (see chapter on Tense) for time past to the time 
of the writer, but future to the time of the principal verb. As 
a matter of fact this aorist participle is timeless, as is shown by 
the use of 6 παραδούς in Mt. 10:4 and ὁ παραδιδούς in 20 : 25. So 
ὁ εἰπών in Jo. 5:12; ὁ ποιήσας 5:15; ἡ ἀλείψασα 11:2. It is the 
action alone that is under consideration, not the time of its 
performance. See, per contra, ὁ γνούς --- καὶ μὴ ἑτοιμάσας ἢ ποιή- 
σας δαρήσεται (Lu. 12 : 47) where the aorist participle gives the 
simple action with a future verb. Cf. Lu. 6:49 for the articular 
aorist part. with the present indicative. Burton! feels the weak- 
ness of his contention for ‘‘subsequent’’ action in the aorist 
participle when he explains that it is “‘perhaps due to Aramaic 
influence.” There is no need for an appeal to that explanation, 
since the fact does not exist. It is only in the circumstantial par- 
ticiple that any contention is made for this notion. It is certainly 
gratuitous to find subsequent action in Ro. 4 :19, μὴ ἀσθενήσας τῇ 
πίστει κατενόησεν, not to mention 4:21; Ph. 2:7; Heb. 9:12. 
Burton reluctantly admits that, though in 1 Pet. 8 : 18 ζωοποιη- 
θείς is ‘clearly subsequent to ἀπέθανεν,᾽᾽ yet it “is probably to be 
taken together with θανατωθείς as defining the whole of the pre- 
ceding clause.” This latter view is, of course, true, since the order 
of the participles is θανατωθείς, ζωοποιηθείς. The timelessness of the 
aorist participle is well shown in Jo. 16 : 2, 6 ἀποκτείνας [ὑμᾶς] δόξῃ 
λατρείαν προσφέρειν τῷ OG. Cf. also ἀγαγόντα --- τελειῶσαι (Heb. 
2:10). This coincident use of the aorist participle is by no 
means so rare in the ancient Greek as is sometimes alleged? 
The action was specially likely to be coincident if the principal 
verb was also aorist.* Like the other articular participles, the 
aorist participle may be the practical equivalent of the relative. 
So in Lu. 12:8 f. ds ἂν ὁμολογήσει and ὁ ἀρνησάμενος are used side 
by side. 


1N. T. M. and T., p. 66. 

2 See Leo Meyer, Griech. Aor., p. 125. 

5. Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 140. See Seymour, The Use of the Gk. Aorist 
Part., Trans. Am. Philol. Assoc., XII, p. 88 f. 


VERBAL NOUNS (ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) 1115 


(y) The Present. As the aorist participle is timeless and punc- 
tiliar, so the present participle is timeless and durative. The 
participle is thus, like the infinitive, ahead of the present indica- 
tive, which does not distinguish between punctiliar and durative 
action. A careful treatment of the force of the present participle 
has been given under Tense. The real timelessness of this parti- 
ciple is shown in the fact that it is used indiscriminately with 
past, present or future tenses of the indicative. So πωλοῦντες 
ἔφερον (Ac. 4:34); ἀποθνήσκων εὐλόγησεν (Heb. 11:21); καίπερ ὼν 
υἱὸς ἔμαθεν (Heb. 5:8); μεριμνῶν δύναται (Mt. 6 : 27); ἔσεσθε λαλοῦν- 
τες (1 Cor. 14:9). The articular present especially shows the 
absence of time. So of δοκοῦντες οὐδὲν προσανέθεντο (Gal. 2 : 6); 
προσετίθει τοὺς σωζομένους (Ac. 2:47); ὁ δεχόμενος ὑμᾶς ἐμὲ δέχεται 
(Mt. 10:40); ἐσθίετε τὰ παρατιθέμενα (Lu. 10: 8); ὁ βλέπων ἐν τῷ 
κρυφαίῳ ἀποδώσει (Mt. 6:18). There will be Aktionsart in this 
participle also. Some of these words are really punctiliar (6€xo- 
μαι, for instance). But, in general, the present participle gives 
linear action. The present participle may have relative time. 
This relative time is usually simultaneous or coincident. This 
is only natural. Sometimes, however, this relative time may be 
antecedent action, a classic idiom.! Examples of this idiom were 
given under Tense, but add Jo. 9:8, of θεωροῦντες τὸ πρότερον, 
where the adverb of time helps to throw the participle back of 
ἔλεγον, aS ἄρτι With βλέπω makes the verb later than τυφλὸς ὧν in 9: 
25. Cf. also Gal. 1: 23, 6 διώκων ἡμᾶς ποτὲ νῦν εὐαγγελίζεται, Where 
both participle and verb have adverbs of time by way of contrast. 
For other instances like these see Mt. 9:20; Mk. 5:25; Lu. 8: 
AS τ] Ὁ. Ac. 2410Ephs 2:13; Colel: 2131 Timaiel3, ete. 
There are also undoubted instances of the present participle to 
express the notion of purpose, futuristic in conception, though 
present in form. Add to the instances already given the follow- 
ing: Mk. 3:31, ἔξω στήκοντες ἀπέστειλαν καλοῦντες. Here the first 
participle is only noticeable as the usual linear action (with aorist 
indicative). The second participle, however, is practically pur- 
pose. ‘They sent to him calling him.’ ‘They sent to call him.’ 
So also Lu. 13:6 ἦλθεν ζητῶν, (18 : 7) ἔρχομαι ζητῶν. It is not 
strictly true that here the present participle means future or 
subsequent time. It is only that the purpose goes on coincident 
with the verb and beyond. This prospective present part. (cf. 
present ind.) appears in Ac. 21:3, ἦν ἀποφορτιζόμενον τὸν γόμον. 
‘The ship was appointed to unload her cargo.’ Cf. Mt. 6:30; 

1 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 47; Gildersl., Synt., Part I, p. 139. 


1116 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


11: 3*!26,:28; Lu. (75195 Corals ois as noes cer 0 
The future is “simulated”?! also by the present participle when 
it is used for conative action. It is, of course, not the participle 
that brings out this notion. See (Mt. 23 : 14) οὐδὲ τοὺς εἰσερχομέ- 
vous ἀφίετε εἰσελθεῖν, (27:40) ὁ καταλύων τὸν ναόν, (Ac. 28 : 23) πεί- 
θων αὐτούς. The notion of repetition (iterative present) occurs 
also as in Ac. 2:47, προσετίθει τοὺς σωζομένους, ‘kept adding those 
saved from time to time.’ So πωλοῦντες ἔφερον καὶ ἐτίθουν (Ac. 4: 
34). ‘They would from time to time sell and bring and place 
at the feet of the apostles.’ There is thus a sharp contrast from 
the specific instance of Barnabas, of whom it is said: πωλήσας 
ἤνεγκεν (4:37). It is not clear, however, why the present parti- 
ciple occurs in 3:8, ἐξαλλόμενος ἔστη Kal περιεπάτει, Unless it is to 
note that he kept on leaping and walking (alternately). Cf. this 
notion in verse 8, περιπατῶν καὶ ἁλλόμενος. Cf. also in 5:5, ἀκούων 
πεσὼν ἐξέψυξεν, where πεσών is antecedent to the verb, but ἀκούων is 
descriptive (linear). The notion of distribution is perhaps pres- 
ent in Heb. 10 : 14, rods ἁγιαζομένους, ‘the objects of sanctification.’ 2 
Certainly ὁ κλέπτων is iterative in Eph. 4:28. Cf. Ac. 1:20; 
Col. 2:8. It is interesting to note the difference between the 
present and the aorist participle in Mt. 16: 28, ἕως ἂν ἴδωσιν τὸν υἱὸν 
τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον, and in Ac. 9:12, εἶδεν ἄνδρα εἰσελθόντα. The 
perfect participle of the same verb and in the same construction 
occurs in Mk. 9:1, ἕως ἂν ἴδωσιν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἔληλυθυῖαν 
ἐν δυνάμει. The three tenses of the participle οἵ πίπτω may also 
be illustrated by the punctiliar notion of the aorist in πεσόντα in 
Lu. 10:18, the durative notion of πιπτόντων in Mt. 15: 27 and 
of πίπτοντες in Mk. 13:25, the perfect notion of πεπτωκότα in 
Rev. 9:1. 

(6) The Perfect. This tense brings little that is distinctive in 
the participle. Cf. τετελειωμένοι (Jo. 17: 23), πεποιηκότες (18: 18), 
προσφάτως ἐληλυθότα (Ac. 18:2), κεκοπιακὠς (Jo. 4:6), πεπτωκότα 
(Rev. 9:1), ἐληλυθότα (1 Jo. 4:2), ὁ εἰληφώς (Mt. 25:24). The 
distinction between intensive and extensive was drawn under 
Tense. Some of the intensive uses have lost the notion of 
completion (punctiliar) and hold on to the linear alone in the 
present sense. Cf. ἑστώς εἰμι (Ac. 25:10), εἰδώς (Mt. 12 : 25) 
with which contrast οἱ ἔγνωκότες (2 Jo. 1), συνειδυίης (Ac. 5: 2), 
τεθνηκώς (Lu. 7:12), παρεστηκὼς (Jo. 18:22). The periphrastic 
use of the perfect participle in past, present and future time 
has been sufficiently illustrated already. So has the rare com- 

1 Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 140. 2 Moulton, Prol., p. 127. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATOS) 1117 


bination of perfect and present participle in Eph. 4:18; Col. 
1:21. The perfect participle also is either articular or anar- 
throus, attributive or predicate. For the predicate use see in 
particular Lu. 13:6 συκῆν εἶχέν τις πεφυτευμένην, (Heb. 5: 14) τὰ 
αἰσθητήρια γεγυμνασμένα ἐχόντων. It needs to be noted again that 
the perfect participle has no time in itself. In the nature of the 
case the act will be antecedent except where the tense has lost 
its true force as in ἑστώς, τεθνηκώς, εἰδώς. But it is only relative 
time, not absolute, and the leading verb may itself be punctiliar, 
linear or perfect, in the past, present or future.t Just as the 
present participle may suggest antecedent action and so be a sort 
of “imperfect”’ participle (past time), so the perfect participle is 
sometimes? used where a sort of past perfect sense results. The 
action was finished and is now no longer the fact, though the 
state represented by the perfect once existed. So ἐπὶ τῷ συμβεβη- 
κότι αὐτῷ in Ac. 3:10. Cf. Mk. 5:15, θεωροῦσιν τὸν δαιμονιζόμενον 
καθήμενον ἱματισμένον Kal σωφρονοῦντα, τὸν ἐσχηκότα TOV λεγιῶνα, Kal 
ἐφοβήθησαν. This is a most instructive passage. ‘The historical 
present and the aorist indicative here occur side by side. The 
attributive and the predicate participles appear side by side. The 
present and the perfect participles come together. Of the two per- 
fect participles, one, ἱματισμένον, is still true (punctiliar plus linear) 
and describes the man’s present state; the other, τὸν ἐσχηκότα, is 
no longer true and describes the state of the man before Jesus 
cast out the demon, which casting-out is itself in the past. This 
participle is therefore a sort of past perfect. Cf. also Jo. 8:31. 
Another striking example is Jo. 11:44, ἐξῆλθεν ὁ τεθνηκὼς δεδε- 
μένος. Here δεδεμένος is still true, though τεθνηκὼς is not. Lazarus 
had been dead, but is not now. We see the same situation in 1 
Cor. 2:7, τὴν ἀποκεκρυμμένην. The widsom of God is no longer 
hidden. The point is still clearer in Ro. 10 : 25 f., μυστηρίου χρό- 
νοις αἰωνίοις σεσιγημένου φανερωθέντος δὲ νῦν, where the long silence is 
now expressly said to be broken. Note the sharp contrast in the 
aorist participle with νῦν. This distinction between the perfect 
and aorist participle is often clearly drawn. See 2 Cor. 12:21 
τῶν προημαρτηκότων Kal μὴ μετανοησάντων, (1 Pet. 2 : 10) of οὐκ ἠλεη- 
μένοι νῦν δὲ ἐλεηθέντες. The same act may be looked at from either 
standpoint. One may not always care to add the linear aspect 
to the punctiliar. Cf. ὁ γεγενημένος and ὁ γεννηθείς in 1 Jo. 5: 18, 
τὸν ἐσχηκότα τὸν λεγιῶνα in Mk. 5:15 and ὁ δαιμονισθείς in 5: 18, 


1 Cf. Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 142. 
2 Cf. Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 72. 


1118 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ὁ λαβών in Mt. 25:20 and ὁ εἰληφώς in 25:24. Cf. ἔγνων δύναμιν 
ἐξεληλυθυῖαν am’ ἐμοῦ (Lu. 8:46) and ἐπιγνοὺς τὴν ἐξ αὐτοῦ δύναμιν 
ἐξελθοῦσαν (Mk. 5:30). Adverbs of time may occur with the 
perfect as with other tenses of the participle. Cf. Jo. 19:33, ἤδη 
τεθνηκότα. There is a sort of harmony in ὁ ἑωρακὼς μεμαρτύρηκεν 
(19:35). The difference between the perfect and present tenses 
after εἶδον is strikingly shown in Revelation. Cf. εἶδον τὰς ψυχὰς 
τῶν ἐσφαγμένων (6:9), ἄλλον ἄγγελον ἀναβαίνοντα (7:2), ἀστέρα ἐκ 
τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πεπτωκότα (9:1). Cf. also Mk. 5:33, φοβηθεῖσα καὶ 
τρέμουσα, εἰδυῖα. One must not confuse the perf. part. in Gal. 
2:11 and Rev. 21:8 with a present like ψηλαφωμένῳ in Heb. 
12 : 18 (‘touchable’). | 

(ὁ The Future. The future participle, like the future tense in 
general, was later in its development than the other tenses. It 
is usually punctiliar also and has something of a modal value 
(volitive, futuristic) like the subjunctive (aorist).1_ See discussion 
under Tense. The future participle is always subsequent in 
time to the principal verb (cf. the present participle by sugges- 
tion), not coincident and, of course, never antecedent. Hence 
the future participle comes nearer having a temporal notion than 
any of the tenses. But even so it is relative time, not absolute, 
and the future participle may occur with a principal verb in the 
past, present or future. This idiom grew out of the context and 
the voluntative notion of the future tense.” This point is well 
illustrated by the parallel use of μέλλων to express intention. Cf. 
ὁ παραδώσων αὐτόν (Jo. 6 : 64) and 6 μέλλων αὐτὸν παραδιδόναι (12 : 4). 
As already shown, the future participle is much less frequent in 
the N. T. (as in LXX) than in the κοινή generally (as in the 
papyri). Another rival to the future participle is ἐρχόμενος 
(Jo. 1:9), ὁ ἐρχόμενος (Lu. 7:19). Both μέλλω and ἔρχομαι (cf. 
εἶμι) are anticipatory presents.* Cf. ἐνεστῶτα and μέλλοντα in Ro. 
8:38. Nearly all the N. T. examples of the future participle 
(see chapter on Tense for discussion) are in Luke and Paul and 
Hebrews (the three best specimens of literary style in the N. T.). 
But see Mt. 27:49, σώσων; Jo. 6: 64, 6 παραδώσων; 1 Pet. 3: 
13, ὁ kaxwowv. For the Gospel of Luke see 22:49, τὸ ἐσόμενον. 
The rest of his examples are in the Acts, as 8:27, προσκυ- 
νήσων, (20 : 22) τὰ συναντήσοντα, (22: 5) ἄξων, (24:11) προσκυνή- 
σων, (24:17) ποιήσων. For Paul see Ro. 8:33, ὁ κατακρινῶν (a 

1 Cf. Delbriick, Synt. Forsch., IV, p. 97. 


2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 523. 
8 There is an expectant note in τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον (Mt. 26 : 28). 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATOS) 1119 


question of editing, but cf. ὁ ἀποθανών in verse 34), 1 Cor. 15 : 37, 
τὸ γενησόμενον. For Heb. see 3:5, τῶν λαληθησομένων, (13 : 17) 
ἀποδώσοντες. We find ws in Heb. 18:17. In conclusion one must 
note that the future part. disappeared wholly from the later 
Greek. The modern Greek does not know it at all. Instead it 
uses va and the subjunctive.! But in general in the N. T. the 
participle is still used in thorough accord with the ancient idiom 
so far as the tenses are concerned.? In the papyri I note it more 
frequently than in the N. T. Cf. κοινολογησόμενον, P. Goodsp. 4 
(ii/B.c.); ta — [σ]ταθησόμενα, P. Th. 33 (B.c. 112). 

(c) Cases. There is no need to tarry here to prove the verbal 
force of the participle as to cases. Precisely the same cases occur 
with the participle as with the finite modes of the verb. Cf. 
ἐκβαλὼν πάντας (Mk. 5:40) and κρατήσας τῆς χειρὸς τοῦ παιδίου (5: 
41). These illustrations illustrate the point and that is enough. 

(d) The Supplementary Participle. The term supplementary 
or complementary is used to describe the participle that forms 
so close a connection with the principal verb that the idea of the 
speaker is incomplete without it. The participle does not differ 
in reality from the adjective in this respect, and it is still an 
adjective like πιστὸς μένει (2 Tim. 2:13). But it is the verbal 
aspect of the participle that is here accented. The participle fills 
out the verbal notion. 

_ (a) The Periphrastic Construction. The general aspects of this 
idiom were treated in chapter on Tense (cf. also Conjugation of 
Verbs). It is only necessary here to stress the close connection 
between this participle and the principal verb as in ἦν ἐκβάλλων 
δαιμόνιον κωφόν (Lu. 11:14). In Ac. 19 : 36, δέον ἐστὶν ὑμᾶς κατεσταλ- 
μένους ὑπάρχειν, We have two examples of this idiom. Cf. Lu. 
13:11. Sometimes we find the periphrastic participle alone 
without the copula as in ἐξόν (Ac. 2: 29), εἰ δέον (1 Pet. 1: 6). 
But note ἐξὸν ἣν (Mt. 12:4) and δέον ἐστίν (Ac. 19: 36). So πρέπον 
ἐστίν (Mt. 3:15). Particularly interesting is εἰσιν γεγονότες (Heb. 
7:23). The periphrastic participle, as already noted, was far 
more common in the N. T. and the LX X than in the older Greek. 
But the reverse is true of certain verbs frequently so used in the 
Attic. Radermacher’ thinks that the commonness of the peri- 
phrastic participle in the N. T. is due to the rhetorical tendency. 


1 Cf. Jebb in V. and D., p. 335. 

2 The fut. part. is rare in the inscr. Cf. Granit, De Inf. et Partic. in Inscr. 
Dial. Graec. Questiones Synt., 1892, p. 122. 

ἘΝ LAG... 02/100. 


1120 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


This might apply to Hebrews, but surely not to the Synoptic Gos- 
pels and Acts. Moulton (Prol., p. 226) admits that the Semitic 
sources of part of the Gospels and Acts account for the frequency 
of the periphrastic imperf. (cf. Aramaic). Certainly the LXX is 
far ahead of the classic Greek and of the κοινή in general. The 
papyri (Moulton, Prol., p. 226) show it often in fut. perfects and 
in past perfects. Schmid (Afézc., III, p. 118 f.) finds it rare in 
literary κοινή save in fut. perfects. Moulton finds periphr. imperf. 
in Matthew 3 times, Mark 16, Luke 30, John 10, Acts (1-12) 17, 
Acts (13-28) 7, Paul 3. And even so some of these examples are 
more adjectival than periphrastic. Cf. Ph. 2 : 26. 

(8) A Dimainution of the Complementary Participle. This de- 
crease is due partly to the infinitive as with ἄρχομαι, δοκέω. See 
discussion in this chapter on Relation between the Inf. and the 
Participle. But it is due also to the disappearance of the per- 
sonal construction and the growth of the impersonal with ὅτι or 
wa. In Mk. 2:1, εἰσελθὼν πάλιν eis Kadapvaodp δι᾽ ἡμερῶν ἠκούσθη 
ὅτι ἐν οἴκῳ ἐστίν, the personal construction is retained even with 
the circumstantial participle. Cf. also 2 Cor. 3:2, φανερούμενοι 
ὅτι ἐστὲ ἐπιστολὴ Χριστοῦ. But.it is vanishing with the verbs where 
it was once so common. See under Infinitive, 5, (e), for further re- 
marks. Jannaris! has made a careful study of the facts in the later 
Greek. It may be noted that οἴχομαι does not occur at all in the 
N. T., though the LXX (and Apocrypha) has it 24 times, twice 
with the inf. It disappeared from the vernacular. As to τυγχάνω 
it occurred only once with the participle (2 Mace. 3:9). It has 
the inf. as well as ἵνα (va) in the later Greek, though it is very 
abundant with the participle in the papyri.2 Cf. τ[υγ]χάνει Νεῖλος 
ῥέων, P. B. M. 84 (ii/a.v.). But τυγχάνω φίλος without dy occurs 
also in the κοινὴ (Radermacher, N. 7’. Gr., p. 169). Curiously 
enough λανθάνω appears once with the participle in the LXX 
(Tob. 12:18) as in the N. T. (Heb. 18:2). In the xow7 the inf. 
supplants the part. as it had already gained a foothold in the old 
Greek.’ Note also the adverb as in λάθρᾳ ἐκβάλλουσιν (Ac. 16:37). 
Φθάνω continued in use through the κοινή, but with the sense of 
‘arrive,’ ‘reach,’ not the idiomatic one ‘arrive before.’ This latter 
notion appears in προφθάνω (cf. προλαμβάνω), which has it once 
only in the N. T. (Mt. 17: 25), while the inf. is seen in προέλαβεν 
μυρίσαι (Mk. 14:8). As early as Thucydides the inf. is found with 
φθάνω, and see also 1 Ki. 12:18. It is common in the κοινή. The 


1 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 493. 3 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 493. 
2 Moulton, Prol., p. 228. 4 Ib., p. 494. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATO2) 1121 


tendency to reverse the construction by using one of these verbs 
in the participial form is seen in τυχόν (participial adverb) in 1 
Cor. 16:6. It is possible that φαίνομαι still shows the participial 
construction in Mt. 6:16, 18, but not in Ro. 7:13, where the 
participle is circumstantial, not complementary. The impersonal 
construction gains! on the personal in the κοινή. In the N. T. we 
no longer have δῆλος εἰμί nor φανερὸς εἰμί. But we do have εὑρέθη 
ἔχουσα in Mt. 1:18. Αρχομαι has lost the part. in the N. T., but 
ὑπάρχω holds on to it, but not in the sense of ‘begin,’ rather of 
‘existing.’ Cf. both adjective and part. in Jas. 2:15 and 1 Tim. 
4:3. It tends to sink into the level of εἰμί as an auxiliary verb 
with the periphrastie participle, as in Ac. 8:16; 19:36. The same 
thing is true of προὐπάρχω in Lu. 23:12, but not in Ac. 8:9 where 
μαγεύων 15. circumstantial. We have seen that παύομαι is true to 
the part. (cf. Lu. 5:4; Ac. 5:42, etc.) and that the part. occurs 
also with ἐπιμένω (Jo. 8:7), τελέω (Mt. 11:1), and that διατελέω 
has the adj. without ὧν (Ac. 27:33). Cf. also διαλείπω in Lu. 7 : 45. 
See also the part. with éyxaxéw in Gal. 6:9; 2 Th. 3:13. The 
part. with καρτερέω in Heb. 11:27 is circumstantial, as is that 
with ἀνέχομαι in 1 Cor. 4:12 and with κάμνω in Heb. 12:3. The 
doubtful participle with μανθάνω in 1 Tim. 5:13 has already been 
discussed (Relation between Inf. and Part., 3, (d)).. Moulton? 
is positive that the absolute construction advocated by Weiss is 
intolerable and that we must either admit the supplementary 
participle here or boldly insert εἶναι with Blass. 

(y) Verbs of Emotion. Moulton#is probably right in opposing 
the incorrectness of the part. with εὖ πράσσω in Ac. 15: 29, ἐξ ὧν 
διατηροῦντες ἑαυτοὺς εὖ πράξετε. At bottom this is the same idiom 
as we have in 10: 33, καλῶς ἐποίησας παραγενόμενος. Cf. also Ph. 
4:14; 2 Pet. 1:19; 3 Jo. 6. Blass* is right in including in this 
category τί ποιεῖτε (Mk. 11:5), τί ποιεῖτε κλαίοντες (Ac. 21 : 18), 
ἥμαρτον παραδούς (Mt. 27:4). As a matter of fact it is not be- 
yond controversy that the part. with these verbs of emotion is 
the supplementary and not the circumstantial participle. At 
any rate the idiom comes to the border-line between the two 
constructions. I do not wish to labour the point and so treat the 
construction as complementary. ‘The connection is not, however, 
so close with these verbs as is true of those in the two preceding 
lists. Indeed, the connection varies with different verbs and with 
the same verb in different contexts. It seems clear enough in 


1 Tb. 8 ΠΟ ty 
2 Prol., p. 229. A Cr cor Nails Gey fete 


1122 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Ac. 16: 34, ἠγαλλιάσατο πεπιστευκώς, and in 2 Pet. 2:10, ob τρέμου- 
σιν βλασφημοῦντες. The examples with ayavaxrew (Mt. 21: 15, ete.) 
and χαίρω (Mt. 2:10, etc.) all seem to be circumstantial.! The 
same thing is true of λυπέω. The participle does not occur in the 
N. T. with αἰσχύνομαι. The step over to the circumstantial parti- 
ciple of manner or cause is not very far to take.” 

(5) Indirect Discourse. This participle is clearly supplementary 
and in the N. T. is usually connected with the object of the prin- 
cipal verb. The nom.’ of the part. ἔχουσα appears with the pas- 
sive εὑρέθη in Mt. 1:18 as noted above. The active in the N. T. 
would have had ὅτι and the ind., if the reference was to Mary. 
The classic Greek could have said εὗρεν ἔχουσα, but the N. T. 
Greek, εὗρεν ὅτι ἔχει. Cf. also εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος in Ph. 2:8. 
But 1 Tim. 5:13 has to be noted. This subject was treated in 
detail under Indirect Discourse (see Modes). See that discussion 
for details about the different verbs, some of which, besides the 
participial construction, may instead use the inf. or ὅτι and the 
indicative. Here it is sufficient to give enough illustrations of 
this participle in indirect discourse with verbs of mental action 
to show the real complementary nature of the participle. The 
tense, of course, represents the tense of the direct. With most 
of these verbs (especially* οἶδα, μανθάνω, ὁμολογέω) the participle 
is giving way to the inf. or ὅτι, but still the idiom is common 
enough to attract notice in all parts of the N. T. Cf. γείνωσκε 
σαυτὸν ἕξοντα, P. B. M. 356 (i/A.D.).. It is common to explain this 
participle as the object of the principal verb after the analogy of 
the inf. in indirect discourse. So Jannaris?® calls it ‘the objective 
participle’? and Burton® ‘the substantive participle as object.” 
Blass’ more correctly perceives that it is the substantive or pro- 
noun that is the object while the participle is a predicate adjec- 
tive agreeing with this object. It is easy to see this point where 
no indirect discourse occurs, as in Heb. 7: 24, ἀπαράβατον ἔχει τὴν 
ἱερωσύνην, where ἔχω does not mean to ‘opine’ and where the 
verbal adj. occurs. But see the participle in 5:14, τῶν τὰ ἀισθη- 
τήρια “γεγυμνασμένα ἐχόντων, or, still better, Lu. 14:18, ἔχε we παρῃ- 
τημένον, Where ἔχω means ‘consider’ and we have the participle. 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 245. 5. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 495. 

3 Blass, ib., p. 247. 

4 The pap. show the same tendency. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 229. See Ra- 
dermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 169. 

δ Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 497. 

ΝΣ Meand ly pariG: 7 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 246. 


VERBAL NOUNS ((ONOMATA ΤΟΥ ‘PHMATOS) 1123 


Cf. Mk. 3:1; Ac. 9:21, ἵνα δεδεμένους αὐτοὺς ἀγάγῃ. See also 24: 27. 
Then note Ph. 2:3, ἀλλήλους ἡγούμενοι ὑπερέχοντας.: The addition 
of ws does not change the real construction as in robs λογιζομένους 
ἡμᾶς ὡς κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦντας, 2 Cor. 10:2; ὡς ἐχθρὸν ἡγεῖσθε, 
2 ΤῊ. 3:15. In principle it is the double accusative, too common 
with some verbs, only the second acc. is a predicate adj., not a 
substantive. Cf. Ro. 10:9 (margin of W. H.), ἐὰν ὁμολογήσῃς 
κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν, and 2 Jo. 7, ὁμολογοῦντες ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐρχόμενον ἐν 
σαρκί. ‘The presence or absence of the copula does not materially 
change the construction when an adj. or substantive is the second 
acc. Thus note 2 Cor. 8:22, ὃν ἐδοκιμάσαμεν σπουδαῖον ὄντα, and 
Mk. 6: 20, εἰδὼς αὐτὸν ἄνδρα δίκαιον. So we have no part. after 
εἶδον in Jo. 1: 50; Mt. 25: 38, though it occurs in Ac. 8 : 23; 
17:16. Blass? calls this an “ellipse” of the participle, an idiom 
common in classical Greek. It is hardly necessary to appeal to 
the ‘ellipse’ to explain it. The predicate force of ὄντα comes 
out well in Ac. 8:23. If no substantive or adj. is used, the parti- 
ciple is itself the full predicate and represents the predicate of the 
direct discourse. Cf. Mk. 12:28 ἀκούσας αὐτῶν συνζητούντων, (Lu. 
8:46) ἔγνων δύναμιν ἐξεληλυθυΐαν ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ. The point to note is that 
even here in indirect discourse, where the participle represents the 
verb of the direct, the participle is still an adjective though the 
verbal force has become prominent. The examples are too nu- 
merous to discuss in detail or even to quote in full. As represen- 
tative examples see Mt. 16:28 after εἶδον (ἐρχόμενον, but Mk. 9: 
1 has ἐληλυθυϊαν), Mk. 5:30 after ἐπιγινώσκω, 7:30 after εὑρίσκω 
(cf. also Lu. 23 : 2), Lu. 10:18 after Oewpéw (cf. in particular Ac. 
7:56), Jo. 1:38 after θεάομαι, 7:32 after ἀκούω, Ac. 19:35 after 
γινώσκω, 24:10 after ἐπίσταμαι, Heb. 2:9 after βλέπω, Heb. 13 : 23 
after γινώσκω, 2 Cor. 8 : 22 after δοκιμάζω, Ph. 2:3 after ἡγέομαι, 
2 Jo. 7 after ὁμολογέω. The punctiliar idea is present as in ze- 
σόντα in Lu. 10:18, or the linear as in ἐγγίζουσαν (Heb. 10 : 25), 
or the perfected state as in πεπτωκότα (Rev. 9:1). Cf. also Ac. 
2:11; 24:18; Mk. 9:38; 1 Jo.4:2. Burton® explains as “the 
substantive participle’’ (see 4, (d)) also Jo. 4 : 39, τῆς γυναικὸς μαρ- 
τυρούσης, and Heb. 8:9, ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπιλαβομένου pov. The first ex- 
ample is really the attributive participle like τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος 
(Mt. 21:4). The second example is more difficult, but it is a 
quotation from the LXX (Jer. 31:32) and is not therefore a 
model of Greek. The pov has to be taken with ἡμέρᾳ and the 


1 Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., pp. 359 ff. 
2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 246. a Nee ΝΜ ΠΝ Ὁ 110: 


1124 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


participle would be a circumstantial temporal use. It is prob- 
ably suggested by the original Hebrew, as Moulton (Prol., p. 47) 
admits. Cf. Barn. 2 : 28, ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐντειλαμένου cov αὐτῷ. Cf. ἐπὶ 
παροῦσιν ὑμεῖν, B. G. U. 287 (Α.». 250). The reference of Burton 
to Josephus, Ant. 10, 4. 2, does not justify the interpretation which 
he gives. 

(e) The Circumstantial Participle or Participial Clauses. 

(a) The General Theory. There is but one difference between 
the supplementary and the circumstantial participle. It lies in 
the fact that the circumstantial participle is an additional state- 
ment and does not form an essential part of the verbal notion 
of the principal verb. The circumstantial participle may be re- 
moved and the sentence will not bleed. It is still a true parti- 
ciple, predicate adjective as well as circumstantial addition to the 
verb. In point of agreement the circumstantial may be related 
to the subject of the principal verb or the object, or indeed any 
other substantive or pronoun in the sentence. It may have also 
an independent construction with a substantive or pronoun of its 
own (genitive or accusative absolute) or have no substantive or 
pronoun at all. Once again the participle may be so indepen- 
dent as to form a sentence of its own and not merely be a sub- 
ordinate clause. See the section on The Independent Participle 
asaSentence. Here we are dealing with the independent participle 
in a subordinate clause with various stages of independency from 
mere addition and agreement with a substantive or pronoun to 
complete isolation though still subordinate. Some of the gram- 
mars, Burton! for instance, call this the ‘adverbial’ participle. 
There is a slight element of truth here, but only so far as there is 
a sort of parallel with the subordinate conjunctional clauses which 
are adverbial (cf. ὅτε, ἵνα, ws, etc.). But it is distinctly misleading 
to treat this participle as adverbial. In fact, there is a constant 
tendency to read into this circumstantial participle more than is 
there. In itself, it must be distinctly noted, the participle does 
not express time, manner, cause, purpose, condition or conces- 
sion. These ideas are not? in the participle, but are merely sug- 
gested by the context, if at all, or occasionally by a particle like 
ἅμα, εὐθύς, καίπερ, ποτέ, νῦν, ws. There is no necessity for one 
to use the circumstantial participle. If he wishes a more pre- 
cise note of time, cause, condition, purpose, etc., the various 
subordinate clauses (and the infinitive) are at his command, 
besides the co-ordinate clauses. The vernacular increasingly 

1N. T. M. and ‘T., pp. 169 ff. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 247. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATOS) BL25 


preferred the co-ordinate or the subordinate clause with con- 
junctions to the rather loose circumstantial participle.t_ We sec 
the triumph of: this analytic tendency in the modern Greek.’ 
But it remains true that the participial clause was one of the 
great resources of the Greek language and in contrast the Latin 
seems very poor.® The English comes next to the Greek in its rich 
use of the circumstantial participle. Moulton‘ notes the failure 
of the English, even with the help of auxiliary verbs, to express 
the precise difference between λύσας and λελυκώς (ὁ λαβών and ὁ 
εἰληφώς, for instance, in Mt. 25:20, 24). He rightly also calls 
attention to the weakness of the Greek because of its wealth of 
participles, since so much ambiguity is possible. Does a given 
circumstantial participle bear the notion of ‘because’ or ‘al- 
though’? Only the context can tell, and men do not always in- 
terpret the context correctly. One more remark is necessary. 
By means of the circumstantial participle the sentence may be 
lengthened indefinitely. Good illustrations of this freedom may 
be seen in the periodic structure in Thucydides, Isocrates, Lysias 
and Demosthenes. But the N. T. itself has examples of it as is 
seen in 2 Pet. 2: 12-15, βλασφημοῦντες, ἀδικούμενοι, ἡγούμενοι, ἐντρυ- 
φῶντες. 

(8) Varieties of the Circumstantial Participle. Here are treated 
only those examples which have syntactical agreement in case 
with some substantive or pronoun in the sentence. It may be 
repeated that this participle does not express the ideas called by 
the usual classification into participles of time, manner (means), 
cause, purpose, condition, concession. Hence it is proper to group 
the examples together. The classification is only justified by the 
context and occasional use of a particle. The same classification 
is possible also for the absolute use of the participial clause. The 
examples are too numerous for exhaustive treatment. A few 
must suffice. 

Time. It is not the tense that is here under discussion, though 
naturally the different tenses will vary in the way that time is 
treated (antecedent, simultaneous, future), as already shown. 
The point more exactly is whether a given circumstantial parti- 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 499. 

2 Jebb, in V. and D., p. 333. 3 Moulton, Prol., p. 229. 

4 Ib. Cf. Alexander, Partic. Periphrases in Attic Orators (Am. Jour. of 
Philol., IV, p. 291 f.). 

5 Certainly we cannot admit the idea that the part. itself has different 
meanings. Cf. Paul, Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., p. 158. 


1126 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ciple occurs in a context where the temporal relation is the main 
one rather than that of cause, condition, purpose, etc. It is usu- 
ally a mistake to try to reproduce such participles by the English 
‘when,’ ‘after,’ etc., with the indicative. To do this exaggerates 
the nuance of time as Moulton! observes. It is generally sufficient 
to preserve the English participle or to co-ordinate the clauses 
with ‘and.’ The slightness of the temporal idea is well seen in 
the pleonastic participles ἀναστάς (Mt. 26 : 62), ἀποκριθείς (Mt. 3: 
15, very common in the Synoptic Gospels. John usually has 
ἀπεκρίθη καὶ εἶπεν as in 1:49), ἀπελθών (Mt. 13:46), λαβών (13: 
31, cf. verse 33), πορευθέντες (21:6). Here the notion is temporal, 
but very slightly so. Cf. also προσθεὶς εἶπεν in Lu. 19:11. The use 
of ἀρξάμενος as a note of time is seen in Mt. 20: 8f.; Lu. 23: 
5; 24:47; Ac. 1:22. In Ac. 11:4, ἀρξάμενος Πέτρος ἐξετίθετο αὐτοῖς 
καθεξῆς, the part. is slightly pleonastic,? but note contrast with 
καθεξῆς as with ἕως τῶν πρώτων in Mt. 20:8. Cf. épxopuevols| ἔρχου, 
P. Tb. 421 (iii/a.p.).. Sometimes the temporal idea is much more 
prominent, as in διοδεύσαντες (Ac. 17:1), ἐλθὼν ἐκεῖνος ἐλέγξει τὸν 
κόσμον (Jo. 16:8). Soalso Mt. 6:17, σὺ δὲ νηστεύων ἄλειψαι. Here 
the descriptive force of the participle is distinctly temporal. In 
examples like Mk. 1:7 κύψας λῦσαι τὸν ἱμάντα, Ac. 21:32 παρα- 
λαβὼν στρατιώτας κατέδραμεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς, there is precedence in order 
of time, but it is mere priority with no special accent on the 
temporal relation.2 Cf. Mt. 2:16; 13:2. In Ac. 24:25f. we 
have some interesting examples of the participle. In διαλεγομένου 
αὐτοῦ we see the temporal notion of ‘while’ with the genitive 
absolute. In τοῦ μέλλοντος the temporal notion in this attribu- 
tive part. is due to μέλλω. In γενόμενος it is mere antecedence with 
ἀπεκρίθη (almost simultaneous, in fact). In τὸ νῦν ἔχον the attribu- 
tive participle again has the temporal idea due to the words 
themselves. In μεταλαβών we have antecedence emphasized by 
καιρόν. In ἅμα καὶ ἐλπίζων we have the linear notion stressed 
by ἅμα. In πυκνότερον αὐτὸν μεταπεμπόμενος ὡμίλει αὐτῷ the note 
of repetition in πυκνότερον reappears in participle and verb. An 
interesting example is also seen in Heb. 11:32, ἐπιλείψει με διη- 
γούμενον ὁ χρόνος, where in a poetic way time is described as going 
off and leaving the writer discoursing about Gideon and the rest. 
In 1 Pet. 5:10, ὀλίγον παθόντας, the adverb of time makes it clear. 
The note of time may appear in any tense of the participle and 
with any tense in the principal verb. It is not always easy to 


1 Prol., p. 230. 
2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 249. 3 ΤΌ, p. 248. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATO2) 1127 


discriminate between the temporal participle and that of at- 
tendant circumstance or manner. Moulton! and Blass? make 
no distinction. These two uses are the most frequent of all. A 
good example of this ambiguity occurs in Ac. 21:32, where 
παραλαβὼν (cf. λαβών in ancient Greek) may be regarded as merely 
the attendant circumstance. So also the notion of occasion 
wavers between time and cause. Cf. ἀκούόντες (Lu. 4:28). For 
ὡς with this participle see 1 Cor. 7: 29 ff. 

Manner. ‘The ancient use of ἔχων in the sense of ‘with’ occurs 
in Mt. 15:30 ἔχοντες μεθ’ ἑαυτῶν χωλούς, Mk. 14:3 ἔχουσα ἀλάβα- 
στρον μύρου, Ac. 21: 28 εὐχὴν ἔχοντες ad’ ἑαυτῶν. Cf. also φέρων in 
Jo. 19:39. In Jo. 18:3 we have λαβών used in practically the 
same sense as μετά In Mt. 26:47. Cf. also λαβών in Mt. 25:1. 
In Lu. 1: 64, ἐλάλει εὐλογῶν, the part. is one of manner, as in Mt. 
19 : 22 ἀπῆλθεν λυπούμενος, (Mk. 1:22) ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων, where ws 
makes the point plainer, (1:4) κηρύσσων, where the participle is 
not the periphrastic construction with ἐγένετο, (1: 5) ἐξομολογούμε- 
vot, (Ac..3 : 5) ἐπεῖχεν αὐτοῖς προσδοκῶν τι (a picturesque bit of descrip- 
tion), (2 Th. 3:11) μηδὲν ἐργαζομένους ἀλλὰ περιεργαζομένους (a real 
pun). It is hard to tell how to classify a participle like that in Gal. 
6:3, μηδὲν ὦν. It makes sense as temporal, causal or modal. But 
there is no doubt in a case like Lu. 19:48 ἐξεκρέμετο αὐτοῦ ἀκούων 
or Ac. 2:18 διαχλευάζοντες ἔλεγον Or ws οὐκ ἀέρα δέρων (1 Cor. 9: 
26). This notion of manner appears in the participles that 
have an adverbial notion like σπεύσας (Lu. 19 : 5 f.), ἐπιβαλών (Mk. 
14: 72), τυχόν (1 Cor. 16 : 6), βλέποντες (Mt. 13 : 14); προσθεὶς εἶπεν 
(Lu. 19:11). Cf. also ἀναβλέψας εἶπεν in verse 5. So also the 
pleonastic participles like ἀποκριθείς (see above) may be looked at 
either as temporal or modal or even adverbial. See further xpe- 
μάσαντες (Ac. 5: 30), συμβιβάζων (9 : 22) as good examples of the 
modal participle. Burton? makes a separate division for the 
participle “οἵ attendant circumstance,” but this is not neces- 
sary and leads to overrefinement. These examples are either 
temporal as in ἐξελθόντες (Mk. 16:20), ἐκλεξαμένους (Ac. 15: 
22) or modal as δοξαζόμενος (Lu. 4:15), ἀναλαβών (2 Tim. 4 : 11) 
or pleonastic as ἀπεκρίθησαν λέγουσαι (Mt. 25:9). Blass’ term 
“conjunctive” (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 249) throws no particular 
light on the point. In 1 Tim. 1:13 ἀγνοῶν is manner. In Ac. 


1 Prol., p. 230. 2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 248. 

8.Ν, T. M. and T., p. 173. Cucuel and Riemann (Régles Fondamentales 
de la Synt. Grecque, 1888, p. 110) consider this notion an “exception,” but it 
is not necessary to do that. 


1128 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


18 : 18, κειράμενος, we have in truth both the temporal and the 
modal. But it is easy to split hairs over the various circumstan- 
tial participles and to read into them much more than is there. 
Cf. 2 Cor. 4:1f. See βαπτίζοντες and διδάσκοντες in Mt. 28 : 19 f. 
as modal participles. So ἀγνοῶν in 1 Tim.1:138. Cf. κατὰ ἄγνοιαν 
insAceal: 17, 

Means. It is usual? to distinguish means from manner in the 
participle. There is a real point, but it is not always clear where 
manner shades off into.means. But some instances are clear. 
Cf. Mt. 6:27, τίς μεριμνῶν δύναται προσθεῖναι; So also μαντευομένη 
in Ac. 16:16. Thus the maid furnished the revenue for her 
masters. In Heb. 2:10 ἀγαγόντα and 2:18 πειρασθείς we may 
also have instances of this notion, but the first may be temporal 
and the second causal. Jannaris? blends the treatment of man- 
ner and means and notes how this participle disappears in the 
later Greek. 

Cause. The ground of action in the principal verb may be sug- 
gested by the participle. Cf. δίκαιος καὶ μὴ θέλων αὐτὴν δειγματίσαι 
ἐβουλήθη, Mt. 1:19; ἥμαρτον παραδοὺς αἷμα, 27:3; ἐχάρησαν ἰδόντες, 
Jo. 20: 20. As a matter of fact this idiom is very frequent. 
Cf: further); Mti 243, 110; eJ0.14:245; 2lsd 2 Ace 421 2n0e tos 
24 : 22, εἰδώς --- εἴπας, Ro. 6:6, γινώσκοντες, and 9, εἰδότες; 2 Pet. 
3:9; Col. 1:3f.; 1 Tim. 4:8; Jas..2:25. For os. with this parti- 
ciple see 1 Cor. 7:25, ὡς ἠλεημένος. In Ac. 24:22 εἰδώς may be 
taken as ‘wishing to know,’ though Felix may also have actually 
had some knowledge of Christianity (cf. Paul’s appearance before 
Gallio). So also εἰδώς (24:22) may mean ‘wishing to know.’ 
The N. T. no longer has ἅτε, οἷον, οἷα with the part. as classic 
Greek did.2 In Jo. 5:44 a causal participle λαμβάνοντες is co- 
ordinate with ζητεῖτε. 

Purpose. The use of the participle to express aim or design 
has already been discussed several times from different points of 
view (Tense, Final Clauses, Tense of the Participle). This fine 
classic idiom is nearly gone in the N. T. Purpose is expressed 
chiefly by ἵνα or the inf. For the future part. of purpose see 
Mt.! 272.49) Ace 8275822 255 ede ir, aon Hebel onsale aa 
ἀποδώσοντες, there is as much cause as purpose. Blass‘ wrongly 
accepts ἀσπασόμενοι In Ac. 25:18. The present part. is also used 
in the sense of purpose where the context makes it clear. So 
Ac. 3:26, ἀπέστειλεν αὐτὸν ebdoyodvra. Cf. Lu. 138:6f.; Ac. 15: 


1 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 333. 8. Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 335. 
? Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 504. 4 Gr. of N. Τὸ Gk., p. 248. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATO®) 1129 


27; Ro. 15:25. But it is not absent from the papyri. Cf. P. 
Goodsp. 4 (ii/B.c.) ἀπεστάλκαμεν --- κοινολογησόμενόν σοι. So also 
the present part., P. Oxy. 275 (A.D. 66), διακονοῦ[ν] τα καὶ ποιο[ῦ]ντα. 

Condition. The use of the conditional disappeared more 
rapidly than the temporal and causal in the later Greek.! It is 
only the protasis, of course, which is here considered. It is still 
a common idiom in the N. T. In Mt. 16:26 we have ἐὰν τὸν 
κόσμον ὅλον κερδήσῃ, While in Lu. 9 : 25, we find κερδήσας τὸν κόσμον 
ὅλον. Here it is the condition of the third class plainly enough. 
See ποιήσας ἔσῃ, κτὰλ., in B. G. U. 596 (a.v. 84). In 1 Cor. 11 : 29, 
μὴ διακρίνων, it may be the first class condition with εἰ that is the 
equivalent, but one cannot always be certain on this point. Cf. 
Ro. 2 : 27, τελοῦσα; Gal. 6:9, μὴ ἐκλυόμενοι; 1 Tim. 4:4, λαμβανό- 
μενον; Heb. 2:3, ἀμελήσαντες; 7:12, μετατιθεμένης. Moulton? de- 
nies that the participle stands in the N. T. for a condition of the 
second class (unreal condition). In Lu. 19:23, κἀγὼ ἐλθὼν σὺν 
τόκῳ ἂν αὐτὸ ἔπραξα, the participle is part of the apodosis, while 
the condition is implied in the preceding question. Moulton’ 
rightly notes that one can no longer decide by the presence of μή 
with the participle that it is conditional or concessive, since μή 
has come in the κοινή to be the usual negative of participles. 
There is no instance of ἄν with the participle in the N. T., 
though Moulton (Prol., p. 167) quotes one in a κοινή inscr., 
I. M. A. ii, 174, δικαιότερον ἂν σωθέντα (In a despatch of Augus- 
tus). For ὡς ἄν see Particles with Participles. 

Concession. This is ‘also a frequent construction. Cf. Mt. 
14:9, λυπηθείς. The context calls for the adversative idea in 
7:11, πονηροὶ ὄντες. See further Mt. 26:60; 14:5; Mk. 4:31; 
ΠΝ τ 2 21...11... Jasipou. 4; AGe 13,1287 ΟΣ 1 214 9 2; 91:.22 
1 Cor. 9:19; Jude 5. To avoid ambiguity the Greek often 
used particles to make the concessive idea plain, and this idiom 
survives in the N. T. Cf. καί γε ---ὑπάρχοντα (Ac. 17:27), καί 
τοι γενηθέντων (Heb. 4:3), καίπερ more frequently as in Ph. 3:4; 
Hevea eich ale: 17%) 2) Pet, 12124 “In ΗΟ li: 12 wwe; also 
have καὶ ταῦτα vevexpwyévov. Kairovye occurs only with the finite 
verb as in Jo. 4:2.4. So καίτοι in Ac. 14:17. It is worth while 
to note the survival of οὐ with καί γε in Ac. 17:27. Moulton 
(Prol., p. 231) admits Wellhausen’s (Hznl., p. 22) claim that λαλεῖ 
βλασφημεῖὶ (Mk. 2:7) is an Aramaism for two Aramaic participles, 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 502. 4 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 248. 
2 Prol., p. 230. 5 Moulton, Prol., p. 230. 
3. Ib., p. 229. 


1180 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


“the second of which should appear as a participle’ as in 
Lu. 22:65, βλασφημοῦντες ἔλεγον. But W. H. punctuate λαλεῖ; 
βλασφημεῖ. 

(γ) The Absolute Participle in Subordinate Clauses. It is not 
strange that the participle should have been used in clauses that 
stand apart from the rest of the sentence. There it has its adjec- 
tival agreement. It is but a step further than the ordinary cir- 
cumstantial participle which makes an additional statement. All 
the varieties of the circumstantial participle can appear in the 
absolute participle. 

Nominative Absolute. It is possible thus to explain some ex- 
amples of anacolutha in ancient Greek! and the N. T., though 
Blass? demurs. Cf. ὁ πιστεύων eis ἐμέ --- ποταμοὶ ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας αὐτοῦ 
ῥεύσουσιν (Jo. 7: 38); ἐπιγνόντες, δὲ --- φωνὴ ἐγένετο μία ἐκ πάντων (Ac. 
19: 34); ὁ νικῶν δώσω αὐτῷ (Rev. 8 : 21). Cf. also τῶν θελόντων and 
οἱ κατέσθοντες (ΜΚ. 12:40). So Mk. 7:19; Rev. 2:26. At any 
rate it is the nominativus pendens, and there is not any special 
difference. In the modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 169) the 
nominative absolute with the participle occurs, though rare, and 
usually a conjunctional clause has supplanted the genitive ab- 
solute. 

Accusative Absolute. This construction was used with im- 
personal verbs or phrases like δέον, ἐξόν, παρόν, etc. It was prob- 
ably an appositional addition to the sentence.’ It has nearly, if 
not quite, disappeared from the N. T. The adverb τυχόν (1 Cor. 
16 : 6) is really an instance of it, but not so ἐξόν in Ac. 2 : 29, 
where ἐστίν is probably to be supplied. Cf. ἐξὸν ἦν (Mt. 12 : 4) 
and δέον ἐστίν (Ac. 19:36). Cf. also οὐ συμφέρον μέν in 2 Cor. 
12:1. But a possible accusative absolute 1s γνώστην ὄντα (Ac. 
20 : 8), though it is very rare to see the accusative absolute with 
a substantive of its own. In such instances it was usual to have 
also ws or ὥσπερ The accusative is an old idiom, appearing in 
the oldest Greek title known to us.® But it came to be rather 
common in Thucydides.’ It was rare in the Attic orators. Luke 
avoids the accusative absolute in Ac. 23:30, by an awkward’ 

1 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 259. 

2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 251. He calls it “antiquated.” It was never very 
common. 

3 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 524. 

4 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 339. 5 Thompson, Synt., p. 261. 

6 Deiss., Exp. Times, 1906, Dec., p. 105. 


7 Lell, Der Absolut-Akkusativ im Griech. bis zu Arist., 1892, p. 17. 
8 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 252. 


se titi te ee ee 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA ΤΟΥ ‘PHMATOS) 1131 


use of the genitive absolute, μηνυθείσης δέ μοι ἐπιβουλῆς εἰς τὸν ἄν- 
dpa ἔσεσθαι. The papyri use ἐξόντος rather than ἐξόν.: We do not 
have the acc. absolute in Ph. 1:7, since ὑμᾶς ὄντας is a resumption 
(apposition) of ὑμᾶς before. 

Genitive Absolute. It is by no means certain that the case 
is always genitive. Indeed, it is pretty clear that some of these 
examples are ablative. Probably some are real genitives of 
time.2, The Sanskrit uses chiefly the locative in these absolute 
constructions. It is possible that the Latin ablative absolute 
may sometimes be locative or instrumental.2 The use of the 
true genitive in the Greek idiom is probably to be attributed 
to expressions of time in the genitive case with which parti- 
ciples were used. Then the temporal circumstantial participle 
was right at hand. It is in Attic prose, particularly the ora- 
tors, that. we see the highest development of the idiom. The 
accusative absolute was just as idiomatic as this genitive-ablative 
construction, but it did not get the same hold on the language.’ 
See Cases for further remarks. The κοινή shows a rapid extension 
of the genitive absolute. ‘‘In the papyri it may often be seen 
forming a string of statements, without a finite verb for several 
lines.”’® In the N. T. different writers vary greatly, John’s Gos- 
pel, for instance, having it only one-fourth as often as the Acts.’ 
The most frequent use of the idiom is when the substantive (or 
pronoun) and the participle stand apart with no syntactical con- 
nection with any part of the sentence. Cf. Mk. 4:17, εἶτα yevo- 
μένης θλίψεως ἢ διωγμοῦ διὰ τὸν λόγον εὐθὺς σκανδαλίζονται; Ac. 12: 18, 
γενομένης δὲ ἡμέρας ἦν τάραχος οὐκ ὀλίγος; 18 : 20; 7:5; Eph. 2 : 20; 
Mk. 8:1; 2 Pet. 3:11; Heb. 9 : 6-8, 15, 19. These are perfectly 
regular and normal examples. But sometimes the genitive abso- 
lute occurs where there is already a genitive in the sentence. So 
Mt. 6 : 3, cod δὲ ποιοῦντος --- ἡ ἀριστερά σου; 9:10; Ac. 17:16. In 
Mk. 14:3 we find a double gen. absolute ὄντος αὐτοῦ --- κατακειμένου 
αὐτοῦ. Even in the classical Greek the genitive absolute is found 
when the participle could have agreed with some substantive or 
pronoun in the sentence.’ It was done apparently to make the 


1 Οὐκ ἐξόντος, P. Oxy. 275 (A.D. 66). 

2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 524. 3 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 167 f. 

4 Cf. Spieker, The Genitive Abs. in the Attic Orators, Am. Jour. of Philol., 
VI, pp. 310-343. 

5 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 251. 6 Moulton, Prol., p. 74. 

7 Gildersl., Styl. Effect of the Gk. Part., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1888, p. 153. 

8 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 338. 


1132 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


participial clause more prominent. The papyri show illustrations 
of the same thing,! as in B. U. 1040 (ii/A.D.) χαίρω ὅτι μοι ταῦτα 
ἐποίησας, ἐμοῦ μεταμελομένου περὶ μηδενός. It is fairly common in the 
N.T. We have it even when the part. refers to the subject of 
the verb, as in Mt. 1:18, μνηστευθείσης τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ Mapias — 
εὑρέθη ἔχουσα. In Ro. 9: 1 the construction is regular, though μοι 
and μου occur. In Mt. 8:1 we find καταβάντος αὐτοῦ --- ἠκολοὐθη- 
σαν αὐτῷ. Cf. 5:1; 9:18; 17:22; 2 Cor. 4:18, etc. Likewise 
the genitive and the accusative come together as in Jo. 8: 30, 
αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος --- ἐπίστευσαν eis αὐτόν. Cf. also Mt. 18:25; Ac. 
28:17. Quite unusual is Ac. 22:17 where we have μοι ὑποστρέ- 
ψαντι, προσευχομένου μου and γενέσθαι με. The Ν. T. occasionally 
uses the participle alone in the genitive absolute according to the 
occasional classic usage.” In the papyri it is more frequent than 
in the N. T.2 In particular note the common ἐξόντος, P. Oxy. 275 
(A.D. 66). Cf. also δηλωθέντος, B. U. 970 (ii/a.p.). See Mt. 17: 14, 
ἐλθόντων; 17: 26, εἰπόντος; Ac. 21:31, ξητούντων. In Lu. 12 : 36, 
ἐλθόντος καὶ κρούσαντος εὐθέως ἀνοίξωσιν αὐτῷ, we have the genitive 
participle although αὐτῷ is present. Cf. B. G. U. 423 (i/a.p.) 
ὅτι μου κινδεύσαντος εἰς θάλασσαν ἔσωσε, Where με the object of ἔσωσε 
is not expressed. 

(f) The Independent Participle in a Sentence. There is no 
doubt that the use of the absolute participle (nominative, ac- 
cusative, genitive-ablative) is a sort of “implied predication.’’4 
It remains to be considered whether the participle ever forms an 
independent sentence. We have seen that the inf. is occasionally 
so used. It is but a step from the independent clause to the in- 
dependent sentence. Did the participle take it? The nominative 
absolute as a sort of anacoluthon appears in the ancient Greek. 
Cf. Plato, Apol. 21 C, καὶ διαλεγόμενος αὐτῷ, ἔδοξέ μοι ὁ ἀνὴρ εἶναι 
σοφός. As the genitive-absolute, like other circumstantial par- 
ticiples, retreated before the conjunctional clauses, there was 
an increasing tendency to blur or neglect the grammatical case 
agreements in the use of the participles. The N. T., like the κοινή 
in general, shows more examples of the anacoluthic nominative 
participle than the older Greek.’ The mental strain of so many 
participles in rapid conversation or writing made anacolutha 


1 Cf. Moulton, Prol., pp. 74, 236; Cl. Rev., XV, p. 437. 
2 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 338. 


§ Moulton, Prol., p. 74. This idiom is common in Xen. Roche, Beitr., p. 
128. 


4 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 167. δ Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 259. 


————— SS 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATOS) 1133 


easy.! “Hence even writers of systematic training could not but 
occasionally blunder in the use of the circumstantial participle.” 
Jannaris had thus concluded that the late Greek showed an in- 
dependent use of the participle as anacoluthon.2 Blass? would 
go no further than this. Viteau* found abundant illustration of 
the independent use of the anacoluthic participle in the LXX. 
Viteau explains it as a Hebraism. But Moulton® claims that the 
subject is removed from the realm of controversy by the proof 
from the papyri. Thumb‘ finds the idiom in classical Greek and 
in the κοινή (in the LXX, N. T., papyri, inscriptions, etc.). It is 
easy to be extreme on this point of dispute. In the chapter on 
Mode (the Imperative) adequate discussion appears concerning 
the participle as imperative. That discussion need not be re- 
peated. It may be insisted, however, again that the participle 
in itself is never imperative nor indicative, though there seem to 
be examples in the N. T., as in the papyri, where, because of 
ellipsis or anacoluthon, the participle carries on the work of 
either the indicative or the imperative. In examples like 2 Cor. 
1:3, εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεός, either ἐστίν or ἔστω may be supplied with 
the verbal adjective. It must not be forgotten that this is the 
work of the interpreter to a large extent rather than of the 
grammarian. The manuscripts often vary in such examples 
and the editors differ in the punctuation. But the grammarian 
must admit the facts of usage. The papyri and the N. T. 
show that sometimes the participle was loosely used to carry 
on the verbal function in independent sentences.’ Cf. ἀποστυ- 
yobvres τὸ πονηρόν, κολλώμενοι τῷ ἀγαθῷ (Ro. 12:9), for instance, 
where we have a complete sentence without connection with 
anything else. The preceding sentence is ἡ ἀγάπη ἀνυπόκριτος 
(an independent sentence itself) and it is followed by a series of 
independent participles (verses 10-13). In verse 14 we have 
abruptly εὐλογεῖτε --- καὶ μὴ καταρᾶσθε (imperatives) and then the 
absolute infinitive χαίρειν (imperatival also).. The point seems to 
be incontrovertible. Cf. also Col. 3:16. It is only necessary to 
‘add a word about the independent participle in the midst of in- 
dicatives, since this use is far more frequent than the imperative 
idiom just noted. In general it may be said that no participle 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p 505. 4 Le Verbe, pp. 200 ff. 
2 Ib., pp. 500, 505. 5 Prol., pp. 180 ff., 222 ff. 
* Gr, of Gk. N..T., p. 283. 6 Hellen., p. 181. 


7 Moulton, Prol., p. 180, cites Meisterh., pp. 244-246, for the use of the 
imp. part. in decrees. It is the nominativus pendens applied to the part. 


1134 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


should be explained in this way that can properly be connected 
with a finite verb. In Ro. 12 : 6, ἔχοντες δέ, it is clear that we can- 
not carry on the participle as subordinate to ἔχομεν or ἐσμεν in the 
preceding verses. W. H. boldly start a new sentence. In either 
case, whether we have comma or period before, we must take 


ἔχοντες aS imperatival or indicative, on the one hand, or, on the . 


other hand, supply ἐσμέν or ὦμεν as ποιεῖτε is supplied in Ro. 18: 
11 with καὶ εἰδότες τὸν καιρόν. But other examples leave no such 
alternative. We may first summarize Moulton’s satisfactory ex- 


position of the matter. There is a striking similarity between . 


the third person plural indicative and the participle in the Indo- 
Germanic tongues (*bheronti, ferunt, φέρουσι, bairand, ete.). The 
frequent ellipsis of est in the Latin perfect and passive is to be 
noted also. The probability that the Latin second plural middle 
indicative is really a participle which has been incorporated into 
the verb inflection (cf. sequimint and ἑπόμενοι) is also suggestive. 
This fact may point to the prehistoric time when the Latin used 
the participle as indicative. The papyri re-enforce the argument 
strongly. We quote a bit from Moulton?: “ΤΡ. P. 14 (ii/B.c.), 
τῶι οὖν σημαινομένωι Ἣ ρᾶτι παρηγγελκότες ἐνώπιον, ‘I gave notice in 
person’ (no verb follows). Tb. P. 42 (2b.), ἠδικημένος (no verb fol- 
lows). A. P. 78 (ii/A.D.), βίαν πάσχων ἑκάστοτε, etc. (no verb).” 
This may serve as a sample of many more like it. Moulton 
(Prol., p. 223) adds that use of the part. as ind. or imper. in the 
papyri is “not at all a mark of inferior education.” See 1 Pet. 2: 
12 where ἔχοντες does not agree with the παροίκους. We may now 
approach the passages in dispute between Winer* and Moulton.! 
Moulton passes by Winer’s suggestion that in 2 Cor. 4:13 
ἔχοντες 18 to be taken with πιστεύομεν. This is probable, though 
awkward. So in 2 Pet. 2:1 the participles can be joined with 
παρεισάξουσιν. But in Ro. 5:11 it is, Moulton argues, somewhat 
forced to take οὐ μόνον δέ, ἀλλὰ καὶ καυχώμενοι otherwise than as 
independent. If we once admit the fact of this idiom, as we 
have done, this is certainly the most natural way to take it here. 
Moulton is silent as to στελλόμενοι in 2 Cor. 8 : 20. Winer connects 
it with συνεπέμψαμεν in verse 18 and he is supported by the punc- 
tuation of verse 19 as a parenthesis by W. H. But even so in 
verse 19 we have οὐ μόνον δὲ ἀλλὰ καὶ χειροτονηθείς (cf. Ro. 5:11) 
stranded with no verb. Moulton also passes by Heb. 6:8 and 2 
Pet.3:5. In Heb. 7:1 Moulton follows W. H. in reading 6 (not 


1 Moulton, Prol., pp. 180, 183 f. ΕΞ 901}: 
2 Ib., pp. 223 f. | ‘ Prol., p. 224 f. 


VERBAL NOUNS ((ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATOS) 1135 


ὃς) συναντήσας on the authority of C*LP against NABC?2DEK 17. 
So he sees no necessity for taking ἑρμηνευόμενος as an indicative. 
In Heb. 8:10; 10:16, Moulton takes διδούς as parallel with ém- 
γράψω, whereas Winer would resolve ἐπιγράψω into a participle. 
Here Moulton is clearly right. In Ac. 24: 5, εὑρόντες yap, we have 
anacoluthon as both Winer and Moulton agree. Moulton adds: 
“Luke cruelly reports the orator verbatim.’?’ Moulton omits to 
comment on Winer’s explanation of the parenthetical anacolu- 
thon in 2 Pet. 1:17, λαβὼν yap. It is a violent anacoluthon and 
Winer does not mend it. Note 2 Cor. 5:6, θαρροῦντες, where after 
a parenthesis we have θαρροῦμεν δὲ (resumptive). But Moulton 
takes 2 Cor. 7:5 θλιβόμενοι as an example of the “indicative” 
participle. So does he explain Ro. 12:6 ἔχοντες, and ἔχων in 
Rev. 10:2. In Ac. 26:20 the MSS. vary between ἀπαγγέλλων 
and ἀπήγγελλον. In Heb. 10:1 ἔχων will also be independent if 
δύνανται be read. In Ph. 1:30 ἔχοντες has ὑμῖν above and halts 
in the case agreement. On the whole, therefore, we may con- 
clude that, while every instance is to be examined on its merits, 
a number of real examples of the idiom may be admitted in the 
N. T. Viteau! has entirely too large a list of such instances. 
Many of them admit a much simpler explanation as in Ph. 
1:30 above. In Revelation, it is true, there is more than usual 
laxity in the agreement of the participle, especially when it is in 
apposition. There is also a change from nominative to accusative 
between ἰδού and εἶδον as in Rev. 4: 1-5; 7:9; 14:1-8; 14:14, 
etc. But there are real examples in Rev., as καὶ ἔχων (1:16), 
λέγων (11:1). With all this development along a special line we 
must not forget that the participle is both adjective and verb. 
Blass? has a careful discussion of “ὑπὸ free use of the participle.” 
In Col. 1:26 he notes that the participle ἀποκεκρυμμένον is con- 
tinued by the indicative ἐφανερώθη. Cf. Jo. 5: 44. 

(g) Co-ordination between Participles. Blass* uses the term 
“conjunctive” participle instead of a special use of the “cir- 
cumstantial” participle. It is not a particularly happy phrase. 
But it does accent the notion that this participle, though an 
addition to the principal verb, is still joined to it in gram- 
matical agreement. Blass* shows clearly how identity of action 
may be expressed by two finite verbs, as well as by the pleonas- 
tic participle of identical action. Cf. Jo. 1:25 καὶ ἠρώτησαν αὐτὸν 
καὶ εἶπαν (Mt. 15:23 ἠρώτουν λέγοντες), 12:44 ἔκραξεν καὶ εἶπεν 


1 Le Verbe, pp. 201 ff. ST Gre OluN ΠΟ ΤΡ 247: 
2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 284 f. 410} ps 2ou. 


1136 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(Mt. 8:29 ἔκραξαν λέγοντες), 13 : 21 ἐμαρτύρησεν καὶ εἶπε (Ac. 13: 
22 εἶπεν μαρτυρήσας), 18:25 ἠρνήσατο καὶ εἶπεν (Mt. 26:70 ἠρνή- 
σατο λέγων), Where John prefers the particularity of the finite 
verb. But see also Lu. 6:48, ἔσκαψεν καὶ ἐβάθυνεν, ‘he dug and 
deepened’=‘he dug deep.’ Cf. Jo. 8:59. There remains the 
relation of participles to each other when a series of them comes 
together. There is no rule on this subject beyond what applies 
to other words. Two or more participles may be connected by 
καί as in Ac. 8 : 8, περιπατῶν καὶ ἁλλόμενος καὶ aivdv τὸν θεόν. But we 
have asyndeton! in Ac. 1ὃ : 23, διερχόμενος τὴν Γαλατικὴν χώραν, 
στηρίζων τοὺς μαθητάς. Cf. Lu. 6:38, μέτρον καλὸν πεπιεσμένον σεσα- 
λευμένον ὑπερεκχυννόμενον δώσουσιν. Sometimes καί occurs only 
once as in Mk. 5:15, καθήμενον ἱματισμένον καὶ σωφρονοῦντα. ‘There 
may be a subtle reason for such a procedure as in Ac. 18 : 22, 
κατελθὼν eis Καισαρίαν, ἀναβὰς καὶ ἀσπασάμενος, where the first parti- 
ciple stands apart in sense from the other two. Cf. also Mk. 5: 
32. In a list of participles one may be subordinate to the other 
as in Mk. 5:30, ἐπιγνοὺς ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὴν ἐξ αὐτοῦ δύναμιν ἐξελθοῦσαν 
ἐπιστραφείς. This accumulation of participles is only occasional 
in the Synoptic Gospels (cf. Mt. 14:19; 27:48; and, in particu- 
lar, Mk. 5 : 25-27), but very common in Acts and the Pauline 
Ipistles. Blass? concedes to Luke in Acts “a certain amount of 
stylistic refinement” in his use of a series of participles, while 
with Paul it is rather “a mere stringing together of words,” an 
overstatement as to Paul. Luke was not an artificial rhetorician 
nor was Paula mere bungler. When Paul’s heart was all ablaze 
with passion, as in 2 Corinthians, he did pile up participles like 
boulders on the mountain-side, a sort of voleanic eruption. Cf. 
2 Cor. 3:8-10; 6:9f.; 9:11ff. But there is always a path 
through these participles. Paul would not let himself be caught 
in a net of mere grammatical niceties. If necessary, he broke 
the rule and went on (2 Cor. 8:20). But Moulton? is right in 
saying that all this is “more a matter of style than of gram- 
mar.” It is rhetoric. 

(h) Οὐ and μή with the Participle. It is worth noting that in 
Homer?‘ οὐ is the normal negative of the participle, μή occur- 
ring only once, Od. 4. 684, and in an optative sentence of wish. 
It cannot be claimed that in Homer μή has won its place with 
the participle. In modern Greek μή alone occurs with the pres- 
ent participle (Thumb, Handb., p. 200). It is generally said that 


1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 250. rol, Dia 
2 Ib., p. 251° 4 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 262 f. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATOZ) 1137 


in classical Attic od is always the negative of the participle unless 
condition or concession is implied when the negative is μή. But 
if one looks at all the facts up to 400 B.c. he will go slow before 
he asserts that μή is proof that the participle shows a conditional 
or concessive force.t Jannaris? claims the rule only for Attic, 
“though even here οὐ is not rarely replaced by μή,᾽᾽ that is to 
say, the rule does not apply even in Attic. The use of “replaced” 
is wholly gratuitous when it is admitted that the rule does not 
apply outside of Attic. It is so hard to be historical always even 
in an historical grammar. If one takes the long view, from 
Homer with its one use of μή to the modern Greek with nothing 
but μή, he sees a steady progress in the use of μή which gradually 
ousted οὐ altogether. The Attic marks one stage, the κοινή an- 
other. It is true that in the Attic there is a sort of correspondence 
between οὐ and the participle and the indicative with οὐ on the 
one hand, while, on the other, μή and the participle correspond to 
the subjunctive or the optative with μή. But οὐ occurred in 
Homer with the subj. and μή persisted with the indicative. The 
lines crossed and the development was not even, but on the whole 
μή gradually pushed οὐ aside from the participle. In the N. T., 
as in the κοινή generally, the development has gone quite beyond 
the Attic. In the Attic the use of οὐ was the more general, while 
in the κοινή the use of μή is normal. In the N. T. there is no need 
to explain μή with the participle. That is what you expect. Cf. 
Lu. 12:33 μὴ παλαιούμενα; Jo. 5:23 6 μὴ τιμῶν; Ac. 17:6 py 
εὑρόντες, Heb. 11:13 μὴ κομισάμενοι. In the N.T. it is od that 
ealls for explanation, not μή. But it may be said at once that the 
N. T. is in thorough accord with the κοινή on this point. Even 
in a writer of the literary κοινή like Plutarch* one notes the in- 
roads of μή. The papyri go further than Plutarch, but still have 
examples of οὐ, like οὐ κεκομισμέναι P. Par. (B.c. 163), τὸν οὐκ ἐν 
λευκαῖς ἐσθῆσιν ἐν θεάτρῳ καθίσαντα O. P. 471 (4i/A.D.), οὐδέπω πεπλη- 
ρωκότων O. P. 491 (1.(Α.}.), οὐ δυνάμενος A. P. 78 (ii/a.D.).4 Μου!- 
ton® thinks that in many of these papyri examples there is ‘the 
lingering consciousness that the proper negative of a downright 
fact is od.”’ In general it may be said of the κοινή that the pres- 
ence of οὐ with the participle means that the negative is clear-cut 


1 Howes, The Use of μή with the Part., Harv. Stu. in Class. Philol., 1901, 
pp. 277-285. ὶ 

2 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 430. 3 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 255: 

4 See further exx. in Moulton, Prol., p. 231. 

5 Prol., p. 232. 


1138 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


and decisive. Cf. Mt. 22:11 οὐκ ἐνδεδυμένον ἔνδυμα γάμου, (Lu. 6: 
42) ob βλέπων, (Jo. 10:12) ὁ μισθωτὸς καὶ οὐκ ὧν ποιμήν, (Ac. 7: 5) 
οὐκ ὄντος αὐτῷ τέκνου, (17:27) καί ye οὐ μακρὰν --- ὑπάρχοντα, (26: 
22) οὐδὲν ἐκτὸς λέγων, (28 : 17) οὐδὲν ποιήσας, (1 Cor. 4: 14) οὐκ ἐν- 
τρέπων, (9 : 26) ὡς οὐκ ἀέρα δέρων, (2 Cor. 4 : 8) ἀλλ᾽ οὐ στενοχωρού- 
μενοι, (Ph. 3:4) καὶ οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ πεποιθότες, (Col. 2:19) καὶ οὐ 
κρατῶν, (Heb. 11:1) πραγμάτων οὐ βλεπομένων, (11 : 35) οὐ προσδεξάμε- 
νοι, (1 Pet. 1: 8) οὐκ ἰδόντες, (2 : 10) οἱ οὐκ ἠλεημένοι. In all these we 
have no special departure from the Attic custom, save that in Ac. 
17: 27 the participle is concessive. But we have just seen that the 
Attic was not rigid about οὐ and μή with the participle. In two 
of the examples above οὐ and μή come close together and the con- 
trast seems intentional. Thus in Mt. 22:11 we have οὐκ ἐνδεδυ- 
μένον ἔνδυμα γάμου, While in verse 12 we read μὴ ἔχων ἔνδυμα γάμου. 
The first instance lays emphasis on the actual situation in the 
description (the plain fact) while the second instance is the 
hypothetical argument about it. In 1 Pet. 1:8 we read ὃν οὐκ 
ἰδόντες ἀγαπᾶτε, els ὃν ἄρτι μὴ ὁρῶντες πιστεύοντες δὲ AyadNaTe. Here 
οὐ harmonizes with the tense of ἰδόντες as an actual experience, 
while μή with ὁρῶντες is In accord with the concessive idea in con- 
trast with πιστεύοντες. Cf. Hort in loco who holds that the change 
of particles here is not capricious. “Though Blass thinks it arti- 
ficial to distinguish, it is hard to believe that any but a slovenly 
writer would have brought in so rapid a change without a rea- 
son.”! It may be admitted further that “in Luke, Paul and 
Hebrews we have also to reckon with the literary conscious- 
ness of an educated man, which left some of the old idioms even 
where μή had generally swept them away.”’? See also τὰ μὴ καθή- 
κοντα (Ro. 1: 28) and Text. Rec. τὰ οὐ ἀνήκοντα (Eph. 5:4). Cf. 
μή and οὐ in Ac. 9:9. Blass* notes that the Hebrew x} is regu- 
larly translated in the LXX by οὐ without any regard to the 
Greek refinement of meaning between οὐ and μή with the par- 
ticiple. Hence in the N. T. quotations from the LXX this 
peculiarity is to be noted. Moulton‘ observes also that, while 
this is true, the passages thus quoted happen to be instances 
where a single word is negatived by ov. Cf. Ro. 9:25 τὴν οὐκ 
ἠγαπημένην, (Gal. 4:27) ἡ οὐκ τίκτουσα, ἡ οὐκ ὠδίνουσα. A case like 
Ac. 19:11, οὐ τὰς τυχούσας, is, of course, not pertinent. It is a 
“common vernacular phrase,’’® besides the fact that od is not the 
1 Moulton, Prol., p. 232. 4 Prol., p. 232. 


2 Tb. § Ib. p. 231. 
δ ΟΝ Π Uke 200: 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) 1139 


negative of the participle! any more than it is in Ac. 19:11; 28: 
21. Moulton? also rules out οὐκ ἐξόν (2 Cor. 12 : 4) on the ground 
that it is the equivalent of the indicative. The copula is not ex- 
pressed. But note οὐκ ἐξόντος, P. Oxy. 275 (a.p. 66). On this 
count the showing for οὐ with the participle is not very large in 
the N. T. Luke has οὐ five times with the participle (Lu. 6 : 42; 
Ac. 7:5; 17: 27; 26 : 22; 28:17). Paul leads with a dozen or so 
ΠΟ ΟΣ δ᾽ 1 Gall 4°27 twice: 1 ΟΥ̓Κ 4’: 14:0: 26:72) Cor? 4°: 8) 
ΡΠ 3:4; Col. 2:19; 1 Th. 2:4). Hebrews: has two (11: 
1, 35) and Peter three (1 Pet. 1:8; 2:10; 2 Pet. 1:16, ob — 
ἀλλά). Matthew has only one (22:11), and note μὴ ἔχων in the 
next verse. The MSS. vary also between the negatives as 
in Mt. 22:11, where ΟἹ) have μή which Blass’ adopts with 
his whimsical notions of textual criticism. At any rate Mat- 
thew, Luke (Gospel) and John use py almost exclusively with 
the participle, while Mark, James, the Johannine Epistles and 
Revelation do not have οὐ at all with the participle. In Ro. 
8 : 20, οὐχ ἑκοῦσα, the old participle is merely an adjective as in 
Heb. 9:11. In Ro. 9 : 25, τὸν οὐ λαόν, the negative occurs with a 
substantive (quotation from LXX). The ancient Greek would 
usually have added ὄντα. 

(ὃ Other Particles with the Participle. The ancient Greek? 
had quite a list of adverbs (particles) that were used with 
the circumstantial participle on occasion to make clearer the 
precise relation of the participle to the principal verb or substan- 
tive. Some of these (like are, οἷον, οἷα) no longer occur with the 
part. in the N. T. But some remain in use. These particles, 
it should be noted, do not change the real force of the parti- 
ciple. They merely sharpen the outline. The simplest form of this 
usage is seen in the adverbs of time like τὸ πρότερον (Jo. 9 : 8); 
ποτέ (Gal. 1:23. Cf. Eph. 2:13; Lu. 22 : 32); πυκνότερον (Ac. 24 : 
26). In Mk. 9: 20; Jo. 5 : 6 note other expressions of time. More 
idiomatic is the use of εὐθύς as in εἰσελθοῦσα εὐθύς (Mk. 6: 25). Cf. 
also ἤδη ὀψίας γενομένης (Mk. 15:42), ἔτι ὧν (2 Th. 2:5) and 
ἄρτι ἐλθόντος Τιμοθέου (1 Th. 3°: 6). Blass® denies that ἅμα with the 
participle in the N. T. suggests simultaneousness or immediate 
sequence. He sees in ἅμα καὶ ἐλπίζων (Ac. 24 : 26) only ‘withal 
in the expectation,’ not ‘at the same time hoping.’ I question 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 255 f. . 4*2Prols) Dacol. 

3 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 255. Cf. Gildersleeve, Encroachments of μή on οὐ 
in later Gk., Am. Jour. of Philol., I, p. 45 f. 

4 Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., pp. 340 ff. ΟΥ̓ OLEN ἘΠῚ take Daren 


1140 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the correctness of Blass’ interpretation on this point. Cf. also 
ἅμα ἀνέντες (27:40); προσευχόμενοι ἅμα καὶ περὶ ἡμῶν (Col. 4:3), 
where it requires some overrefinement to refuse the classic idiom 
to Luke. Under the concessive participle we saw examples of 
καί γε (Ac. 17:27), καίτοι (Heb. 4:3), καίπερ (Heb. 5:8, ete.). 
There is also the use of ὅμως in the principal sentence to call at- 
tention to the concessive force of the participle (1 Cor. 14:7). 
So οὕτως points back to a participle of time or manner (Ac. 20: 
11). Worth noting, besides, is καὶ τοῦτο as in Ro. 18:11, though 
here a finite verb may be implied. So also καὶ ταῦτα νενεκρωμένου 
(Heb. 11:12). There remain ὡς, ὡσεί, ὥσπερ. The use of ὡσεί 
(Ro. 6:18) and of ὥσπερ (Ac. 2:2) is limited to condition or 
comparison. It is only with ὡς that there is any freedom or 
abundance. Blass! notes the absence of the accusative abso- 
lute with ὡς in the N. T. and its absence from the future parti- 
ciple save in Heb. 18:17, where it is not strictly design. There 
is nothing specially significant in the phrase οὐχ ws, ‘not as if,’ in 
Ac. 28:19; 2 Jo. 5. The N. T., like the classical Greek, uses ws 
without the participle in abbreviated expressions like ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ 
(Col. 3:23); as & ἡμέρᾳ (Ro. 13:18); ads bx’ ἡμῶν (2 Th. 2: 2), 
etc., where the participle is easily supplied from the context.? 
In some instances one must note whether the particle does not 
belong with the principal verb. But, common as ὡς is with the 
participle, it does not change the nature of the participle with 
which it occurs.2 The participle with ὡς may be causal, tempo- 
ral, conditional, manner, etc. Then again ws may be used to 
express the notion of the speaker or writer as well as that of one 
who is reported. In truth, ὡς implies nothing in itself on that 
point. The context alone must determine it. The various uses 
of ws itself should be recalled. There may be nothing but com- 
parison, as in ws ἐξουσίαν ἔχων (Mk. 1:22); ὡς οὐκ ἀέρα δέρων 
(1 Cor. 9,: 26). .Soe.also-Mk...6\2°34: 2: Gor: 6 0. Ἢ ΠΟ ἵν 
16. In Lu. 22: 26 f. observe ὡς ὁ διακονῶν. The causal idea is 
prominent in ὡς ἠλεημένος (1 Cor. 7:25). Cf. Heb. 12:27 and 
D in Ac. 20 : 18, ὡς μέλλων. The concessive or conditional notion 
is dominant in 1 Cor. 7:29f.; 2 Cor. 5:20, ὡς τοῦ θεοῦ παρακα- 
λοῦντος δι’ ἡμῶν. So also in Ac. 3:12; 28:19; 2 Jo. 5. In Lu. 
16:1, ws διασκορπίζων, the charge is given by Jesus as that of the 


1 Gr. of Ne PaGke paca: ae toy 

ὃ Fiihrer, De Particulae ὡς cum Participiis et Praepositionibus punctae 
Usu Thucydideo, 1889, p. 7. 

4 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 343. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATOS) 1141 


slanderer (διεβλήθη) and the context implies that it is untrue (only 
alleged).! Pilate makes a similar use of ὡς ἀποστρέφοντα τὸν λαόν 
in Lu. 23:14. He declines by the use of ws to accept the cor- 
rectness of the charge of the Sanhedrin against Jesus. For a 
similar use see ws μέλλοντας (Ac. 23 : 15); ὡς μέλλων (23 : 20); προ- 
dace. ὡς μελλόντων (genitive absolute 27: 30). But in 2 Cor. 5: 
20 (see above) Paul endorses the notion that he is an ambassador 
of God and ὡς is not to be interpreted as mere pretence. God 
is speaking through Paul. There is no instance of ἄν with 
the participle in the N.T. as appears in classic Greek. Winer? 
notes two instances of ὡς ἄν with the participle in the LXX 
(2 Mace. 1:11; 3 Macc. 4:1). To these Moulton’ adds another 
(2 Mace. 12:4) and a genitive absolute example in the papyri, 
Par. P. 26 (ii/B.c.), ὡς ἂν εὐτακτηθησομένων. Cf. also 1Ὁ., ws ἂν ὑπὸ 
τῆς λιμῆς διαλυόμενοι. The insers. show it also, O. G. I. 8. 90, 23 
(ii/B.C.), ὡς av — συνεστηκυίας. Blass‘ finds a genitive absolute 
with ὡς ἄν in Barnabas 6:11. All this is interesting as fore- 
shadowing the modern Greek use of σάν as a conjunction.® 


1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 253. 
2 W.-M., p. 378. * Gr.of N. ΠΡ Gk, p-253: 
SSP Tolls 07: 5 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 167; Hatz., Einl., p. 217. 


CHAPTER XXI 
PARTICLES (AI ILAPAGHKAT) 


I. Scope. The word particle is a Latin diminutive, particula 
(cf. French particule) from pars. It is a small part of something. 
Longinus terms this part of speech παραθήκη with the notion that 
it was a word placed beside another. No portion of syntax is 
treated with so little satisfaction in the grammars. The gram- 
marians are not agreed as to what parts of speech should be 
called “particles.”” Riemann and Goelzer! treat under this term 
(Les Particules) negative particles, particles of comparison and 
prepositions. Jannaris? includes prepositions, conjunctions and 
negative particles. Kiihner-Gerth*® here discuss conjunctions, 
prepositions and the modal adverbs, though they use the phrase 
“416 sogenannten Partikeln.” Blass* almost confines the dis- 
cussion of particles to conjunctions. He makes the two terms 
equivalent: ‘Particles (Conjunctions).’”? Winer® uses the word 
broadly to cover all adverbs, prepositions and conjunctions. 
Monro® limits the designation to certain conjunctions and ad- 
verbs ‘‘that are mainly used to show the relation between other 
words and between clauses.”’ But he does not treat all conjunc- 
tions (paratactic and hypotactic) nor all modal adverbs. He 
passes by prepositions. Brugmann’ sees clearly that, as there is 
no real distinction between adverbs and prepositions, so there is 
no fast line (‘‘keine feste Grenze’’) between ‘“‘particles” and other 
adverbs. All languages have a large group of words that pass 
over into the category of particles, but Brugmann cuts the Gor- 
dian knot by declaring that it is not a function of scientific gram- 
mar to delimit these words. That is a matter of subjective 
standpoint. He takes little interest in the various subdivisions 
of the particles, but he extends the term to its widest sense to 


1 Synt., pp. 802-820. 5 W.-Th., pp. 356-512. 
2 Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 365-433. 6 Hom. Gr., pp. 240-269. 
3 II, pp. 115-347... 7 Griech. Gr., pp. 525-550. 


4 Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 259-275. 
1142 


PARTICLES (AI ΠΑΡΑΘΗΚΑΙ) 1143 


cover all modal adverbs, prepositions and conjunctions. Brug- 
mann notes that many of these particles go back to the Indo- 
Germanic time and hence their etymology is unknown. He treats 
the particles from the standpoint of their origin so far as known. 
Hartung! takes a much narrower view of particles. He discusses 
the paratactic conjunctions and the intensive particles. He? con- 
ceives that the greater portion of the particles have no mean- 
ing in themselves, but are merely modifications on other words 
or on whole sentences. This is not strictly correct. We are 
not always able to discover the original import of these words, 
but it is probable that they originally had a definite meaning. 
It is true that the particles are all subordinated to other words 
in various ways. In a broad way it may be stated that there 
are four classes of words (verbs, nouns, pronouns, particles) 
in the sentence. From this point of view the word particle 
covers all the adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions and _ inter- 
jections. But it is impossible, as Brugmann holds, to make a 
perfectly scientific treatment of the particles without much over- 
lapping. The interjections in one sense do not belong to gram- 
mar. The negative and the interrogative particles cannot be 
properly treated under adverbs, though they are adverbs. So 
also conjunctions are adverbs, but a good deal more. Intensive 
particles again are adverbs, but more. It is not worth while to 
recount the story of the adverbs and the prepositions at this stage. 
They are particles, but they have received sufficient discussion 
in special chapters. In the same way the construction of hypo- 
tactic conjunctions came in for somewhat careful treatment in 
connection with subordinate sentences under Mode. Hence, hy- 
potactic conjunctions do not here demand as much discussion as 
the paratactic conjunctions. One has to be, to a certain extent, 
arbitrary in this field, since the ground is so extensive and so 
much remains to be done. There is still need of a modern and 
exhaustive treatise on the Greek Particles. It was in 1769 that 
the Dutch scholar Hoogeveen* wrote his book. He was followed 
by Hartung. Klotz> reworked the writings of Devarius. In 


1 Lehre von den Partikeln der griech. Spr., Tl. I, 1832; Tl. IT, 1833. 

2 Tb., ΤΊ. I, p. 37. Schroeder (Uber die formelle Untersch. der Redet., 1874, 
p. 35 f.) writes well on the obscurity of the origin of particles and the use 
of the term. 

3 Doctrina Particularum Linguae Graecae. Ed. Secunda, 1806, 

4 See above. 

5’ De Graecae Linguae Particulis, vol. I, 1840; II, 1842. 


1144 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


1861 Baiumlein produced his Untersuchungen tiber griech. Parti- 
keln. Paley! has carried the work on, as has Navarre.? There 
are, to be sure, a great number of monographs on special groups 
or on single particles.’ “If any particular section of Greek gram- 
mar were taken as a specimen to illustrate the historical evolu- 
tion of the Greek language, no better representative could be 
selected than the section of the particles.’ Jannaris speaks thus, 
not because the grammars have treated the particles with such 
skill, but because the particles best show the growth and decay 
of parallel words before other new synonyms that are constantly 
coming into existence. The particles come to a sharp point and 
gradually lose the edge and whittle down into platitudes. Then 
they give way to others with more freshness. In general, the 
particles mark the history of the effort to relate words with each 
other, clause with clause, sentence with sentence, paragraph 
with paragraph. They are the hinges of speech, the joints of 
language, or the delicate turns of expression, the nwances of 
thought that are often untranslatable. We must here confine 
our attention to Intensive Particles, Negative Particles, Interrog- 
ative Particles, Conjunctions and Interjections. This order is 
chosen for logical reasons simply, not because this was the order 
of development. That we do not know. The particles that are 
linked to single words logically come before conjunctions which 
have to do with clauses and sentences. Interjections stand apart 
and so are put last in the list. Some of the particles are employed 
with words, clauses and sentences (like ἄρα, δέ, οὖν), so that a strict 
division on this basis is not possible.® 

II. Intensive or Emphatic Particles (παραθῆκαι ἐμφατικαί or 
παραπληρωματικοὶ σύνδεσμοι according to Dionysius Thraz). 

1. Limirations. Here again there is no absolute agreement 
as to what particles are considered ‘‘emphatic” or “intensive.” 
Winer, indeed, has no separate discussion of the intensive par- 
ticles like ye, rep. He admits® that, while the Greek of the Ν. T. 
uses adverbs well in an eztensive sense, it is defective in the in- 
tensive use. Adverbs of place, time, manner, all come in abund- 
ance in the N. T. Thompson’ follows Winer in the absence of 
discussion of the intensive particles. The intensive particles, in 


1 The Gk. Particles, 1881. 

2 fitudes sur les particules grecques, R. E. A., VII, pp. 116-130. 

3 Cf, Hiibner, Grundr. zu Vorlesungen iiber die griech. Synt., pp. 70-87. 
4 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 365. 6 W.-Th., p. 462. 

5 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 240. 7 Synt. of Attic Gk. 


PARTICLES (AI ΠΑΡΑΘΗΚΑΙ) 1145 


fact, as a rule receive poor handling in the grammars.! But 
Paley? properly sees that they are “an elaborately finished part 
of a most complex and beautiful machinery.”’ Poetry, especially 
tragic poetry, uses these emphatic particles more than other 
kinds of writing. In Homer “they sustain and articulate the 
pulses of emotion. By them alone we can perceive that Greek 
was the language of a witty, refined, intellectual, sensitive and 
passionate people. It would be impossible in any book to tabu- 
late the delicate shades of meaning, the subtle, intricate touches 
of irony or pathos, the indescribable grace and power which the 
particles lend to many of the grandest passages in ancient litera- 
ture.”’> It is only by a close study of the entire context that these 
can be felt. They can never be fully translated from one lan- 
guage to another. Thus it is impossible to reproduce in English 
the various shades of meaning of μέν and δὲ when in contrast. 
“The attempt to translate a particle leads to curious results. 
Dr. Cyril Jackson used always to render Τρῶές pa by ‘the Tro- 
jans, God help them,’ and a former head-master of Eton always 
distinguished between σοι, ‘Sir, to you’, and τοι, ‘at your service’’’ 
(Coleridge, Greek Classic Poets, p. 221)... Indeed, it is not pos- 
sible to put into mere written language all that the look, the 
gesture, the tone of voice, the emphasis of the accent carried 
when heard and seen. Cf. a Frenchman in conversation. The 
spoken vernacular thus has all the advantage of the written style. 
All the vernacular cannot be reproduced on the page. Cf. the 
charm of the actual speech of Jesus and Paul. The N. T. is in 
the vernacular κοινή, but even so it does not reproduce to any 
great extent the witchery of the old Greek particles. Time has 
worn them down very much. Still, we do find them here and 
there. There is a good example in Ph. 3:8, ἀλλὰ μὲν οὖν γε καὶ 
ἡγοῦμαι. So also εἴ πως ἤδη ποτέ (Ro. 1:10) and τί ἔτι κἀγὼ ὡς 
(3:7). Cf. P. B. M. 42 (8.0.. 168) οὐ μὴν adn’ ἐπεὶ καὶ and O. P. 
1164, 5 (vi/vii A.D.) οὐ μὴν δὲ adda καί. This shows that Paul 
at least knew how to indicate the finer shades of thought by 
means of the Greek particles. Blass® notes that, in comparison 
with the Semitic languages, the N. T. seems to make excessive 
use of the particles, poor as the showing is in comparison with 
the classic period. ‘Modern Greek has lost the classical Greek 
wealth of connective and other particles which lend nicety and 
1 Paley, The Gk. Particles, p. vi. 0} 


BRA: 1X: SB Gr Of ΝΠ Pp. 250: 
3 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 195. 


1146 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


precision of thought. Only καί (οὔτε, οὐδέ), 7 and the less com- 
monly used conjunctions ἀλλά, πλήν, ὅμως have been retained. 
The loss of yap, ἄρα has been compensated by new formations; 
but the ancient Greek τέ, δέ, μέν --- δέ, μέντοι, μήν, οὖν (γοῦν), ἔτι, 
δή, γέ, πέρ have left no successors” (Thumb, Handb., p. 185). 
The papyri seem barren of intensive particles in comparison with 
the older Greek. Jannaris! observes how these postpositive par- 
ticles (γέ, δή, μέν, πέρ, τοί and their compounds) tend in the 
later Greek either to disappear or to become prepositive. The 
N. T. is in harmony with this result. The same thing occurs 
with ἄρα, which sometimes becomes prepositive, but that is not 
true of yap, δέ, οὖν. Dionysius Thrax? has a very extensive list 
of ‘expletive particles” or παραπληρωματικοὶ σύνδεσμοι (εἰσὶ δὲ οἵδε" 
δή, ῥά, vb, ποῦ, τοί, θήν, ἄρ, δῆτα, πέρ, πώ, μήν, ἄν, αὖ, νῦν, οὖν, κέν, γέ, 
ἀλλά, μήν, τοίνυν, τοιγαροῦν). Some of these (like ἄρα, οὖν, ἀλλά, 
and one might add γάρ, δὲ) are so prevailingly conjunctival that 
they are best treated under conjunctions. Others (like κέν, ῥά) 
belong to earlier stages of the language. The discussion of ἄν 
could have come here very well, since it is undoubtedly intensive 
whatever its actual meaning, whether it is blended with εἰ into 
ἐάν or used with ὅς, ὅστις, ἵνα, ὅπως, ws, etc., or used with the verb 
itself in the apodosis of a condition. It is a modal adverb of em- 
phasis (now definite as in Rev. 8:1, now indefinite as in Mt. 23: 
18). It is like a chameleon and gets its colour from its environ- 
ment or from its varying moods. This fickleness of meaning is 
true of all the intensive particles. Indeed, Dionysius Thrax is 
rather slighting in his description of these words, ὅσοι παρόντες οὐδὲν 
ὠφελεῖν δύνανται οὔτε μὴν χωρισθέντες λυμαίνονται. He contradicts his 
disparagement by the use of μήν in this very sentence. 

The adverbial nature of the intensive particles is well shown 
by the variety of usage of the modal adverb οὕτως. See Thayer’s 
Lexicon for the N. T. illustrations, which are very numerous 
(some 200). In Jo. 4:6, ἐκαθέζετο οὕτως ἐπὶ τῇ πηγῇ, We have a 
good example of the possibilities of οὕτως. The local adverb πού 
dwindles from ‘somewhere’ (Heb. 2:6) to ‘somewhat’ in Ro. 
4:19. Cf. also δή zov (‘surely’) in Heb. 2:16. Some of the 
temporal adverbs also at times approach the emphatic particles. 
Cf. τὸ λοιπόν in Ph. 3:1; 4:8 (see Kennedy in loco) almost? Ξε οὖν. 
But in the N. T. ἄρτι and ἤδη are always strictly temporal. How- 

1 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 400. 


2 Cf. Uhlig’s ed., p. 96, and Schol. Dion. Thrax in Bekk. An., 970. 10. 
* So mod. Gk., Thumb, Handb., p. 184. 


PARTICLES (AI ΠΑΡΑΘΗΚΑΙ) 1147 


ever, ποτέ sometimes loses its notion of ‘once upon a time’ (Gal. 
1:23) and fades into that of ‘ever’ as in 1 Cor. 9:7; Eph. 5: 
29. In ἤδη ποτέ (Ro. 1:10; Ph. 4:10) it is more the notion of 
culmination (‘now at last’) than of time. But in μή ποτε the notion 
of time may be wholly gone before that of contingency (‘lest per- 
chance’), as in Lu. 12:58. In the N. T. we find undoubted in-. 
stances of the non-temporal use of νῦν and νυνί where the sense 
differs little from δή or οὖν. Some of the passages are in doubt. 
But the logical and emotional use, as distinct from the temporal, 
is clear in Jo. 15:22, 24 where νῦν δέ gives the contrast to the 
preceding conditions, ‘but as it is.’ Cf. also 1 Jo. 2 : 28, καὶ νῦν, 
texvia, Where John’s emotional appeal is sharpened by the use of 
νῦν. Cf. likewise καὶ νῦν δεῦρο in Ac. 7:34 (LXX). Cf. καὶ νῦν, 
B. U. 530 (i/a.p.). In general, the N. T. language, like the Eng- 
lish, leaves most of the emotion and finer shades of thought to 
be brought out by the reader himself. ‘The historical books of 
the N. T., and especially their dialogues and discourses, are only 
fully and truly intelligible to us in reading them in high voice in 
the original Greek text, and in supplying the intonation, the 
gestures, the movement, that is to say, in reconstituting by the 
imagination the scene itself.’ 

2. Tuer N. T. ILLusTRATIONS. 

(a) Te. We may begin with yé. The origin of γέ is by no 
means certain. In the Boeotian, Doric and Eleatic dialects it is 
ya. It seems to correspond? to the k in the Gothic mi-k (German 
mi-ch). Cf. Greek eue-ye. Brugmann sees also a kinship to the 
g in the Latin ne-g-otiwm, ne-g-legere, ne-g-are. Hartung? con- 
nects it with the adverb ¢4. It may also be the same word 
as the Vedic Sanskrit gha, which is used in the same way.’ Cf. 
further qui in the Latin qu-dem. It is not so common in. the 
᾿ κοινή as in the classic Attic (Radermacher, Ν. 7’. Gr., p. 29). Its 
function is to bring into prominence the particular word with 
which it occurs. It is enclitic and so postpositive. The feelings 
are sharply involved when γέ is present. It suits the Greek,® 
which “delights in pointed questions, irony and equivocal assent.” 
But there is no English equivalent and it frequently cannot be 
translated at all. Hartung® sees in γέ a comparative element, while 


1 Viteau, Etude sur le grec, 1896, p. ii. 

2 Cf. Brug.; Griech. Gr., p. 541. 

3 Partikellehre, I, p: 344f. Cf. K.-G., II, pp. 171-178. 

4 K.-G,, IE, p. 171. 5 Paley, The Gk. Particles, p. 14. 
6 Partikellehre, I, p. 326. 


1148 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


καί is cumulative and arithmetical. As a matter of fact, ye brings 
to the fore the idea of the word with which it is used, but adds 
no distinctive notion of its own! Hiibner? calls it a concessive 
particle on a par with ὅμως. But that is not always true of 
γέ. The distinction made by γέ may be either the least im- 
portant or the most important (Thayer). The resultant idea 
may be ‘at least,’ this much if no more, a concessive notion. 
We find this to be the significance of γέ in Lu. 11:8, διά ye τὴν 
ἀναιδίαν αὐτοῦ. Here, however, the γέ more properly belongs to 
ἀναιδίαν, since that is the. point, not the preposition διά. The 
same slight variation from the classic idiom appears in 18: 
5, διά γε TO παρέχειν μοι κόπον τὴν χήραν ταύτην. ‘The concessive 
minimizing idea comes out clearly in Jo. 4:2, καίτοιγε ᾿Ιησοῦς 
αὐτός. See further ἄρα γε and καί ye in Ac. 17: 27, and, in particu- 
lar, ἀλλά γε ὑμῖν εἰμί (1 Cor. 9 : 2) where again the ancient idiom 
would prefer ὑμῖν ye, ‘to you at least’ Gf not to others). Once 
more note εἴ ye in Eph. 3:2; 4:21; Col. 1: 23, and εἰ δὲ μή ye in 
Mt. 6:1;9:17, etc. There is a keen touch of irony in Ro. 9 : 20, 
ὦ ἄνθρωπε, pevodvye σὺ τίς εἶ; Cf. ἄραγε in Mt. 17:26. On the 
other hand ye means ‘this much,’ ‘as much as this,’ in other 
contexts. So in Lu. 24:21, ἀλλά γε καὶ σὺν πᾶσι τούτοις, where the 
ascensive force is accented by καί, σύν and ἀλλά (affirmative here, 
not adversative), and the climax of the crescendo is reached in 
γέ. The same climacteric force of the particles occurs in Ph. 
3:8, ἀλλὰ μὲν οὖν γε καὶ ἡγοῦμαι πάντα ζημίαν εἶναι. ‘I go,’ says 
Paul, ‘as far as to consider all things to be loss.’ Cf. ἄραγε in Mt. 
7:20 and καί ye in Ac. 2:18 (Joel 3:2). So we have dpa ye in 
Ac. 8:30. A fine example is és ye τοῦ ἰδίου υἱοῦ οὐκ ἐφείσατο (Ro. 
8:32). So 10:18. There is irony again in καὶ ὄφελόν γε ἐβασιλεύ- 
care (1 Cor. 4:8), and note the position of γέ apart from καί. In 
Homer γέ is very common with the pronouns,’ but in the N. T. 
we have only és ye (Ro. 8:32). We no more find &w ye, but 
ἐγὼ μέν (Mt. 38:11), ἐγώ --- σύ (8:14), ἔγὼ δέ (5 : 22), αὐτὸς ἔγώ 
(Ro. 9:3). Indeed all of the thirty examples of γέ in the N. T. 
occur with conjunctions (paratactic or hypotactic) or other par- 
ticles except those in Lu. 11:8; 18:5; Ro. 8:32. Cf. ἁμαρτία γέ 
ἐστιν (‘indeed it is sin’) in Hermas, Vis., i,1.8. The particles with 
which ye is found in the N.T. are ἀλλά γε (Lu. 24:21); ἄρα γε 
(Mt. 7:20); dpa γε (Ac. 8 : 80); εἴ γε (Eph. 3 : 2); εἰ δὲ μή γε (Mt. 


1 Baumlein, Griech. Partikeln, 1861, p. δά. 
2 Grundr., p. 85. Cf. also Nagelsbach, Comm. de particulae γέ usu Hom. 
1830, p. 4. 3 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 258. 


PARTICLES (AI ΠΑΡΑΘΗΚΑΙ) 1149" 


6:1); καί ye (Ac. 17:27); καίτοιγε (Jo. 4:2); μήτιγε (1 Cor. 6: 
3); ὄφελον γε (1 Cor. 4: 8); μενοῦνγε (Ro. 9:20). Cf. διά ye in Lu. 
11:8; 18:5. Tap is compounded of γέ and ἄρα, but it will be 
treated under conjunctions, though it is sometimes not much 
more than an intensive particle. Cf. τί yap κακὸν ἐποίησεν (Mt. 
2h 40): 

(ὃ) An. It has likewise an uncertain etymology.! It appears 
in the Attic poets as dai (cf. νή, val) and is seen in composition 
with δῆ-τα, δήτ-που, ἐπει-δή, 4-5n.2 In ἤτ-δη we probably have’ ἢ 
and 67. It was originally temporal in idea and goes back to 
the Indo-Germanic period. Jannaris* thinks that δὲ and δή are 
one and the same word (cf. μέν and μήν) and holds that the 
difference is due to the transliteration from the old to the new 
alphabet when alone a distinction was made between e and é (7). 
Thus the spelling 67 was confined to the intensive particle, 
while δὲ was the form for the conjunction. It is certain that in 
Homer there is confusion between δὲ and δή before vowels.5 
In Homer also 67 may begin a sentence, but in the N. T. as 
elsewhere all the examples are postpositive (but not enclitic). 
Blass® does not treat it as an intensive particle, but as a con- 
secutive particle. It is hard to follow Blass’ theory of the par- 
ticles. Like the other intensive particles it has no English or 
German equivalent and is a hard word to translate. It is 
climacteric and indicates that the point is now at last clear and 
may be assumed as true.’ Cf. Latin gam nunc, viv — ἤδη (1 
Jo. 4:3); ἤδη ποτέ (Ro. 1:10). The similarity in sense be- 
tween δή and one usage of δέ may be seen in Ac. 6: 3, ἐπισκέ- 
ψασθε δέ (δή), where W. H. put δή in the margin. Cf. καὶ od δέ in 
Lu. 1:76. Δή is not genuine in 2 Cor.12:1. There are left 
only six N. T. illustrations, counting δή που in Heb. 2:16, οὐ yap 
δή που ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται. In Mt. 18:28, ὃς δὴ καρποφορεῖ, it 
occurs in a relative sentence, ‘who is just the man who.’® The 
other examples are all with the hortatory subjunctive (Lu. 2: 
15; Ac. 15:36) or the imperative (Ac. 13:2; 1 Cor. 6:20) in 
accord with the classical idiom. There is a note of urgency in 
ἀφορίσατε δή (Ac. 13: 2) and δοξάσατε δή (1 Cor. 6:20). ‘Fhe pas- 
sage with δή ποτε in Jo. 5: 4 has disappeared from the critical text. 


1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 547. 

2 Tb.; Prellwitz, Et. Wérterbuch, p. 73. . 

3 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 256. ΤΟΙ ΝΣ Okeroa 

4 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 410. 7 Klotz ad Devar., II, p. 392. 

5 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 256. 8 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 274. 


1150 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(c) E? μήν, νή and vai. Somewhat akin to the positive note in 
δή is the use of 4 μήν which is read by many MSS. in Heb. 6: 14. 
The etymology of this adverb is again quite uncertain, though it 
is possible that it may have the same root as 7 (7Fe, nFe).1 Cf. 
ἢ δή (ἤδη). In ἤπερ (Jo. 12 : 48) and ἤτοι (Ro. 6 : 16) we have the 
comparative or disjunctive 7. In Homer it was often used in 
connection with other particles.2 We may pass μήν for the pres- 
ent. If ἢ were genuine in Hebrews the usage would be in strict 
accord with classic construction for a strong asseveration. But 
certainly εἶ μήν is the true text. This queer idiom appears a few 
times in the LX X (Ezek. 33 : 27; 34:8; 38:19, etc.). It occurs 
also in the papyri and the inscriptions® after ili/B.c. Cf. εἶ μήν, 
P. Oxy. 255 (a.p. 48). So that it is mere itacism between 7 and 
et. The Doric has εἶ for 4 where Moulton‘ holds against Hort® 
that the distinction is strictly orthographical. See further chap- 
ter VI, Orthography and Phonetics, τι, (c). So then εἶ μήν has to be 
admitted in the κοινή as an asseverative particle. It is thus another 
form of ἢ μήν. Jannaris® gives a special section to the ‘‘assevera- 
tive particles” νή and μά. We do not have μά in the N. T. and v7 
only once in 1 Cor. 15:31, καθ᾽ ἡμέραν ἀποθνήσκω νὴ τὴν ὑμετέραν 
καύχησιν. Νή is a peculiarity of the Attic dialect and is used in 
solemn asseverations (oaths, etc.) and means ‘truly,’ ‘yes.’ It is 
probably the same word as vai, the affirmative adverb which oc- 
curs over thirty times in the N.T. Nai may be simply ‘yes,’ as 
in Mt. 13:51. It may introduce a clause as ‘yea’ or ‘verily,’ as 
in Mt. 11:9. It is used in respectful address, Nai, Κύριε (Jo. 11: 
27). It may be used as a substantive (like any adverb) with the 
article (2 Cor. 1:17) or without the article (Mt. 5:37), where 
it is repeated. It occurs with ἀμήν in Rev. 1:7. It stands in 
contrast with οὐ in Mt. 5:37 and 2 Cor. 1:17. There was an 
old form vai-xe (ef. ob-xi). But we do not know the etymology, 
though Brugmann?’ compares it with the Latin né and nae and 
possibly also with the old Indo-Germanic né-nd (‘so — so’). 

(d) Me. We know a little more about μέν, which is postposi- 
tive, but not enclitic. It is only another form of μήν which occurs 
in the N. T. only in Heb. 6:14. The Dorie and Lesbian use μάν 
and the Thessalian wa — de. So then it seems probable’ that μάν 


1 Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 541; K.-G., II, p. 144. 

2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 248. 

3 Moulton, Prol., p. 46. 6 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 410. 
4 Ib., Ὁ. 46. 7 Griech. Gr., p. 544. 

® App., p. 151. SSibw 


PARTICLES (AI IAPAOHKAI) 1151 


(ua used with words of swearing after a negative), μήν and μέν 
are one and the same word. Indeed, in Homer! all three forms 
occur in the same sense. That original sense is affirmative, mean- 
ing ‘surely,’ ‘indeed,’ ‘in truth.’ It is overrefinement to find in 
μέν (μήν) the subjective confirmation and in δή the objective at- 
testation.” It is probable that in the change from the old alphabet 
to the new the transcribers adopted the two ways of spelling, 
common in Attic and Ionic (μέν and μήν) with a notion that μήν 
was merely emphatic with single words, while μέν was correlative 
(forwards or backwards) or antithetical. Questions of metre 
may also have entered into the matter. But there is no doubt 
at all that in itself μέν does not mean or imply antithesis. The 
original use was simply emphatic confirmation of single words, 
usually the weightiest word in the sentence. This use was gradu- 
ally left more and more to μήν and other particles, but it is not 
anacoluthic, as Winer‘ holds, for μέν to occur without the presence 
of δὲ or ἀλλά. The older language is naturally richer’ in this 
original idiom with μέν, but it survives in the N. T. and is not to 
be regarded as unclassical or uncouth. For an example in the 
papyri see B. U. 423 (ii/a.D.), πρὸ μὲν πάντων. ‘The old idiom sur- 
vived best in the vernacular and in poetry, while the literary 
prose was more careful to use the antithetical or resumptive pe. 
This μέν solitarium, as the books call it, may have a concessive 
or restrictive force. Cf. εἰ μὲν yap ὁ ἐρχόμενος (2 Cor. 11:4), 
where there is no thought of δὲ or ἀλλά. It is seen also rather 
often in the Acts. Cf.1:18 οὗτος μὲν οὖν ἐκτήσατο χωρίον, (3:13) ὃν 
ὑμεῖς μὲν παρεδώκατε (cf. ὑμεῖς δέ in next verse which is copulative, 
not adversative), (3 : 21) ὃν de? οὐρανὸν μὲν δέξασθαι, (3 : 22) Μωυσῆς 
μὲν εἶπεν, (17:12) πολλοὶ μὲν οὖν ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐπίστευσαν, (21:39) ἐγὼ 
ἄνθρωπος μέν εἰμι, (28 : 18) ὁ μὲν οὖν παραλαβὼν (cf. also 28 : 31), (27: 
21) ἔδει μέν, (28 : 22) περὶ μὲν γὰρ τῆς αἱρέσεως ταύτης, and the 1η- 
stances of of μὲν οὖν like Acts 1:6; 2:41; 5:41; ὃ : 25, where no 
contrast is intended. See εἰ μὲν οὖν in Heb. 7:11; ἡ μὲν εὐδοκία in 
Ro. 10:1; ἐφ᾿ ὅσον μὲν οὖν εἰμὶ ἐγώ in 11:18. Cf. 2 Cor. 12:12; 
1 Th. 2:18, ἐγὼ μέν. Cf. also the single instance of μενοῦν as 
one word (Lu. 11: 28) which is obviously without contrast. The 
same thing is true of μενοῦνγε (Ro. 9: 20; 10:18; Ph. 3:8) 
however it is printed. The main. word is sharpened to a fine 
point and there is a hint of contrast in Ph. 3: 8. Indeed, most 
1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 251. 4 W.-Th., p. 575. 


2 K.-G., II, p. 135. § Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 409. 
3 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 409. 6 Hartung, Partikellehre, II, p. 404. 


1152 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


of the instances of μέν οὖν in the N. T. are resumptive, not cor- 
relative or antithetical.1 There remain the instances where μέν 
implies contrast. It is Just a step in advance of the original idiom. 
Cf. Mt. 8 : 21, ἐπίτρεψόν μοι πρῶτον ἀπελθεῖν, where there is nothing 
to correspond to πρῶτον. The ἔπειτα is involved in what precedes. 
So with πρῶτον and τε --- καί in Ro. 1:16 and πρῶτον --- καί in 2 
Cor. 8:5. The καί does not answer to the πρῶτον. Just so we 
have τὸν μὲν πρῶτον λόγον in Ac. 1:1 without a δεύτερον δέ, though 
the clear implication is that the Acts is the second book. In 1 
Cor. 11:18, πρῶτον μὲν yap, the contrast is implied* in verses 
20 ff., but in Ro. 1:8, πρῶτον μὲν εὐχαριστῶ, there is no hint of 
other grounds of thanksgiving. This instance may be a change 
of thought on Paul’s part (anacoluthon), or it may be the original 
use of μέν, meaning ‘first of all in truth.’ Cf. πρῶτον μέν in Ro. 
3:2. In Ro. 7:12, ὁ μὲν νόμος, there is no contrast stated, but in 
verse 14 it is given by δέ, yet without μέν. In Col. 2 : 23, arwa 
ἐστιν λόγον μὲν ἔχοντα σοφίας, the antithesis is really stated in οὐκ 
ἐν τιμῇ, KTA. Without an adversative particle. In 1 Cor. 5:3 the 
μέν stands alone, while ἀπών and παρών are contrasted by δέ. In 
Heb. 12:9 there is contrast between the μέν clause and the next, 
which has no particle (only πολὺ μᾶλλον). In Ac. 26:4, 6, μέν is 
followed by καὶ νῦν by way of contrast and by ra νῦν in 17: 80. 
Cf. wev — καὶ in 1 Th. 2:18, μέν --- τέ in Ac. 27:21, where there 
is practically no contrast. But see ὃ μέν --- καὶ ἕτερον in Lu. ὃ: 
5 ff., ὃ μέν --- καὶ ἄλλο in Mk. 4:4 ff. We have μέν --- ἔπειτα in Jo. 
11:6; Jas. 3:17; 1 Cor. 12:28. These are all efforts to express 
antithesis. We see this also in μέν --- πλήν in Lu. 22 : 22 and in 
μὲν --- ἀλλά in Ac. 4:16; Ro. 14:20; 1 Cor. 14:17. In Mk. 9: 
12 f. ἀλλά is independent of the μέν. But it is the μέν --- δὲ con- 
struction that is the most frequent in the N. T. as in the Attic 
Greek. There are two and a half pages of examples of μέν in its 
various uses in the N. T. given in Moulton and Geden’s Con- 
cordance, but even so the particle has made a distinct retreat — 
since the Attic period. It is wholly absent from 2 Peter, 2 
and 3 John, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Titus (critical text) and 
Revelation. It occurs only once in Eph. (4:11), Col. (2: 28), 1 
Th. (2:18), Jas. (8:17). It is most frequent in Matthew, Acts, 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 267. Jann. (Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 410) gives a very 
large list of illustrations of the original use of μέν from anc. Gk. 

2 Cf. W.-Th., p. 576. . 

ὁ But Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 267) takes it to be ‘from the very outset’ 
and so the original use of μέν. 4-Ib., p. 266. 


PARTICLES (AI IIAPAOHKAI) , 1153 


Romans, 1 Corinthians and Hebrews. Paley! thinks that μέν 
and δέ may contain the roots of one (μία) and two (éto). But 
certainly the correlative antithesis is not necessary to either of 
them, though with δὲ there is the notion of addition. Cf. in this 
connection μέν --- καί (Mk. 4:4; Lu. 8:5) and τότε μέν (Jo. 11: 6). 
There are varying degrees of contrast where μέν and δὲ occur 
together. There may be no emphasis on the μέν and very little 
on the δέ, which is not essentially adversative.. The μέν may pre- 
serve almost its original idiom while δέ has slight contrast. So 
Lu. 11:48, ἄρα μἀρτυρές ἐστε καὶ συνευδοκεῖτε τοῖς ἔργοις τῶν πατέρων, 
ὅτι αὐτοὶ μὲν ἀπέκτειναν αὐτοὺς ὑμεῖς δὲ οἰκοδομεῖτε. ‘The whole sen- 
tence is quoted to show that it is agreement (correspondence), not 
opposition, that is here accented. In verse 47 we have δέ, but not 
μέν, Which is hardly felt in 48. See also Ac. 13:36 f.; Ph. 3:1; 
Heb. 7:8. In particular we note this slight contrast when a 
whole is distributed into its parts as in Mt. 25: 14 ff.; 1 Cor. 9: 25. 
Cf. also Ac. 18:14 f. But the distribution may amount to sharp 
division, as in 1 Cor. 1:12, ᾿Εγὼ μέν εἰμι Παύλου, ᾿Εγὼ δὲ ᾿Απολλώ, 
᾿Εγὼ δὲ Κηφᾶ, ᾿Εγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ. It is thus the context that decides 
how pointed is the contrast. It is not the words μέν and δέ that 
inherently mean opposition. Indeed, the contrast may be indi- 
cated by δέ alone as in. Mt. 5: 22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44; 25:46; Ac. 
12:9; Heb. 2:8; 4:13; 6:12.2, We see a good illustration of clear 
antithesis in John’s words about his baptism and that of Christ in 
Mt. 3:11, ἐγὼ μέν---ὁ δέ. See further 20: 23; 22:8; 23:28; 25: 
33, Kal στήσει τὰ μὲν πρόβατα ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ τὰ δὲ ἐρίφια ἐξ εὐωνύμων. 
The examples are numerous. See of μέν --- οἱ δὲ (Ph. 1: 16 ff.); οὖς 
μέν — ods δὲ (Jude 22); τινὲς μέν --- τινὲς δὲ (Ph. 1:15); εἷς μέν --- εἷς 
δὲ (Heb. 9:0 f.); οἱ μέν --- ἄλλοι δὲ (Mt. 16:14); ἄλλη μέν --- ἄλλη 
δέ (1 Cor. 15 : 390); τοῦτο μέν --- τοῦτο δὲ (Heb. 10 : 33); πρῶτον μέν 
— ἔπειτα δὲ (Heb. 7: 2); εἰ μὲν οὖν --- εἰ δὲ (Ac. 19 : 88 f.); εἰ μέν --- 
vov δὲ (Heb. 11:15 ἢ), etc. These examples fairly exhibit the 
N. T. usage of μέν. It is often a matter of one’s mood how 
much emphasis to put on μέν and δέ, as in Mt. 9:37 and Mk. 
14:38. In μέντοι there is always strong contrast. As examples 
of μέν --- ἀλλά in sharp contrast see Ro. 14:20; 1 Cor. 14:17. So 
also μέν --- πλήν (Lu. 22 : 22). 

(ὁ Πέρ. It is probably a shortened form of περί (cf. perfect) or 
πέρι more exactly. It is both postpositive and enclitic and is 
usually in the N. T. printed as a part of the word with which it 


1 The Gk. Particles, p. 34. 
2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 266. 3 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 545. 


1154. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


occurs. But in Homer this is not true, while πέρ follows καί only 
once.! There is no doubt about the etymology of this particle.? 
Some’ even connect it directly with πέραν or πέρα. Cf. περαιτέρω 
(critical text in Ac. 19:39). But this idea does not conflict 
with the other, for πέρι is the locative of πέρα. It is an Indo- 
Germanic root, and the original notion of πέρι occurs in περι- 
πίμπλημι, περι-πληθής, NU-per, per-manere, per-tinax, sem-per, etc. 
It means then to do a thing to the limit (beyond), thoroughly. 
There is a note of urgency in πέρ. It is intensive as γέ, but prob- 
ably tends to be more extensive also.4 Sometimes the emphasis 
in πέρ is in spite of opposition® as in καίπερ which occurs six times 
in the ΝΕ Τ᾿ (Ph. 334 ΧΗ. 583 bs ΕΙΣ ΠΡΟ 
and always with participles, as καίπερ ὧν υἱός (Heb. 5:8). The 
Textus Receptus has ὅνπερ in Mk. 15:6, but W. H. read only 
ὅν, but διόπερ appears twice as an inferential conjunction (1 Cor. 
8:13; 10:14). See ἅσπερ, O. P. 1125, 6 (iii/a.p.). The other 
examples are all with conjunctions, as ἐάνπερ (Heb. 3: 14; 6: 3); 
εἴπερ (a half-dozen times, all in Paul, as Ro. 8:9; 1 Cor. 15: 15); 
ἐπείπερ (Some MSS. in Ro. 3:30, but the best MSS., as W. H. 
give, have εἴπερ); ἐπειδήπερ (only Lu. 1:1); ἤπερ (only the crit- 
ical text in Jo. 12:48); καθάπερ (some 17 times, all in Paul save 
Heb. 4:2), καθώσπερ (Heb. 5:4 and a varia lectio in 2 Cor. 3: 18), 
ὥσπερ (Some 36 times, chiefly in Matthew, Luke and Paul, as 
Mt. 6:2), ὡσπερεί (once only, 1 Cor. 15: 8). 

(f) Tot does not occur alone in the N. T., but only in composi- 
tion. It is enclitic as in ἤτοι, καίτοι, μέντοι, but it comes first in 
τοιγαροῦν and τοίνυν. The etymology is not certain. Brugmann® 
takes it to be a fixed form of the ethical dative σοί (rot). Others? 
take it as the locative of the demonstrative ro. Kiihner-Gerth® 
consider it the locative of the indefinite τὶ. There seems no way 
of telling for certain. But it seems to have the notion of restric- 
tion and in Homer? is often combined with adversative particles. 
In the N. T. we find ἤτοι once (Ro. 6:16), καίτοι twice (Ac. 14: 
17; Heb. 4:3), καίτοιγε once (Jo. 4:2), μέντοι eight times, five 
in John’s Gospel as Jo. 4:27 and once in Paul (2 Tim. 2 : 19), 
τοιγαροῦν twice (1 Th. 4:8; Heb. 12:1), τοίνυν three times (Lu. 
20 : 25; 1 Cor. 9: 26; Heb. 18:13). Ὅμως is an adversative par- 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 257. 6 Griech. Gr., pp. 402, 525. 

2 Hartung, Partikellehre, I, p. 327. 7 Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 252. 
8. Baumlein, Partikeln, p. 198. 8 Τ0'|, Ὁ. 149. 

4 K.-G., II, p. 168. ® Hom. Grip. 252. 


§ Monro, Hom? Gr: 251: 


PARTICLES (AI ΠΑΡΑΘΗΚΑΙ) 1155 


ticle that occurs three times in the N. T. (Jo. 12:42, here with 
μέντοι; 1 Cor. 14 : 7; Gal. 3 : 15), twice with a participle. 

III. Negative Particles (στερητικαὶ παραθῆκαι). The use of the 
negative particles has been discussed already in various parts of 
the grammar in an incidental way in connection with the modes, 
verbal nouns and dependent clauses. But it is necessary at this 
point to treat the subject as a whole. It is not the logical nega- 
tive that one has here to deal with. Many words are negative 
in idea which are positive in form. Thus “empty” is negative, 
“cold” is negative, ‘death’ is negative. Aristotle uses στερητικός 
for this negative conception. It is in reality an ablative idea 
as orepew implies. But the grammarian is concerned simply with 
those words that are used to make positive words (or clauses) 
negative. This is the grammatical negative. There are, indeed, 
in Greek, as in English, negative post-fixes.! But there is a com- 
mon negative Greek prefix a(v) called alpha privative, Sanskrit 
a(n), Latin in, Gothic un, English wn. In Sanskrit this prefix 
does not occur with verbs and is rare with substantives. It is 
there found chiefly with adjectives and participles.2, In Greek it 
occurs with verbs, but chiefly denominative verbs like ἀτιμάζω.3 
The use of ἀ- (ἀν-- before vowels) is in the Greek still more 
common with adjectives and verbals. See the chapter on For- 
mation of Words for details. Cf. ἀδόκιμος, ἀδικία, ἀπειθής, ἀσύνετος, 
ἀσύνθετος, ἄστοργος, ἀνελεήμων (Ro. 1: 28-30). 

1. THe OpsecTIVE Οὐ AND ITS COMPOUNDS. 

(a) Origin. Thisis unknown. Hibschmann‘ sees a connection 
with the Latin haud as do other scholars. Fowler® takes it as 
an original intensive particle like pas in the French ne pas and 
-χί (Indo-Ger. —ghi) in ot-xt. The Zend ava is also noted and the 
Latin au (au-fero).? But there is no doubt that οὐ in the Greek 
took the place of the Sanskrit nd, Latin né- (ne-que, ne-scio; the re- 
lation of né né-quidem, né-quam to this né is not known), Gothic 
mt. The use of the Greek οὐ corresponds to the Sanskrit nd. 


1 Anon., Notes on Negative Postfixes in Gk. and Lat., 1884, p. 6. 

2 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 447. 

8 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 529. 

4 Cf. Das indoger. Vokal-System, p. 191. 

5 Cf. Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., XVIII, pp. 4, 123 f.; Horton-Smith, ib., 
pp. 43 ff.; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 528. 

6 The Negatives of the Indo-Europ. Lang., 1896. Cf. Delbriick, Grundr., 
IV, p. 519. 

7 But Draeger (Hist. Synt., p. 133) says that this connection with the Lat. 
haud cannot be shown. 


1156 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(Ὁ) History. As far back as Greek goes we find οὐ, but οὐ did 
not hold its own with μή in the progress of the language. Within 
the past century οὐ has become obsolete in modern Greek outside 
of a few proverbs save in the Laconian and the Pontic dialects.1 
The Pontic dialect uses κί from Old Ionic οὐκί. But modern Greek 
has οὐδέ and οὔτε (Thumb, Handb., p. 200). In the Boeotian dia- 
lect, it may be noted, od never did gain a place. We have seen 
οὐδέν used as an adverb, an idiom that goes back to Homer.’ 
Jannaris*® explains that the vernacular came to use οὐδέν and μη- 
δέν for emphasis and then on a par with οὐ and μή. Then οὐδέν 
dropped οὐ and μηδέν lost dev, leaving δέν and μή for the modern 
Greck. At any rate this is the outcome. Ae is the negative of 
the ind. in modern Greek except after va and final clauses when 
we find va μή (Thumb, Handb., p. 200). And δέν is the regular 
negative in the protasis of conditional sentences both. with ind. 
and subj.4. The distinction between ov.and μή did become more or 
~ less blurred in the course of time, but in the N. T., as in the κοινή 
generally, the old Greek idiom is very well preserved in the main. 
Buttmann® even thinks that the N. T. idiom here conforms more 
exactly to the old literary style than in any other point. δέν 
may represent μηδὲν (Rendel Harris, Hxp., Feb., 1914, p. 163). 

(c) Meaning. Ov denies the reality of an alleged fact. It is the 
clear-cut, point-blank negative, objective, final.6 Jannaris’ com- 
pares οὐ to ὅτι and μή to wa, while Blass® compares οὐ to the 
indicative mode and μή to the other modes. But these analogies 
are not wholly true. Sometimes, indeed, οὐ coalesces with the 
word as in οὔ φημι = not merely ‘I do not say,’ but ‘I deny.’ So 
οὐκ ἐάω (Ac. 16:7) =‘I forbid.’ Cf. ob θέλω (Mk. 9:30); οὐκ ἔχω 
(Mt. 13:12); οὐκ ἀγνοξω (2 Cor. 2:11). See also τὸν od λαόν in 
Ro. 9:25 (LXX) where od has the effect of an adjective or a 
prefix. Delbriick® thinks that this use of οὐ with verbs like the 
Latin ne-scio was the original one in Greek. In the LXX οὐ 
translates >. 

(d) Uses. Here it will be sufficient to make a brief summary, 
since the separate uses have already been discussed in detail in 


1 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 182; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 425. 

2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 259. 3. Hist. Gk. Gri, pe 426. 

4 Thumb, Handb., p. 194f.; Jebb, in V. and D.; p. 339. 

5 Gr. of the N. T. Gk., Thayer’s Transl., p. 344. 

6 Cf. Thouvemin, Les Négations dans le N. T., Revue de Philol., 1894, p. 
229. 7 Hist. Gk, Gr., p. 427. 

8 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 253. 9 Synt. Forsch., IV, p. 147. 


PARTICLES (AI ΠΑΡΑΘΗΚΑΙ) ΕΠ ἡ 


the proper places. The point here is to show how all the varied 
uses of οὐ are in harmony with the true meaning of the particle. 

(i) The Indicative. We meet οὐ with the indicative in both in- 
dependent and dependent clauses. 

(a) Independent Sentences. Here the negative οὐ is universal 
with the indicative in declarative sentences. The force of οὐ 
(οὐκ before vowels, οὐχ before aspirate) is sometimes very power- 
ful, like the heavy thud of a blow. Cf. οὐκ ἐδώκατε, οὐκ ἐποτίσατε, 
οὐ συνηγάγετε, ov περιεβάλετε, οὐκ ἐπεσκέψασθε (Mt. 25:42f.). The 
force of all these negatives is gathered up in the one οὐ in verse 
44, In verse 45 οὐ and οὐδέ are balanced over against each other. 
See οὐκ ἔπεσεν in Mt. 7:25. Cf.. οὐ παρέλαβον in Jo. 1:11. In 
Mt. 21:29 see the contrast between éyw, κύριε and οὐκ ἀπῆλθεν. 
Note the progressive bluntness of the Baptist’s denials till οὔ 
comes out flat at the last (Jo.1:21f.). In the N. T., od alone 
occurs with the future indicative used as a prohibition, though 
the classic idiom sometimes had μή. Cf. οὐ φονεύσεις (Mt. 5: 21); 
οὐκ ἔσεσθε ws of ὑποκριταί (6:5), etc. Still, Blass! quotes μηδένα 
μισήσετε IN Clem., Hom., III, 69. The volitive subjective nature 
of this construction well suits μή, but οὐ is more emphatic and 
suits the indicative. In Mt. 16 : 22, οὐ μὴ ἔσται σοι τοῦτο, we have 
οὐ μὴ in the prohibitive sense. When οὐ occurs alone = ‘no,’ as 
at the end of a clause, it is written οὔ as in οὔ, μή ποτε (Mt. 
134529) τό OW ot (2 Corie! 317): 

But in interrogative (independent) sentences οὐ always expects 
the answer ‘yes.’ The Greek here draws a distinction between ov 
and μή that is rather difficult to reproduce in English. The use 
of a negative in the question seems naturally to expect the an- 
swer ‘yes,’ since the negative is challenged by the question. This 
applies to ob. We may leave μή till we come to it. Οὐ in questions 
corresponds to the Latin nonne. Cf. Mt. 7 : 22, οὐ τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι 
ἐπροφητεύσαμεν KTA., Where οὐ is the negative of the whole long 
question, and is not repeated with the other verbs. See further 
Mt. 13 : 55; Lu. 17:17; 1 Cor. 14:28. In 1 Cor. 9:1 we have οὐ 
four times (once οὐχί). The form οὐχί is a bit sharper in tone. 
Cf. Mt. 13:27; Lu. 12:6. In Lu. 6:39 we have μή with one 
question, μήτι δύναται τυφλὸς τυφλὸν ὁδηγεῖν; and οὐχί with the other 
(side by side) οὐχὶ ἀμφότεροι εἰς βόθυνον ἐμπεσοῦνται; ‘There is a 
tone of impatient indignation in the use of οὐ in Ac. 18:10, οὐ 
παύσῃ διαστρέφων τὰς ὁδοὺς τοῦ κυρίου τὰς εὐθείας; In Ac. 21:38, οὐκ 
ἄρα σὺ εἶ ὁ Λίἰγύπτιος; the addition of ἄρα means ‘as I supposed, 

Groen τ p25. 


1158 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


but as I now see denied.’! In Mk. 14:60 note the measured use 
of οὐ and οὐδέν in both question, οὐκ ἀποκρίνῃ οὐδέν; and the descrip- 
tion of Christ’s silence, καὶ οὐκ ἀπεκρίνατο οὐδέν. In Lu. 18:7, οὐ 
μὴ ποιήσῃ — Kal μακροθυμεῖ ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς; we come near having οὐ μή in 
a question with the present indicative as well as with the aorist 
subjunctive. In a question like μὴ οὐκ ἔχομεν; (1 Cor. 9 : 4) οὐ 15 
the negative of the verb, while μή is the negative of the sentence. 
Cf. Ro. 10:18, 19. In 1 Cor. 9:8 we have μή in one part of the 
question and οὐ in the other, μὴ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον ταῦτα λαλῶ, ἢ Kal 
ὁ νόμος ταῦτα οὐ λέγει; In Mt. 22:17 (Lu. 20:22; Mk. 12: 14) 
we have ἢ οὔ; as the alternative question, and Mark adds ἢ μή. 
Babbitt? holds that “οὐ is used in questions of fact, while in other 
questions (e.g. questions of possibility) μή is used.” I doubt the 
correctness of this interpretation. 

In declarative sentences the position of οὐ is to be noted when 
for emphasis or contrast it comes first. Cf. οὐ and ἀλλά in Ro. 
9:8. So οὐ γάρ --- ἀλλ᾽’ 6 in 7:15. In 7:18 f. note οὔ οὐ side 
by side. Cf. also position of οὐ in Ac. 1:5; 2:15; Ro. 11:18 (οὐ 
σύ — ἀλλά). So ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἔγώ in 1 Cor. 6:12. 

(β) Subordinate Clauses. In principle the use of οὐ is the same 
as in independent sentences. But there are some special adapta- 
tions which have already been discussed and need only brief men- 
tion here. 

In relative clauses with the indicative οὐ is almost the only 
negative used in the N. T., the examples of μή being very few 
as will be seen directly. This is true both with definite relative 
clauses where it is obviously natural, as in 2 Cor. 8: 10, οἵτινες οὐ 
μόνον --- προενήρξασθε (cf. Ro. 10: 14; Jas. 4:14), and in indefinite 
relative clauses where μή is possible, but by no means necessary, 
as in Mt. 10 : 38, ds οὐ λαμβάνει (cf. Lu. 9 : 50; 14: 33, etc.). The 
use of od in the relative clause which is preceded by a negative 
is not an encroachment? on μή. Cf. οὐ μὴ ἀφεθῇ ὧδε λίθος ἐπὶ λίθον 
ὃς οὐ καταλυθήσεται (Mt. 24:2). It is a common enough idiom in 
the old Greek, as we see it in 10: 26 (Lu. 12: 2), οὐδέν ἐστιν κεκα- 
λυμμένον ὃ οὐκ ἀποκαλυφθήσεται. Cf. Lu. 8:17, where the second 
relative has οὐ μὴ γνωσθῇ, and Ro. 15:18 for the negative οὐ in 
principal and relative clause. In Mk. 4:25 note és ἔχει and ὃς 
οὐκ ἔχει. Cf. ὃ θέλω and ὃ od θέλω (Ro. 7:15, 19). Practically the 
same* construction is οὐ with the relative in a question, as τίς 


1 W.-Th., p. 511. 


2 Harv. Stu. in Class. Philol., 1901, The Use of Μή in Questions, p. 307. 
3 W.-Th., p. 481. 4 Thouvemin, Les Négations, ete., p. 233 f. 


Pe “ἀν. 


PARTICLES (AI IAPAOHKAI) 1159 


ἐστιν ὃς ov in Ac. 19:35; cf. Heb. 12:7. For further illustration 
of οὐ with relative clauses see Mt. 12:2; Mk. 2:24; Jo. 6:64; 
Lu. 14:27; Jo. 4:22; Ro. 15:21; Gal. 3:10; Rev. 9:4. 

In temporal clauses with the indicative οὐ comes as a matter 
of course. This is true of a definite note of time as in Ac. 22: 
11, ὡς οὐκ ἐνέβλεπον, and of an indefinite period as in Jo. 4: 21, dpa 
ὅτε οὔτε (cf. also 9 : 4, νὺξ ὅτε οὐδείς). 

In comparative clauses with the indicative the negative comes 
outside in the principal sentence, since comparison is usually 
made with a positive note. So οὐ καθάπερ (2 Cor. 3:18); οὐ καθὼς 
ἠλπίσαμεν (ὃ : 5); οὐκ εἰμὶ ὥσπερ (Lu. 18:11); οὐχ ὡς (Ro. 5:15f.). 
We do have ὡς οὐκ ἀέρα δέρων in 1 Cor. 9 : 26 (participle) as in 2 
Cor. 10 : 14 we have οὐ yap, ὡς μὴ ἐφικνούμενοι, where the two nega- 
tives are in good contrast. 

In local clauses likewise the use of οὐ is obvious, as in ὅπου οὐκ 
εἶχεν γῆν πολλήν (Mt. 13 : 5); ὅπου οὐ θέλεις (Jo. 21:18. Here the 
οὐ is very pointed); οὗ δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν νόμος (Ro. 4: 15). 

In causal sentences οὐ is not quite universal, though the usual 
negative. Cf. Mt. 25:45 ἐφ᾽ ὅσον οὐκ ἐποιήσατε ἑνὶ τούτων τῶν ἐλα- 
χίστων, (2:18) ὅτι οὐκ εἰσίν, (Heb. 6:13) ἐπεὶ κατ᾽ οὐδενὸς εἶχεν, (1 
Cor. 14: 16) ἐπειδὴ οὐκ οἶδεν. See further Lu. 1:34; Jo. 8:20, 37; 
Ro. 11:6. In Heb. 9:17 ἐπεὶ μὴ τότε [un ποτε marg. of W. Η.] 
ἰσχύει may be a question as Theophylact takes it, but W. H. do 
not print it so in the text. But it is not a departure from an- 
cient Greek idiom to have μή with the ind. in causal sentences as 
will be shown. Cf. Jo. 3:18 with 1 Jo. 5: 10. 

In final clauses with the ind. od does not occur. The reason for 
μή in clauses of purpose is obvious even though the ind. mode be 
used (cf. Rev. 9:4, 20). It is only with clauses of apprehension 
that οὐ is found with the verb when μή occurs as the conjunc- 
tion. Cf. 2 Cor. 12 : 20, φοβοῦμαι μή πως οὐχ εὕρω. But this is the 
subj., not the ind. Cf. here οὐχ οἵους θέλω and οἷον οὐ θέλετε. Cf. 
also Mt. 25:9. In Col. 2:8 we have βλέπετε μή τις ἔσται --- καὶ οὐ 
κατὰ Χριστόν. The καὶ οὐ is in contrast with κατὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ 
κόσμου, though as a second negative it would properly be οὐ any- 
how. But in Rev. 9:4 we have ἵνα μὴ ἀδικήσουσιν — οὐδέ --- οὐδέ. 
This? does seem unusual and is almost an example of iva ov. No 
example of a clause of result with a negative occurs in the indic- 
ative, but it would, of course, have οὐ. 

The use of οὐ in conditional sentences has already received 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 255. 
2 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 181. 


1160 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


adequate treatment. See Conditional Sentences, ch. on Mode. 
The details need not be gone over again here. There is no doubt 
of the fact that εἰ οὐ made encroachments on εἰ μή in the later 
Greek.! Blass? puts it ‘‘in direct contradistinction to the clas- 
sical language.” Thouvemin® likewise treats this use of εἰ οὐ as 
“contrairement ἃ l’usage classique — ot on le trouve exception- 
nellement.” It is only the frequency, the normality of εἰ οὐ in the 
N. T. that is remarkable. This is in full accord with the κοινή 
development, since’ in the modern Greek δέν “15 regularly used in 
the protasis of a conditional sentence, alike with the indicative 
and with the subjunctive mood.” So ἃἂ δὲν πήγαινα, ‘if I had not 
gone’ (Thumb, Handb., p. 195).. See Mt. 26:42; Lu. 12: 26; 
JO. 1.25503 2125.5: 475910 2355) Ro276 937159 aie eee oes 
16:22; 2 Cor. 12:11; Heb. 12:25, etc. They are all condi- 
tions of the first class (determined as fulfilled) save one of the 
second class (determined as unfulfilled) in Mt. 26:24. In 26:42 
εἰ οὐ and ἐὰν μή stand out sharply. It is so nearly the rule with 
conditions of the first class in the N. T. that it is hardly necessary 
to follow out the analysis of Winer® to bring the examples into 
accord with ancient usage. It is gratuitous to take εἰ οὐδὲ as 
causal in Lu. 12 : 26, or to make εἰ οὐκ εἰμί in 1 Cor. 9 : 2 a denial 
of a positive idea. There are cases of emphatic denial, as εἴ τις οὐ 
φιλεῖ (1 Cor. 16:22). Cf. also 2 Jo. 10, εἴ τις ἔρχεται καὶ οὐ φέρει. 
Cf. also εἰ ob ποιῶ and εἰ ποιῶ in Jo. 10:37 f., where the antithesis 
is quite marked. See also the decisive negation in Jo. 1:25. But, 
when all is said, εἰ οὐ has made distinct inroads on εἰ μή in the 
later Greek. 

As to the negative in indirect discourse with the indicative, it 
only remains to say that the use of οὐ is universal. Cf. Mt. 16: 
12, συνῆκαν ὅτι οὐκ εἶπεν προσέχειν. In 16:11 note πῶς οὐ νοεῖτε 
ὅτι οὐ περὶ ἄρτων εἶπον ὑμῖν; where each negative has its own force. 
Cf. also 1 Cor. 6:9. ; 

(ii) The Subjunctive. In Homer οὐ was the negative with the 
futuristic subjunctive® as in οὐ δὲ ἴδωμαι, Iliad, I, 262. This futu- 
ristic use of the subj., as we have seen (Modes), largely passed over 
to the future indicative,’ so that οὐ disappears from the subjunc- 
tive almost entirely. both in principal and subordinate clauses. 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 429. * Jebb, V. and D.’s Handb., p. 339. 
* Gre Ob Nei eG sao 5 W.-Th., pp. 477 ff. 
3 Les Négations, etc., p. 233. 6 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 198. 


7 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 498. Cf. W. G. Hale, The Anticipatory 
Subjunctive in Gk. and Lat., Cornell Stu., 1895. 


PARTICLES (AI, ΠΑΡΑΘΗΚΑΙ) 1161 


One may compare the final disappearance of οὐ before μή with 
participles. In Jer. 6:8 B reads ἥτις οὐ κατοικισθῇ where NAQ* 
have κατοικισθήσεται. It is to be remembered also, as already 
noted, that in the modern Greek δὲν occurs in the protasis 
with subjunctive as well as with the indicative, as ἂ δὲν πιστεύῃς 
(Thumb, Handbook, p. 195). This is partly due, no doubt, to 
the obscuration of the-ot in δέν, but at bottom it is the futuristic 
use of the subj. We have already noted the use of μὴ οὐχ in 2 
Cor. 12: 20 with εὕρω after φοβοῦμαι, where the οὐ is kept with the 
subj. (classic idiom) to distinguish it from the conjunctional μή. 
It is also a case of the futuristic subj., not volitive as in final 
clauses with iva or ὅπως. In Mt. 25:9 the margin of W. H. has 
μή ποτε οὐκ ἀρκέσῃ Without a verb of fearing, though the notion 
is there. The text has μή ποτε οὐ μή. Jannaris! boldly cuts the 
Gordian knot by denying that μή in οὐ μή is a true negative. He 
makes it merely a shortening of μήν. If so, all the uses of οὐ μή 
with the subj. would be examples of οὐ with the subj. Some of 
these, however, are volitive or deliberative. This view of Jan- 
naris is not yet accepted among scholars. It is too simple a 
solution, though Jannaris argues that οὐ μήν does occur as in 
Soph. Hl. 817, Eur. Hec. 401, and he notes that the negation is 
continued by οὐ δέ, not by μὴ δέ. Per contra it is to be observed 
that the modern Greek writes μήν as well as μή, as va μὴν εἶχε 
παράδες, ‘because he had no money’ (Thumb, Handb., p. 200). 
But, whatever the explanation, we do have οὐ μή with the aorist 
subj. in the N. T. We have had to discuss this point already 
(Tense and Mode), and shall meet it again under Double Nega- 
tives. But in Jo. 18:11, οὐ μὴ πίω; the answer is in accord 
with ov. 

(ili) The Optative. In the N.T. there are no instances of the 
use of οὐ with the optative. It is only in wishes (volitive) that 
the optative has a negative in the N. T. and that is naturally uy? 
But this is just an accident due to the rapid disappearance of 
the optative. There is no reason why od should not be found 
with the potential optative (futuristic) or the deliberative which 
was always rare. 

(iv) The Imperative. The most striking instance is 1 Pet. 3:3, 
ὧν ἔστω οὐχ ὁ — κόσμος, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ κρυπτός, κτλ. It is the sharp contrast 
with ἀλλ᾽ that explains the use of οὐχ. Cf. also οὐ μόνον in 1 Pet. 
2:18, where the participle stands in an imperative atmosphere. 

1 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 433. 
2 Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. N. Τ᾿, p. 200. 


1162 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Cf. also οὐ with the inf. in the imperatival sense in 1 Cor. 5: 10; 
2 Tim. 2:14. Elsewhere with the imperative we have μὴ μόνον 
(Jo. 18:9; Ph. 2:12; Jas. 1:22). Οὐ is used in an imperatival 
connection with the fut. ind. (Mt. 5:21) and in questions of like 
nature (Ac. 13 : 10). 

(v) The Infinitive. It is common to say that in the N. T.! οὐ 
does not occur with the infinitive, not even in indirect assertion. 
In Homer and in the classic Attic we do find od with the inf. in 
indirect assertion. This is usually explained on the ground that 
the οὐ belonged to the original indicative in the direct and is 
simply preserved in the indirect. Monro (Hom. Gr., p. 262) ob- 
serves that in the old Sanskrit only finite verbs have the negative 
particles. This question received full discussion under Mode and 
Verbal Nouns. Only a brief word is allowed here. The oldest 
use of the negative in indirect discourse was in the form οὔ φησιν 
δώσειν where ov formally goes with φησιν, but logically with δώσειν. 
From this use Monro conceives there came ov with the inf. itself. 
But the situation in the N. T. is not quite so simple as Blass? 
makes it. In Jo. 21:25, οὐδ᾽ αὐτὸν οἶμαι χωρήσειν, the negative 
does go with οἶμαι. But this is hardly true in Mk. 7: 24, nor in 
Ac. 26:26. Besides οὐ occurs in a number of clauses dependent 
on the inf., as in Heb: 7:11; Ro..8 212;:Ac. 10:41; sRonino; 
15:20; Heb. 18:9; 1 Cor. 1:17; Ac. 19:27. For the discussion 
of these passages see Infinitive, ch. XX, 5, (J). It is proper to 
say that in the N. T. we still have remnants of the old use of 
ov with the inf., though in general μή is the negative. In Ro. 
15:20 οὐχ ὅπου after εὐαγγελίζεσθαι stands in sharp contrast with 
ἀλλὰ καθώς. In 2 Cor. 18:7 we have μὴ ποιῆσαι ὑμᾶς κακὸν μηδέν, 
οὐχ ἵνα --- ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα where the οὐχ is clearly an addendum. Burton? 
explains εἰς οὐθὲν λογισθῆναι in Ac. 19: 27, ‘‘as a fixed phrase,” 
but even so it is in use. Besides, there is μὴ Aoyouaxety ἐπ᾽ οὐδὲν 
χρήσιμον in 2 Tim. 2:14. See also καὶ od after ὥστε δουλεύειν in 
Ro. 7:6. The use of οὐδέν with the inf. after οὐ with the prin- 
cipal verb is common enough. Cf. Mk. 7:12; Lu. 20:40; Jo. 
3:27; 5:30; Ac. 26:26, etc. Burton‘ notes that in the N. T. 
ob μόνον occurs always (cf. Jo. 11:52; Ac. 21:13; 26 : 29; 27: 10; 
Ro. 4::/12,.16; 13:1 8; 2. Cor) 8910s bho 20 lee ex 
cept once μὴ μόνον in Gal. 4:18. The use of οὐ μόνον occurs both 
in limiting clauses and in the sentence viewed as a whole. 

(vi) The Participle. There is little to add to what was given on 


1 Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 430. 3 N. T. M. and T., p. 184. 
3° Gr ot ΝΠ ΟΡ 200. “lb paisa. 


PARTICLES (AI ΠΑΡΑΘΗΚΑΙ) 1163 


the subject of οὐ and μή with the participle under the Verbal As- 
pects of the Participle (see Verbal Nouns). Galloway! thinks 
that it was with the participle that οὐ was first used (as opposed 
to the Sanskrit negative prefix) before the infinitive had od. At 
any rate οὐ is well established in Homer. We may simply accent 
the fact that the encroachment of μή on οὐ with the participle 
gives all the greater emphasis to the examples of οὐ which re- 
main. Cf. ὁ οὐκ ὧν ποιμήν (Jo. 10 : 12); ὡς οὐκ δέρων (1 Cor. 9 : 26). 
There is no trouble in seeing the force of οὐ wherever we find it 
with the participle in the N. T. 

(vii) With Nouns. Here we see a further advance of the nega- 
tive particles over the Sanskrit idiom which confined them to the 
finite verb. The Greek usually employs the negative prefix with 
nouns, but in a few instances in the N. T. we have ov. So τὸν 
ov Nady in Ro. 9 : 25 (LXX), od λαός in 1 Pet. 2:10 (LXX), ἐπ’ 
οὐκ ἔθνει in Ro. 10:19 (oY δ Deut. 82:21). But this is by no 
means a Hebraism, since it is common in the best Greek writers. 
Cf. ἡ οὐ διάλυσις in Thue. 1, 187.4 and ἡ οὐκ ἐξουσία in 5, 50. 3. Cf. 
οὐκ ἀρχιερέως in 2 Macc. 4:13. As Thayer well says, οὐ in this 
construction “‘annuls the idea of the noun.” ‘The use of οὐ to 
deny a single word is common, as in ov θυσίαν (Mt. 9:13). Cf. 
οὐκ ἐμέ in Mk. 9:37. In general for οὐ with exceptions see οὐκ ἐν 
σοφίᾳ (1 Cor. 1:17), οὐ μέλανι (2 Cor. 3:3). In 2 Tim. 2:14, én’ 
οὐδὲν χρήσιμον, it is possible that χρήσιμον is in the substantival 
sense. There is, of course, nothing unusual in the use of od with 
adjectives like οὐ πολλοὶ σοφοί (1 Cor. 1:26). What is note- 
worthy is the litotes so common in the N. T. as in the older 
Greek. Cf. per’ od πολύ (Ac. 27:14); wer’ οὐ πολλὰς ἡμέρας (Lu. 
15 : 13); οὐκ ὀλίγα (Ac. 17:4); otk ἀσήμου (21:39). Cf. otk ἐκ μέ- 
τρου (JO. 8 : 34); οὐ μετρίως (Ac. 20:12). Οὐ πᾶς and πᾶς οὐ have 
received discussion under Adjectives, and so just a word will 
suffice. Οὐ πᾶσα σἀρξ (1 Cor. 15: 39) is ‘not every kind of 
flesh.’ Cf. οὐ παντὶ τῷ λαῷ (Ac. 10:41); οὐ πάντες (Mt. 19: 11); οὐ 
πάντως (1 Cor. 5:10). But οὐκ ἂν ἐσώθη πᾶσα σάρξ (Mt. 24: 22) 
means ‘no flesh,’ like the Hebrew 82—53. The construction in 
both senses is more common in John than in the Synoptic 
Gospels. It is perhaps worth while to note the use of οὐδέν or 
οὐθέν (1 Cor. 13:2) as an abstract neuter in the predicate. In 
general, attention should be called to the distinction made by 
the Greeks between negativing a word and a sentence. This is 
one reason why with the imper., subj. and inf. we find οὐ with 

1 On the Use of Μή with the Participle in Class. Gk., 1897, p. 6. 


1164 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


single words or phrases, where μή is the normal negative of the 
clause. 

(ὁ) Καὶ Ov. In general when a positive clause is followed by a 
negative we have καὶ od as in classic Greek. Cf. Ro. 7:6 (with 
inf. asin Heb. 7:11). See also Col. 2 : 8,10. So Lu. 8: 14, ovr- 
πνίγονται καὶ οὐ τελεσφοροῦσιν. Cf. Mt. 9:18. Once, indeed, in 
a peculiar case, we find καί connecting two negative clauses, Lu. 
0 : 57, καὶ μὴ κρίνετε καὶ ob μὴ κριθῆτε. 

(f) Redundant or Pleonastic O’. There is one instance of οὐ 
in indirect discourse where it is pleonastic according to the clas- 
sic idiom (see also the French ne). It is in 1 Jo. 2:22, 6 ἀρνού- 
μενος ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν. Some MSS. have the pleonastic οὐ in 
Mk. 9 : 39. 

(g) Repetition of Ov. When the second is a single nega- 
tive, the full force of each is retained. It is seldom that we 
find two examples of οὐ in the same clause, as in 1 Cor. 12: 
15 f., οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος, ‘It is not therefore 
not of the body.’ There are instances of οὐ followed by μή 
where both preserve the full force, Ac. 4:20, οὐ δυνάμεθα --- μὴ 
λαλεῖν. Cf. also οὐ — μή in 1 Cor. 9:6. So also ὁ μὴ ποιῶν δι- 
καιοσύνην οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ (1 Jo. 3:10). Cf. 5:12. The ex- 
amples are numerous enough when the second οὐ is in a dependent 
clause. So οὐδὲν yap ἐστιν κεκαλυμμένον ὃ οὐκ ἀποκαλυφθήσεται (Mt. 
10 : 26); πῶς οὐ νοεῖτε ὅτι οὐ, κτλ. (16: 10); οὐ τολμήσω τι λαλεῖν Gv 
οὐ κατειργάσατο Χριστός (Ro. 15:18); οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι --- οὐ κληρονομή- 
σουσιν (1 Cor. 6:9). In Mt. 24:2 οὐ follows οὐ μή. See also 
Lu. 8:17. The uses of μὴ οὐ and οὐ μή are treated later. But 
note οὔ, μή more — ἐκριζώσητε (Mt. 13 : 29) where οὔ stands alone. 
The solemn repetition of ob — od in 1 Cor. 6 : 10 is rhetorical. 

(h) The Intensifying Compound Negative. We have seen how 
οὐ can be made stronger by xi (οὐχί, as in Lu. 1:60). Brug- 
mann? considers this an intensive particle and different from 
the Homeric? xi (οὐ-κί) which is like τι (kis, κι, τις, τ). So also 
οὐδὲ was originally just οὐ δὲ (‘and not,’ ‘but not’) and is often 
so printed in Homer.* In the sense of ‘not even’ see Mt. 6: 
29. The form οὐδείς is intensive also, originally ‘not one indeed’> 
and was sometimes printed οὐδὲ εἷς (Ro. 3: 10) for even stronger 
emphasis. But οὐ --- τις also occurs (Jo. 10:28). Cf. also οὐδέ 
τις (Mt. 11: 27); οὐ δύνῃ ἔτι (Lu. 16 : 2); οὔτε --- τις (Ac. 28 : 21); 

1 Cf. W. H.S. Jones., Cl. Rev., Mar., 1910. 
2 Griech. Gr., p. 528. od Lay 
8. Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 259. 5 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 528. 


PARTICLES (AI ITAPAOHKAI) 1165 


ov — ποτέ (2 Pet. 1:21). The adverbial form οὐδέν occasionally 
occurs in Homer. The form οὐθείς (cf. Ac. 26 : 26), which flour- 
ished for a limited period in the κοινή, has already had sufficient 
discussion. Various other compound negatives were built up on 
od, aS οὐδαμῶς (Mt. 2:6); οὐδέπω (Jo. 20 : 9); οὐδέποτε (Mt. 7: 23); 
οὐκέτι (Mt. 19:6). Οὐκοῦν was used so much in questions that it 
lost its negative force (Jo. 18:37), unless one writes it οὔκουν. 
Οὔτε is, of course, only οὐ and τέ. These compound negatives 
merely strengthen the previous negative. This emphatic repe- 
tition of the compound negative was once good vernacular in 
both English and German, but it gave way in literary circles 
before the influence of the Latin.! It was always good Greek. 
This discussion does not apply to subordinate clauses (as in Jo. 
8:20) where each negative has its own force. The use of οὐδέ 
and οὔτε belongs to the discussion of conjunctions (cf. οὔτε --- 
οὔτε --- οὐδὲ in Ac. 24:12 f.), but the examples in the Ν. Τ᾿. of the 
other compound negatives with οὐ are numerous. Farrar? gives 
some good illustrations of old English. ‘No sonne were he never 
so old of years might not marry,’’ Ascham, Scholemaster. Modern 
English vernacular refuses to give up the piling-up of negatives. 
“Not nohow, said the landlord, thinking that where negatives 
are good, the more you heard of them the better” (Felix Holt, 11, 
198). Again: ‘Whatever may be said of the genius of the English 
language, yet no one could have misunderstood the query of the 
London citizen, Has nobody seen nothing of never a hat not their 
own?” So likewise the Hebrew uses two negatives to strengthen 
each other (cf. 1 Ki. 10:21; Is. 5:9). A good example is Mk. 
5:3, οὐδὲ οὐκέτι οὐδείς. So οὐδεὶς οὔπω (11:2). The commonest 
kind of example is like οὐ δύνασθε ποιεῖν οὐδέν (Jo. 15:5). Cf. 2 
Cor. 11:8. Another instance of triple negative is Lu. 23 : 53, 
οὐκ ἦν οὐδεὶς οὔπω. The οὐ is sometimes amplified* by otre — 
᾿οὔτε as in Mt. 12:32, as well as by οὐδέ --- οὐδὲ as in Jo. 1: 25. 
Plato shows four negatives, ovdevt οὐδαμῇ οὐδαμῶς οὐδεμίαν κοινωνίαν 
(Phaedo 78d). The combinations with οὐ μή may also be noticed, 
as οὐδὲν οὐ μή (Lu. 10:19); οὐ μή ce av οὐδ᾽ οὐ μή σε ἔγκαταλίπω 
(Heb. 18 : 5); οὐκέτι οὐ μή (Rev. 18:14). There is no denying the 
power of this accumulation of negatives. Cf. the English hymn 
“T’]] never, no, never, no, never forsake.” 

(ὃ The Disjunctive Negative. We frequently have οὐ “where 

one thing is denied that another may be established.’’* Here 


1 W.-Th., p. 499. 3. Cf. W.-Th., p. 499. 
2 Gk. Synt., p. 189. 4 Thayer’s Lex., p. 461. 


1166 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


there is sharp antithesis. The simplest form is οὐ — δὲ as in 
Jas. 2:11, or ob) — ἀλλά as in Mt. 15:11; Mk. 5: 39; Lu. 8: 52; 
Ac. 5:4; 1 Cor. 15:10; 2 Cor. 3:3, etc. In Jo. 7:22 we have 
οὐχ ὅτι --- ἀλλά, as also in Ph. 4:17. In Ph. 4: 11 οὐχ ὅτι oc- 
curs alone without ἀλλά. In 2 Cor. 7:9 we have οὐχ 671 — ἀλλ᾽ 
ὅτι. In 1 Jo. 2:21 we have οὐκ ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ὅτι --- ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι Where 
more naturally we might expect ἔγραψα οὐχ ὅτι --- ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι. 
Winer! makes rather overmuch of the possible rhetorical dis- 
tinctions between the varying shades of emphasis in the differ- 
ent contexts where οὐ --- ἀλλά occur. Cf. further οὐχ ἵνα — ἀλλά 
(Jo. 6:38); οὐχ ἵνα --- ἀλλ’ ἵνα (Jo. 3:17). We usually have ov 
μόνον --- ἀλλὰ καί (Jo. 5:18; Ro. 1:32, etc.), but sometimes 
merely ob μόνον --- ἀλλά (Ac. 19 : 26; 1 Jo. 5:6). Sometimes the 
negative is not expressed, but is to be supplied in thought as 
in Mt. 11: 7-9. Then again we may have only the negative as 
in οὐ βρώμασιν (Heb. 19: 9), leaving the contrast to be supplied in 
the thought. The contrast may even be expressed by καὶ od as in 
Mt. 9 : 18, ἔλεος θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν (LXX). But we have already 
entered the sphere of the conjunctions as in the parallel οὔτε --- 
καί in Jo. 4:11. So3 Jo. 10. 

2. Tur SupsectivE NecativE Μή anp Its Compounps- 

(a) The History of M7. The Ionic, Attic and Doric dialects 
have μή, the Eleatic has μά, like the Sanskrit ma. In the old 
Sanskrit ma@ was used only in independent sentences, while ned 
occurred in dependent clauses.2. In the later Sanskrit ma crept ~ 
into the dependent clauses also. It was originally a prohibitive 
particle with the old injunctive which was in the oldest San- 
skrit always negative with ma.2 In the later Sanskrit ma was 
extended to the other modes. In the Greek we see μή extended 
to wish and then denial.4 Wharton® undertakes to show that μή 
is primarily an interrogative, not a prohibitive or negative par- 
ticle, but that is more than doubtful. Already in Homer ‘un 
had established itself in a large and complex variety of uses, to 
which we have to appeal when we seek to know the true nature 
of the modal constructions as we come to them.’’® The distinc- 
tion between οὐ and μή goes back to Indo-Germanic stock and has 


1 W.-Th., pp. 495 ff. 

2 Thompson, Synt., p. 448; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 528. 

8. Thompson, ib., p. 499. 4 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 260. 

5 The Gk. Indirect Negative, 1892, p.1. Cf. also Babbitt, The Use of Μή 
in Questions, Harv. Stu. (Goodwin Vol.). 

6 Moulton, Prol., p. 170. 


PARTICLES (AI IAPAOHKAI) 1167 


survived into modern Greek. But from the very start μή made 
inroads on ov, so that finally μή occupies much of the field. In the 
modern Greek μή is used exclusively with participle, in prohibi- 
tions and with the subj. except in conditions, and occurs with va 
(va μή) and the ind. Gildersleeve! has shown in a masterly way 
how μή made continual encroachments on od. In the N. T., out- 
side of εἰ οὐ, the advance of μή is quite distinct, as Gildersleeve 
shows is true even of Lucian. So as to the papyri and the inscrip- 
tions. The exact Attic refinements between οὐ and μή are not 
reproduced, though on the whole the root-distinction remains.” 

(b) Significance of Μή. Max Miiller® gives an old Sanskrit 
phrase, ma kaphalaya, ‘not for unsteadiness,’ which pretty well 
gives the root-idea of μή. It is an “unsteady” particle, a hesi- 
tating negative, an indirect or subjective denial, an effort to pre- 
vent (prohibit) what has not yet happened. It is the negative of 
will, wish, doubt. If οὐ denies the fact, μή denies the idea. Μή 
made one advance on ov. It came to be used as a conjunction. 
We see this use of mu in the late Sanskrit.4| But the origin of this 
conjunctional use of μή is undoubtedly paratactic in clauses of 
both fear and purpose.® It is obviously so in indirect questions® 
where μή suggests ‘perhaps.’ Campbell’ argues that ‘the whole 
question of the Greek negatives is indeterminate.” This is an 
extreme position, but there is no doubt a border-line between οὐ 
and μή which is very narrow at times. One’s mood and tone 
have much to do with the choice of οὐ or μή. Cf. Jo. 4:29, μή 
τι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός; where οὐ would have challenged the op- 
position of the neighbours by taking sides on the question whether 
Jesus was the Messiah. The woman does not mean to imply 
flatly that Jesus is not the Messiah by using μή τι, but she raises 
the question and throws a cloud of uncertainty and curiosity over 
it with a woman’s keen instinct. In a word, μή is just the nega- 
tive to use when one does not wish to be too positive. Μή leaves 
the question open for further remark or entreaty. Ov closes the 
door abruptly. The LXX uses μή for >. 


1 Encroachments of Μή on Od in Later Gk., Am. Jour. of Philol., I, pp. 45 ff. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 170. Cf. also Birke, De Particularum μή et ob Usu 
Polybiano Dionysiaeo Diodoreo Straboniano, 1897, p. 14 f. 

3 Oxford Inaugural Lecture, Note C. 

4 Thompson, Synt., p. 448. 

5 Moulton, Prol., p. 192 f. 

61} 

7 On Soph. Trach., 90. 

8 Cf. Postgate, Contrasts of Οὐ and Μή, Cambridge Philol. Jour., 1886. 


1168 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(c) Uses of Μή. In general we may follow the outline of οὐ. 

(i) The Indicative. Blass! expounds the two negatives by say- 
ing that ‘od negatives the indicative, μή the other moods, includ- 
ing the infinitive and participle.’ But, unfortunately, the case 
is not so simple as that. “In reviewing Blass, Thumb makes 
the important addition that. in modern Greek δέν belongs to the 
indicative and μή(ν) to the subjunctive.”? But δέν occurs.in the 
protasis with the subj. in modern Greek, as we have seen. Be- 
sides, as Moulton® adds, “μή has not been driven away from the 
indicative” in the N. T. It may be said at once that μή with 
the indicative is as old as historic Greek.4 The Sanskrit sug- 
gests that originally μή was not used with the indicative. But 
already in Homer μή occurs with the indicative in prohibition, 
wish, oath, fear, question. “The essence of these idioms is the 
combination of the imperative tone — which shows itself in the 
particle — with the mood proper to simple assertion.”® But in 
the N. T. we no longer have μή with the fut. ind. in prohibition, 
except in case of οὐ μή. 

In independent sentences we have μή with the indicative only 
in questions. ‘It’s use in questions is very distinct from that 
of οὐ and is maintained in the N. T. Greek without real weaken- 
ing.”’7 In Jo. 21:5, παιδία, μή τι προσφάγιον ἔχετε; we have a 
typical example with the answer οὔ. Blass® expresses needless 
objection to this “hesitant question,’ as Moulton rightly ex- 
pounds it. Cf. Jo. 4:33; 7:26; and Ro. 11:1, ph amrwcaro; 
with the answer in verse 2, οὐκ ἀπώσατο. See Jo. 7:51, where 
Nicodemus adroitly uses μή in a question and the sharp retort of 
the other members of the Sanhedrin μὴ καὶ σύ; The difference 
between οὐ and μή in questions is well shown in Jo. 4: 33, 35. In 
the use of μή the answer in mind is the one expected, not always 
the one actually received as is illustrated in the question of the 
apostles at the last passover. They all asked μή τι ἐγώ εἰμι, ῥαβ- 
Bet; The very thought was abhorrent to them, ‘It surely is not 
1.9 But Judas, who did not dare use οὐ, received the affirmative 
answer, σὺ εἶπας (Mt. 26 : 25). Μή τι comes to be used intensively 
much like οὐχί (both chiefly in questions). In the case of μὴ οὐ 


τ ΟΝ ΤΟ peeps. 2 Moulton, Prol., p. 170. 8. ΤΡ. 
4 Vierke, De μή Particulae cum Indicativo Conjunctae Usu Antiquiore, 1876. 
5 Monro, Hom. Gr., pp. 260 ff. 6 Ib., p. 261. 


7 Moulton, Prol., p. 170 f. Moulton gives an interesting note on the use of 
παιδία as “lads” in the mod. Gk. 
8 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 254. ° Tb., p. 254. 


PARTICLES (AI ΠΑΡΑΘΗΚΑΙ) 1169 


in questions (Ro. 10:17f.; 1 Cor. 9:4f.; 11:22) wa is the in- 
terrogative particle while οὐ is the negative of the verb. 

In dependent clauses μή occurs with the indicative with the 
second class conditions (εἰ μή) always except in Mt. 26 : 24 (Mk. 
14:21). Cf. εἰ μή ἴῃ Jo. 15 : 22, ete. There are also four instances 
of εἰ μή with the ind. in conditions of the first class.!. So Mk. 6: 5; 
1 Cor. 15: 2; 2 Cor. 18:5; Gal. 1:7. We have μή in a few relative 
clauses, as ἃ μὴ δεῖ (Tit. 1:11); ᾧ μὴ πάρεστιν ταῦτα (2 Pet. 1: 9); 
ὃ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ (1 Jo. 4:3, ὟΝ. H. text). Cf. Ac. 15:29 Ὁ. There 
is a certain aloofness about μή here that one can feel as in Plato 
who, “with his sensitiveness to subtle shades of meaning, had in μή 
an instrument singularly adapted for purposes of reserve, irony, 
politeness or suggestion.”’? This use of μή with the relative and 
indicative is clearly a remnant of the literary construction. This 
literary use of μή with the relative was often employed to charac- 
terize or describe in a subjective way the relative. There is a soli- 
tary instance of μή in a causal sentence, ὅτι μὴ πεπίστευκεν (Jo. 3: 
18), which may be contrasted with ὅτι οὐ πεπίστευκεν (1 Jo. 5: 10). 
For ὅτι μὴ ἔχεις see Epictetus, ΓΝ, 10. 34, and ὅτι σοι οὐ, IV, 10. 35. 
Radermacher (N. 7. Gr., p. 171) quotes φασὶν ὅτι μὴ δεῖ, Diog. of 
Oinoanda, Fragm. IV, 1. 9. There is, besides, ἐπεὶ μὴ τότε ἰσχύει 
in Heb. 9:17, according to the text of W. H., though they give 
in the margin ἐπεὶ μή ποτε --- διαθέμενος; In that case (the marginal 
reading) μή ποτε would introduce a question. See further Causal 
Clauses. In clauses of design we have ἵνα μή with the ind., as in 
Rev. 9:4, ἵνα μὴ ἀδικήσουσιν. The margin of W. H. in 13:17 has 
iva μή τις δύναται. Moulton‘ explains μή with the ind. after verbs 
of apprehension as not originally a conjunction, but μή in the 
sense of ‘perhaps’ (paratactic, not hypotactic). So Lu. 11:35, 
σκόπει μὴ τὸ Pas — σκότος ἐστίν. Cf. also Col. 2:8; Heb. 3:12; 
Gal. 4:11; 1 Th. 3:5. The papyri give abundant parallels. 
Moulton (Prol., p. 193) cites ἀγωνιῶ μή ποτε ἀρρωστεῖ, P. Par. 49 
(ii/.c.).. The use of μή as a conjunction in clauses of design and 
fear with the indicative is parallel to the use of the negative par- 
ticle μή, but does not fall here for discussion. ) 

(ii) The Subjunctive. After all that has been said it is obvious 
that μή was destined to be the negative of the subj., first of the 
volitive and deliberative uses and finally of the futuristic also. 
The few remnants of οὐ with the subj. have already been dis- 
cussed. For the rest the normal and universal negative of the 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 171. 3 Moulton, Prol., p. 171. 
2 Thompson, Synt., p. 441. 4 Ib., p. 192. 


1170 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


subj. is μή. Cf. μὴ ἐνκακῶμεν (Gal. 6:9). In Mk. 12:14, δῶμεν ἢ 
μὴ δῶμεν; (ef. οὔ just before), we see how well μή suits this delibera- 
tive question. The use of μή with the aor. subj. in prohibitions 
need not be further stressed. Wherever the subj. in a dependent 
clause has a negative (save after the conjunction μή after verbs 
of fearing) the negative is μή. Cf. ὃς ἂν μὴ ἔχῃ (Lu. 8:18); ἵνα μὴ 
ἔλθητε (Mk. 14:38), etc. It is needless to give more examples. 

(iii) The Optative. It is only the optative of wish that uses μή. 
It was rare to have the negative precative optative in the old 
Sanskrit.! But already in Homer μή is used with the optative for 
a future wish. In the N.T. there is no example of μή with the 
optative except in wish. It is seen chiefly in μὴ γένοιτο, as in Ro. 
3:4, 6, 31; Gal. 6:14, etc. But note also the curse of Jesus on 
the fig-tree in Mk. 11: 14, μηδεὶς καρπὸν φάγοι. 

(iv) The Imperative. It seems that the imperative was origin- 
ally used only affirmatively and the injunctive originally only 
negatively with ma. The oldest Sanskrit does not use ma@ with 
the imperative? In Homer we find once μὴ ἔνθεο ([|ἰ., IV, 410) 
and once μὴ καταδύσεο (1|., XVIII, 134) and once μὴ ἀκουσάτω (Od., 
XVI, 301). The second person aorist imper. in prohibitions did 
not take root and the third person only sparingly (in the N. T.). 
See Mt. 6:3, μὴ γνώτωϑ The original negative injunctive ap- 
pears in the form μὴ ποιήσῃς (Latin ne feceris). The imperative 
in Greek follows the analogy of this construction and uses μή 
uniformly. Cf. Lu. 11:7, μή μοι κόπους πάρεχε. For the difference 
between μή with the present imperative and μή with the aorist 
subjunctive see Tenses and Modes. Cf. Mk. 13 : 21, μὴ πιστεύετε, 
with Lu. 12:11, μὴ μεριμνήσητε, and μὴ φοβεῖσθε with μὴ φοβηθῆτε 
(Mt. 10 : 28, 81). It is obviously natural for μή to be used with 
the imperative. For a delicate turn from οὐ to μή see Jo. 10 : 37. 
But Radermacher (N. 7. Gr., p. 171) cites οὐδενὲ ἐξέστω from an 
inscr. (Benndorf-Niemann, Reisen in Lykien und Karien, 129 N. 
102). : 

(v) The Infinitive. As we have already seen, the oldest Sanskrit 
inf. did not use the negative particles, and in Homer‘ οὐ appears to 
be the original negative. But there are a few instances of μή with 
the inf. in Homer. They occur when the inf. is used as an im- 
perative (cf. in the N. T. 1 Cor. 5:9; 2 Th. 3 : 14), for an oath, a 
wish or an indirect command. It is thus from the imperative and 
other finite modes that μή crept into constant use with the inf. 


1 Thompson, Synt., p. 499. a7 Ib: 
2 Ib., p. 495 f. 4 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 263. 


PARTICLES (AI ΠΑΡΑΘΗΚΑΙ) EEG) 


It came to be the normal idiom with the inf. outside of indirect 
assertion and in antithetical or emphatic phrases (see under οὐ). 
Thompson! challenges the statement of Gildersleeve: “‘Not. till 
the infinitive came to represent the indicative (in indirect state- 
ment) could οὐ have been tolerated with the infinitive.”’ Thomp- 
son adds: ‘‘But this toleration is established in Homer.” Just as 
we saw μή make inroads on ov in other constructions (cf. parti- 
ciples), so it was with the inf. Even in indirect statement μή 
came to be the rule (cf. the Atticist Lucian). Even in the Attic 
ov did not always occur with the inf. in indirect statement.? The 
facts as to the use of μή with the inf. in the N. T. have been 
already given (see Infinitive and Indirect Discourse). Cf., for 
instance, λέγουσιν ἀνάστασιν μὴ εἶναι (Mk. 12:18); ἀπεκρίθησαν μὴ 
εἰδέναι (Lu. 20:7). In short, Blass* says that in the Ν. T. “μή 
is used throughout.” That is not quite true, as we have seen, but 
the limitations have already been given under ov. Cf. Lu. 11: 42, 
ταῦτα δὲ ἔδει ποιῆσαι κἀκεῖνα μὴ παρεῖναι. Cf. 21:14. The use of 
μὴ λαλεῖν after οὐ δυνάμεθα (Ac. 4: 20) has already been noticed. 
Here μή retains its full value. We need not pursue the matter. 
Cf. rod μή (Ac. 21:12); πρὸς τὸ μή (2 Cor. 8 : 18); εἰς τὸ μή (4 : 4); 
διὰ τὸ μή (Mt. 18 : δ); τῷ μή (2 Cor. 2:13); ὥστε μή (Mt. 8 : 28), 
etc. The redundant:or pleonastic use of μή with the inf. has 
likewise come up for consideration under the Infinitive. In Lu. 
20 : 27 some MSS. read ἀντι-λέγοντες and thus μή is redundant 
after dvri-, but NBCDL do not have ἀντι--. Then in 22:34 
NBLT reject μή with εἰδέναι after ἀπαρνήσῃ. In Heb. 12:19 W. H. 
put μή in the margin after παρῃτήσαντο. But there is no doubt 
of the use of the redundant μή in the N. T. Cf. Lu. 17:1 ἀνέν- 
δεκτόν ἐστιν τοῦ τὰ σκάνδαλα μὴ ἐλθεῖν, (24:16) ἐκρατοῦντο τοῦ μὴ 
ἐπιγνῶναι αὐτόν. See also Lu. 4:42; 1 Pet. 3:10; Gal. δ : 7. But 
this pleonastic μή is by no means necessary (cf. Ac. 8:36; Ro. 
15 : 22). It does not usually occur with κωλύω in the N. T., but 
note Ac. 10:47, μή τι τὸ ὕδωρ δύναται κωλῦσαί τις τοῦ μὴ βαπτισθῆ- 
ναι; Here μή τι is the interrogative particle expecting the an- 
swer ‘no,’ while μή is redundant after κωλύειν. But in Ac. 24: 23 
μηδένα is not pleonastic. We do not have μὴ οὐ with the inf. in 
the N. T. Here (after οὐ) μή stands alone and is not redundant 
(cf. Ac. 4:20) or is redundant (20 : 20, 27), as the case may be. 
The use of μή and μὴ οὐ was not compulsory in the ancient Greek.* 
1 Synt.,p.414. 35 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 430. 


3 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 255. 
4 Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., pp. 324 ff.; Thompson, Synt., pp. 425 ff. 


1172 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(vi) The Participle. We have seen already how the oldest San- 
skrit did not use the negative particles with the participle. In 
Homer we have only one instance of μή with the participle (Od., 
IV, 684).1. But μή gradually made its way with participles even 
in Attic Greek. In the modern Greek μή has driven οὐ entirely 
from the participial use. In the N. T. od still hangs on, as we have 
seen, but that is all. The drift of the κοινή is for μή, and a writer 
like Plutarch shows 0.2. Μή is the usual negative of the participle. 
The details were given in connection with Participles. In the 
N. T. we need pay no attention to the Attic refinements on this 
point, which were not always observed even there. We have μή 
with the participle in the N. T. as a matter of course. Cf. Mt. 
12 : 30 ὁ μὴ ὧν and ὁ μὴ συνάγων, (1 Tim. 5:18) τὰ μὴ δέοντα, (Lu. 
4 : 835) μηδὲν βλάψαν, (Ac. 20 : 22) μὴ εἰδώς. In Mt. 22:11 ΤῸ and 
1 Pet. 1:8, a distinction, as was shown, seems to be drawn be- 
tween οὐ and μή with the participle. Cf. Mt. 18:25; Lu. 12: 
33: Jo. 7715: Ac.) 9% 93717 2 65eDe he oe ch Galm τ 
The downright denial of οὐ lingered on awhile in the κοινή (cf. 
papyri), but μή is putting od to rout. 

(vii) Nouns. The ancient Greek* used μή with substantives as 
ὁ μὴ ἰατρός (Plato, Gorg. 459 b), adjectives as of μὴ καθαροί (Ant. 
v. 82), or adverbs as τὸ μὴ ἐμποδὼν (Thue. ii, 45. 1). In the N. T., 
so far as I have noticed, μή with substantives and adjectives 
occurs only in contexts where it is natural. Thus in Lu. 10:4, 
μὴ πήραν, μὴ ὑποδήματα, we have just before μὴ βαστάζετε βαλλάν- 
τιον. In Jo. 13:9, μὴ τοὺς πόδας μου μόνον, we have no verb, but 
virte is to be supplied from the preceding sentence. Cf. also 
Eph. 5:15; Jo. 18:40. So in Ro. 12:11 μὴ ὀκνηροί is in the 
midst of participles used in an imperatival sense. In 1 Tim. 
3:3, μὴ πάροινον, μὴ πλήκτην, the construction is δεῖ εἶναι. This 
infinitival construction is carried on in verse 6 (in spite of the 
parenthesis in verse 5) by μὴ νεόφυτον. So as to verse 8 and Tit. 
1:7. There is no difficulty as to the use of μή in Col. 3:2 and 
PRAM is ea5 oF AF. 

(d) The Intensifying Compounds with Μή. The same story in 
the main that we found with οὐ is repeated with μή. There is 
no μηχί, but we have μήτι in this sense. The examples in the ~ 
N. T. are all in questions (cf. Mt. 7:16; Jo. 18 : 35) except one, 
εἰ μήτι (Lu. 9:18). The position of μή may give it emphasis as 
in Jas. 3:1 (ef. ob in Mt. 15:11). The use of the compound 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 263. 3 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 231 f. 
2 ‘Thompson, Synt., p. 255. 4 Thompson, Synt., p. 410 f. 


PARTICLES (AI ΠΑΡΑΘΗΚΑΙ) 1173 


negative as a second (or third) negative is simply to strengthen 
the negative as is true of ov. Cf. Mk. 11:14 μηκέτι μηδεὶς φάγοι, 
(Ac. 25 : 24) ἐπιβοῶντες μὴ δεῖν αὐτὸν ζῆν μηκέτι, (Ro. 13:8) μηδενὶ 
μηδὲν ὀφείλετε, (2 Cor. 18 : 7) μὴ --- μηδέν, ete. Besides μηδείς there 
is μηθέν (Ac. 27:33), unde in the sense of ‘not even’ (Eph. 5: 
3), μήγε (Mt. 6:1), μηδέποτε (2 Tim. 3:7), μηδέπω (Heb. 11:7), 
μηκέτι (Mk. 9 : 25), μήποτε (margin of W. H. in Heb. 9:17. Else- 
where in the N. T. a conjunction), μηδαμῶς (Ac. 10:14), μήπου 
(Ac. 27: 29), μήπῳ (Ro. 9:11), μήτιγε (1 Cor. 6:3), μήτις (2 
Th. 2:3). Μήπως is only a conjunction in the N. T. If μή is 
followed by οὐ as in 1 Jo.3:10, ὁ μὴ ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην οὐκ ἔστιν 
ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, the last negative retains its force. So vice versa in Ac. 
4:20. In Gal. 6:3 there is a sharp contrast between τὶ and 
μηδὲν (both neuter abstracts referring to a person.). 

(e) Καὶ μή. We saw that after a positive statement the nega- 
tive was carried on by καὶ od. So also we have καὶ μή as in Eph. 
4:26, ὀργίζεσθε καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε, and in Lu. 1: 20; 2 Cor. 12:21 
In Ac. 18:9 note μὴ φοβοῦ ἀλλὰ λάλει Kal μὴ σιωπήσῃς, Where 
a positive command comes in between the two examples of μή. 
In Jas. 3:14, per contra, μὴ κατακαυχᾶσθε καὶ ψεύδεσθε κατὰ τῆς 
ἀληθείας, the negative μή seems to cover both verbs connected by 
καί rather than μηδέ. Cf. also Lu. 3:14. We have instances 
also of καί connecting a clause with the conjunction μή ποτε (Mt. 
13:15; Mk. 4 : 12).1 In Lu. 14:29, ἵνα μή ποτε θέντος αὐτοῦ θεμέ- 
λιον καὶ μὴ ἰσχύοντος --- ἄρξωνται, We have μή ποτε with ἄρξωνται and 
μή with ἰσχύοντος. 

(7) Disjunctive Use of Μή. The simplest form of this con- 
trast is μή — δὲ as in Lu. 10 : 20, μὴ χαίρετε --- χαίρετε δέ. Then we 
have μή- ἀλλά as in μὴ τοῦτον ἀλλὰ τὸν Βαραββᾶν, Jo. 18:40; μὴ 
φοβοῦ ἀλλὰ λάλει, Ac. 18:9. We have μή --- πλήν in Lu. 23: 28. 
In Lu. 10:20 we really have μὴ ὅτι --- δὲ ὅτι. Moulton (Prol., 
240) does not find μὴ ὅτι in the N. T., but considers μήτιγε in p. 
1 Cor. 6:3 as tantamount to it. See Jo. 18:9 for μὴ μόνον --- 
ἀλλὰ καί. So Ph. 2:12. We need not trench further upon the 
conjunctions. 

3. COMBINATION OF THE Two NEGATIVES. 

(a) Μὴ οὐ. This is very simple. It is in the N. T. confined to 
questions where μή is the interrogative particle and οὐ is the nega- 
tive of the verb. Each negative thus has its own force, though 
it is a bit difficult to translate the combination into good Eng- 
lish. But it is good Greek. Moulton (Prol., p. 192) quotes 

1 Cf. W.-Th., p. 494. 


1174 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Plato’s Protag. 312 A, ἀλλ᾽ ἄρα μὴ οὐκ ὑπολαμβάνεις. Cf. also μὴ 
οὐχί in Jer. 23:24. So Ro. 10:18, μὴ οὐκ ἤκουσαν; We may 
render it ‘Did they fail to hear?’ expecting the answer ‘No.’ 
Paul repeats the same idiom in 10:19. See further 1 Cor. 9: 
Af.; 11:22. 1 Cor. 9:8 is not an instance, since wy comes in 
one part of the question and οὐ in the other. We do have μή 
πως οὐχ εὕρω after φοβοῦμαι in 2 Cor. 12:20, but here μή is a 
conjunction and οὐχ is the negative of εὕρω, both retaining their 
full force. The construction in 1 Jo. 3:10 is not pertinent. 

(b) Ov μή. The use of od — μή in Ac. 4 : 20 is ποῦ under discus- 
sion, nor the redundant μὴ after οὐ (Ac. 20: 20, 27), but only the 
idiomatic οὐ μή with the aorist subj. (rarely present) or occasion- 
ally the fut. ind. Cf. od μὴ φάγω, od μὴ πείνω in the boy’s letter, 
P. Oxy. 119 (111 a.p.). See Is. 11:9, od μὴ κακοποιήσουσιν οὐδὲ 
μὴ δύνωνται. Whatever the origin of this vexed problem, the neg- 
ative is strengthened, not destroyed, by the two negatives. We 
need not here recount the various theories already mentioned.! 
See Tense and Mode. Let it go at Gildersleeve’s suggestion that 
it was originally οὔ: μή. Moulton (Prol., p. 249) quotes Giles to 
the effect that this explanation was offered in the Middle Ages 
(the ancients have all our best ideas) and notes “in one if not 
both of the best MSS. of Aristophanes it is regularly punctuated 
οὔ: μή." In Mt. 13 : 29 we have ob: μή ποτε — ἐκριζώσητε Where μή 
is a conjunction. Gildersleeve notes that οὐ μή is more common 
in the LXX and the N. T. than in the classic Greek.2. But Moul- 
ton (Prol., pp. 187-192) will not let it go at that. ‘In the LXX 
ΝΘ is translated οὐ or οὐ μή indifferently within a single verse, as 
in Is. 5:27.” It seems probable that the force of οὐ μή has 
worn down in the LXX and the N. T. In the non-literary pa- 
pyri “οὐ μή is rare, and very emphatic,’ Moulton notes. He 
urges also that in spite of the 96 examples in the text of W. H. 
the idiom in the N. T. is as rare as in the papyri when the 13 
LX X quotations and the 57 from the words of Christ are removed, 
“a feeling that inspired language was fitly rendered by words of 
a peculiarly decisive tone.”’ But in these 70 examples the force 
of οὐ μή is still strong. Of the other 26 some are probably weak- 
ened a bit as in Mt. 25:9; Mk. 13:2; Jo. 18:11. It is only in 
the Gospels and the Apocalypse (64 and 16 respectively) that οὐ 
μή occurs with frequency. It is interesting to observe that on 
this point Moulton gets the Gospels and Revelation in har- 


1 Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., pp. 389 ff.; Thompson, Synt., pp. 431-488. 
2 Justin Martyr, p. 169. 


PARTICLES (AI ΠΑΡΑΘΗΚΑΙ) ΠΠ 70 


mony with the papyri by eliminating the 70 passages due to 
Semitic influence. Cf. Gildersleeve (A. J. P., iii, 202 ff.) and Bal- 
lentine (2b., xvili, 453 ff.). But Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 172) 
explains Mt. 24:21, ota — οὐδ᾽ οὐ μὴ γένηται, not as a Hebraism, 
but as a “barbarism” like the Wesseley Papyrus xxvi, οὐδ᾽ οὐ μὴ 
γένηταί μοι γυνή. He quotes also Pap. Lugd. II, p. 107, 9, ἐὰν 
θέλῃς γυναῖκας ob μὴ σχεθῆναι. Cf. ob μὴ ἀδικηθῇ (Rev. 2:11); οὐ μὴ 
ἔσται (Mt. 16:22). There is a climax in Rev. 7:16, οὐ --- οὐδέ 
— οὐδὲ μὴ πέσῃ. Even οὐ μή was not strong enough sometimes, so 
that we have οὐδὲ and οὐ μή in Heb. 13:5, οὐ μή σε ave οὐδ᾽ ob μή 
σε ἔγκαταλίπω. So also οὐδὲν οὐ μὴ ἀδικήσει (Lu. 10:19). In Mk. 
13 :2 we have ov μή in both the principal and the subordinate 
(relative) clause. 

IV. Interrogative Particles (ἔπερωτηκαὶ παραθῆκαι). It is not 
the mode that we have under discussion here, but simply the 
particles used in the various forms of questions.! 

1. SINGLE QUESTIONS. 

(a) Direct Questions. 

(i) No Particle at all. So συνήκατε ταῦτα πάντα; (Mt. 13: 51). 
So 13:28 and very often. Here the inquiry is colourless except 
as the tone of voice or context may indicate one’s attitude. In 
fact, most interrogative sentences have no interrogative word at 
Pie Gl ite do 22.30.07: 23; 15% 6; Ac. 21:37, ete: Hence it 1s 
sometimes a matter of doubt whether a sentence is interrogative 
omacclarative.» Cf. Jo. 16:31; Ro. 8 : 33; 14:22; 1 Cor. 1; 22; 
2 Cor. 3:1; Heb. 10:2; Jas. 2:4, etc. It may be doubtful also 
at what point the question ends. Cf. Jo.7:19; Ro. 4:1. Winer? 
rightly says that on this point grammar cannot speak. 

(ii) The Use of Negative Particles. ‘They are used to indicate the 
kind of answer expected. This subject has already had suffi- 
cient discussion. See under οὐ and μή. Οὐ expects the answer 
‘yes’ (cf. Mt. 7:22) and μή the answer ‘no’ (cf. Jo. 7:31). In 
Jo. 18:37 we have οὐκοῦν, according to W. H., which has lost its 
negative force, but οὔκουν would preserve it. Probably Pilate was 
hardly ready to go that far unless in jest. The use of μή varies 
greatly in tone. The precise emotion in each case (protest, in- 
dignation, scorn, excitement, sympathy, etc.) depends on the con- 
ae foe 4 29° G67 747 2473" Lu. 6:39; Ro. 10: 185 ἼΤΙ1. 
In Jo. 3: 10 the first part of the question has no negative and the 
second part has οὐ. 


1 Cf. W.-Th., pp. 508 ff.; Robertson, Short Gr., pp. 177 ff. 
2 W.-Th., p. 508. 


1176 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(iii) Other Particles. There are not many. There is ἄρα (akin » 
to root of dp-ap-icxw, ‘to join’), an illative particle which occurs 
with οὐκ as in Ac. 21:38, μήτι as in 2 Cor. 1:17, or with ris as in 
Mt. 18:1. This classic use is not strictly interrogative, but illa- 
tive in the interrogative sentence. But ἄρα, from the same root! 
with more vocal stress, is interrogative. Indeed, it is sometimes 
doubtful which accent is correct, as in Gal. 2:17, where dpa is 
probably correct. In Ro. 14:19, however, W. H. give ἄρα οὖν. 
We have dpa in Lu. 18:8 and dpa ye in Ac. 8:30. “Apa looks 
backward, ἄρα forward. But the accent is a question of edit- 
ing. The use of e in direct questions is either a Hebraism? or 
involves ellipsis. Cf. Mt. 12:10, εἰ ἔξεστι τοῖς σάββασιν θεραπεύειν; 
So also 19:3. It is common in the LXX (cf. Gen. 17:17) but 
is foreign to the old Greek. The classic Greek, however, did use 
εἰ in indirect questions, and this fact may have made it easier for 
the direct use of εἰ to arise. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 136) takes 
this εἰξεῆ. The N. T. does not use 7, but the papyri have it: 7 
μείνωι ἐν βακχιάδι; ἢ μέλί(λ)ω ἐντυνχάνιν; P. Fay. 137 (i/a.p.). So 
the question to the oracle. 

(iv) Interrogative Pronouns. The most common in the N. T. is 
τίς (ef. Mt. 3:7). Other words are frequently added, as ἄρα (24 : 
45); γάρ (9 : 5); οὖν (Lu. 83:10). The various uses of τί as adverb 
(Mk. 10:18, Lu. 16 : 2); with prepositions, as διὰ τί (Mt. 9 : 11) 
and eis τί (Mk. 14 : 4) or χάριν τίνος (1 Jo. 3 : 12); or elliptically, as 
τί ὅτι (Lu. 2:49) and ἵνα τί (Mt. 9:4), need not detain us. The 
double interrogative τίς τί appears in Mk. 15:24. Both ris and 
motos occur in 1 Pet. 1:11. For ποταπός see Mt. 8 : 27, and πό- 
cos see 15:34. We need not tarry longer on these elementary 
details. 

(v) Interrogative Conjunctions. These are common besides τί (as 
in Mk. 10:18). The possible exclamatory use of τί in Lu. 12: 
49=‘how’ is. sustained by the modern Greek τί xa\a=‘ how fine.’ 
Cf. ποσάκις (Mt. 18 : 21); πότε (25 : 88); aus πότε (17 : 17); ποῦ (Lu. 
8:25); πῶς (10: 26); πόθεν (Mt. 13 : 27), etc. 

(b) Indirect Questions. Here there must be either a pronoun 
or a conjunction. 

(i) Pronouns. The use of τίς (ri) is common. Cf. Mt. 6: 25; 
Lu. 9:46; Jo. 2:25; Ac. 19:32. We find é7t so used in Ac. 
9:6 and ἅ apparently so in 1 Tim. 1:7. Certainly ὁποῖος occurs 
in this construction (1 Cor. 8 : 18). The same thing is true of 


1 Jann. (Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 411) notes the pre-Attic ἦ ῥα. 
2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 260. 


PARTICLES (AI ΠΑΡΑΘΗΚΑΙ) ΤΥ 


ὅσος (Mk. ὅ : 19) and ὁποῖος (Jas. 1:24). Cf. also ποῖος (Mk. 11: 
29); πόσος (Mt. 27:13); ποταπός (Lu. 7:39); πηλίκος (Heb. 7: 4), 
and ἡλίκος in Gal. 6:11 (margin of W. H.) if this reading be ac- 
cepted. Cf. τί in Ac. 12:18. 

(ii) Conjunctions. ‘These are also common, as εἰ (Mk. 15 : 44); 
πόθεν and ποῦ (Jo. 3:8); πότε (Mk. 13 : 33); πῶς ΓΕ ΊΤΕΘΣ; 
ὅπως (Lu. 24: 20); ὅπου (ΜΚ. 14 : 14); μή ποτε (Lu. 8 : 15), ete. 

(c) Double Questions. These are rare. 

(i) Direct. There is no instance of πότερον ---ἤ. We do have 
τίς — ἢ (Mt. 9: 5; 23:17; 27:17), the later Greek caring little for 
the dual idea in πότερον. We more commonly have simply # 
with the second part of the question and nothing in the first, as 
in Lu. 20:4; Ro.2:3f. We may have ἢ οὔ (Mt. 22:17) or ἢ μή 
(Mk. 12:14). Sometimes we have simply ἤ at the beginning of 
the question with a reference to an implied alternative (1 Cor. 
9:6; 2 Cor. 1:17). This ἢ may come in the middle of the 
sentence as in 2 Cor.9:8. The ἤ may even precede τίς as in 
Mt. 7:9. | 

(ii) Indirect. 'There is one instance of πότερον --- ἤ in an indi- 
rect question (Jo. 7:17). 

V. Conjunctions (σύνδεσμοι). In the nature of the case much 
had to be said about the conjunctions! in the treatment of the 
Sentence and also Subordinate Clauses. The syntactical prin- 
ciples controlling both paratactic and hypotactic sentences have 
received adequate discussion. But conjunctions play such an 
important part in the language that it is best to group them 
all together. They connect words, clauses, sentences and para- 
graphs, and thus form the joints of speech. They have a very 
good name, since they bind together (con-jwngo) the various parts 
of speech not otherwise connected, if they need connection, for 
asyndeton is always possible to the speaker or writer. The point 
here is to interpret each conjunction as far as possible so that its 
precise function may be clear. 

1. Paratactic? Consunctions (σύνδεσμοι παρατακτικοί). 

(a) Copulative. Conjunctions which connect words and clauses 
are evidently later in development than the words and clauses. 
The use of conjunctions came to be very common in the Greek 
so that the absence was noticeable and was called asynde- 


1 The distinction between adv. and conj. is, of course, arbitrary. Conjs. are 
advs. just as the other particles are. Cf. Paul, Principles of the Hist. of Lang., 
p. 406. 

2 “Co-ordinating”’ is from co-ordino, to range together. 


1178 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ton.1 But it is a mistake to suppose that these connectives are 
necessary. One may fail to use them as a result of rapidity of 
thought as the words rush forth, or they may be consciously 
avoided for rhetorical effect. Cf. βλέπετε, βλέπετε, βλέπετε in Ph. 
3:2, with Tennyson’s “Break, break, break.”’ ΑἹ] this is entirely 
within the province of the speaker. Cf. 1 Cor. 3:12, χρυσόν, 
ἄργυρον, λίθους τιμίους, ξύλα, χόρτον, καλάμην. Cf. also 1 Cor. 13: 
4-7 where the verbs follow one another in solemn emphasis with 
no connective save one δέ. In the same way contrast may be 
expressed without conjunctions as in 1 Cor. 185 : 48 [2 In Luke 
and John there is a pleasing alternation of asyndeton and con- 
junctions. Cf. Gal. 5:22. The first conjunctions were the para- 
tactic or co-ordinating, since language was originally in principal 
sentences.2 The copulative (connecting) conjunctions are the 
simplest and earliest type of the paratactic structure. They 
simply present the words or clauses as on a par with each other. 
The primitive conjunctions were monosyllabic like καί, τέ, δέ. 

(i) Te. This word appears to be related to the Sanskrit ca, the 
Latin que (with labio-velar 4), and the Gothic —h.6 These words 
are all enclitic and postpositive. The Sanskrit is almost devoid 
of conjunctions which were so highly developed by the Greek 
and Latin, but ca is one of the few possessed by this ancient 
tongue.’ There is a striking connection between quis, que, quis-que 
and τίς, τέ, tis. The Thessalian dialect has xis for τὶς and κίσ-κε. 
We have ris τε in the old Greek. Te shows this double pronomi- 
nal origin in its use for and and ever (just like que, quis-que).® 
The indefinite use is distinctly Homeric. The use of ἐπεί re, ὅς τε 
was old Ionic and continued in Attic tragedy, as οἷός re did in 
Attic prose. Cf. Radermacher (N. 7. Gr., p. 5). Indeed, some 
scholars” hold that the correlative use (τέ --- re) was the original 
one, but this is doubtful. It seems certain that τέ indicates a 
somewhat closer unity than does xai. This close correlative use 
is certainly very old. Cf. σύ 7’ ἔγώ τε in Homer." In the N. T. it 
is rare except in the Acts, where it occurs some 175 times. It is 
common in all parts of the book and is thus a subtle argument 


1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 551. 


2 Cf. W.-Th., p. 538. 3 Brug., ἢ. 552: 
‘ Cf. C. Pitman, Conjunctions., p. 5 f.; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 261. 
5 W.-Th., p. 434. 6 Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 529, 541 f. 


7 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 417. 

§ Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 5380. Cf. K.-G., II, pp. 536 ff. 

9. Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 242. 

0 K.-G., II, p. 246. 1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 530. 


PARTICLES (AI ΠΑΡΑΘΗΚΑΙ) 1179 


for the unity of the work (we-sections and all). It is something 
additional, but in intimate relation with the preceding. We find 
τε alone as in Ac. 2:33, where ὑψωθείς and λαβών are united by 
te. Cf. also 10: 22, where again two participles are connected. 
In 23 : 24, κτήνη τε παραστῆσαι, the change from the direct to the 
indirect discourse is marked by ré, whereas xai is used twice before 
to join minor phrases. Te puts παραστῆσαι on a par with ἑτοιμά- 
gate... In the same way in 20:11 the first two participles are 
joined by καί and then both are related to the next by τέ. The 
same idiom occurs in Jo. 6: 18, where τε gives an additional item 
somewhat apart from the καί --- καί just before. In Jo. 4:41 καί 
-- τέ are not co-ordinate. Καί introduces the whole sentence 
and τέ connects the two parts. Cf. thus δέ --- rein Ac. 2:37. But 
7é— τέ is Strictly correlative. Cf. the Latin que— que, English 
as—so. See Ac. 2:46 where the two participles are co-ordinated. 
In Ro. 14:8 we have τε four times in succession with ἐάν. There 
are here two pairs of conditions. The parts of each pair are bal- 
anced carefully. The disjunctive εἴτε --- εἴτε (cf. 1 Cor. 12 : 26) is 
at bottom this same correlative use of re. So as to οὔτε --- οὔτε 
(Mt. 12 : 32) and pyre — μήτε (Ac. 27: 20). The use of τέ --- καί 
is also common where there is an inner bond, though no hint is 
given as to the relative value of the matters united. Cf. ἀρχιε- 
pets τε Kal γραμματεῖς (Lu. 22 : 66); ποιεῖν τε καὶ διδάσκειν (Ac. 1: 1); 
ἄνδρες τε καὶ γυναῖκες (8 : 12); ἐκινήθη Te — καὶ ἐγένετο (21 : 30); δι- 
καίων τε καὶ ἀδίκων (24:15); μικρῷ τε καὶ μεγάλῳ (26 : 22); “Ἑλλησίν 
τε καὶ βαρβάροις (Ro. 1: 14); Ἰουδαίου τε πρῶτον καὶ “EXAnvos (2 : 9), 
etc. For τὲ καί --- τέ see Ac. 9:15, and for τὲ καί --- re — καί 26: 
20. In Jo. 4:11, οὔτε --- καί, we really have the τέ --- καί (‘both — 
and’) construction. Cf. Latin non que—et. We even have οὔτε 
- οὔτε --- καί in Jo. 5:37 f. In Ac. 27:20 μήτε --- μήτε stand to- 
gether and both are parallel to τέ following. Per contra we find 
τέ --- δὲ in Ac. 19:2 and also 3. The manuscripts often vary be- 
tween τέ and δέ (cf. Ac. 3:10; 4:14, etc.). We have τὲ yap (com- 
mon from Aristotle on?) in Ro. 1: 26 followed by ὁμοίως τὲ καί. In 
Heb. 2:11 note τὲ yap — καί. As a rule τε stands after the word 
or words that are paralleled, but this is not always so. 

(ii) Kai. The etymology of this conjunction is disputed. Cur- 
tius? makes it the locative case of the pronominal stem κα--, xo—, so 


1 This classic idiom is a mark of Luke’s literary style. But in the κοινή re 
is on the retreat before καί. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 401. 

2 Cf. Hammer, De Té Particulae Usu Herodoteo Thucydideo Xenophonteo, 
1904, p. 92. 3 Gk. Etymology. 


1180 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


that it would ultimately come from the same root as τέ (que). 
It would thus mean ‘in this respect,’ ‘this besides.’ Brugmann! 
finds its original sense in κοινός, Latin co—, cum, Gothic ga. The 
idea would then be ‘together with,’ ‘in addition to.’ The Ar- 
kadian, South Achzan and Cypriote dialects use xas and κάΞε καί. 
Whatever the origin, it all comes to the same thing in the end. 
It is by far the most frequent of all the conjunctions or other 
particles in the N. T. It is so common in fact that Moulton 
and Geden do not list it in their concordance. This in itself is in 
accord with the later Greek idiom, as Thumb? notes in Aristotle 
and in the modern Greek and Moulton’ in the papyri. Moulton 
cites Par. P. 18, ἔτι δύο ἡμέρας ἔχομεν καὶ φθάσομεν eis Πηλούσι, as 
parallel to Mk. 18 : 25; Jo. 4:35. But there can be little doubt 
that the extreme fondness for parataxis in John’s Gospel, for 
instance, is partially due to the use of καί in the LXX for the He- 
brew 1 which ‘‘means a hook and resembles a hook in shape.’’4 
It was certainly used to “hook” together all sorts of sentences. 
There is not the same unity in the older Greek in the matters 
united as is true of re. Καί “connects in a free and easy manner’’® 
and the Hebrew 4 still more loosely. There are three main uses 
of καί which appear in the Ν. T. as in all Greek. 

The Adjunctive Use (‘Also’). 'This is possibly the original use, 
though one cannot tell. It is thus like the Latin et-iam, English 
too (to)=addition to something already mentioned, and is com- 
mon enough in all stages of the language.6 A good example of 
this use of καί is seen in Mt. 8:9, καὶ yap ἔγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι ὑπὸ 
ἐξουσίαν. The καί here points to Christ’s relation to the boy. 
The centurion, like a true soldier, does not say that he is a man 
who gives orders, but rather one who obeys them. He has the 
true military spirit and knows therefore how Jesus can cure the 
boy without going to see him. The καί is here very significant. 
Cf. οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς in Mt. 7: 12, where the Golden Rule is applied 
to Christ’s hearers by καί. Cf. Jo. 7:3 ἵνα καὶ of μαθηταί σου, 
(12:10) ἵνα καὶ τὸν Aafapov. This use of καί is more frequent in 
Luke than elsewhere in the N. T.? Cf. κἀγώ (Lu. 20:3); ἢ καί 
(Lu. 12:41); δὲ καί (12 : 54, 57); τὶ κα (1 Cor. 15:29); xai yap 
(Mt. 8:9); ἐὰν καί (Gal. 6:1); εἰ καί (2 Cor. 11:15); καὶ δὲ (Mt. 10: 


1 Griech. Gr., p. 542. 

2 Hellen., p. 129. 4 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 196. 
*\Prolatp. 12% δ᾽ Jann., Gk. Gr., p. 401. 

6 Cf. M. W. Humphreys, The Cl. Rev., 1897, vol. XI, pp. 140 ff. 
7 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 140. 


i i a i i με. 


PARTICLES (AI ITAPAOHKAT) 1181 


18); ὡς καί (Ac. 11:17); καθὼς καί (Ro. 18 : 7); οὕτω καί (Ro. 6 : 11); 
ὃς καί (Ac. 24:6, 8); ὁμοίως καί (Jo. 6:11); ὡσαύτως καί (1 Cor. 
11: 25); καθάπερ καί (1 Th. 8 : 12); διὸ καί (Lu. 1: 35); διὰ τοῦτο καί 
(Lu. 11:49); ἀλλὰ καί (24: 22), ete. So then καί in the sense of 
‘also’ occurs with nouns, pronouns, verbs, adverbs, conjunctions. 
It may refer to a word or a clause. Cf. ἄλλως τε καί, B. G. U. 580 
(i/A.p.). For the use of ὁ καί see the Article, and for σὺν καί see 
Prepositions. It is common for καί to sum up a sentence that 
precedes. For the relative and articular participle see the καί in 
the sentences in Mt. 5: 39-43. Here καί balances the principal 
and the subordinate clauses. So in the apodosis of a conditional 
sentence we find καί as in Jo. 14:7. Cf. Heb. 7: 26, where καί 
almost means ‘precisely,’ and Mt. 6:10, where it means ‘just so.’ 
Cf. Ro. 11:16. So with ἅ we find it in the apodosis (Jo. 5: 19). 
Cf. also after ὥσπερ in 15:26. Sometimes the καί seems to be 
redundant as in Lu. 11:1, καθὼς cai, or ws καί in | Cor.7:7. We 
may indeed have xai (‘also’) in both parts of the comparison, a 
studied balancing of the two members of the sentence as in Mt. 
18 : 33, καὶ σέ --- ws κἀγώ. So Ro. 1:18, καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν καθὼς καὶ ἐν τοῖς 
λοιποῖς ἔθνεσιν. See οἶδα καί --- οἶδα καί (Ph. 4:12). Vi 

The Ascensive Use (‘Even’). The notion of ‘even’ is an advance 
on that of mere addition which is due to the context, not to καί. 
The thing that is added is out of the ordinary and rises to a climax 
like the crescendo in music. Cf. Latin adeo. Cf. od μόνον, ἀλλὰ καί 
(Ac. 21:13; Ro. 18:5). This use of καί depends wholly on the 
context. Cf. Mk. 1:27, καὶ rots πνεύμασι τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις ἐπιτάσσει. 
(So Lu. 10:17). Cf. also καὶ of τελῶναι and καὶ of ἐθνικοί, Mt. 5: 
46f. See further Ac. 10:45; 11:1, 20; Gal. 2:18. The use of 
καὶ εἰ belongs here. (Cf. 1 Cor. 8 : 5.) 

The Mere Connective (‘And’). The difference between καί as 
‘and’ and καί as ‘also’ is very slight, whichever was the original 
idea. The epexegetic or explicative use of καί occupies a middle 
ground between ‘also’ and ‘and.’ Blass? treats it under ‘also.’ 
Cf. Lu. 3:18, πολλὰ καὶ ἕτερα παρακαλῶν, where the “connective” 
force of καί is certainly very slight. So also Jo. 20 : 90, πολλὰ καὶ 
ἄλλα σημεῖα. See further Jo. 1:16, καὶ χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος, where the 
clause is an explanatory addition. Cf. (Ac. 22: 25) καὶ ἀκατάκριτον, 
(1 Cor. 2 : 2) καὶ τοῦτον ἐσταυρωμένον, (Ro. 15 : 11) καὶ τοῦτο (Latin 
idque) which is our ‘and that too’ where we combine ‘and’ and 
‘also’ (‘too’) in the καί, (Heb. 11: 12) καὶ ταῦτα (frequent in ancient 

1 Cf. Deiss., ΒΗ; Hatch, Jour. of Bib. Lit., 1908, p. 142. 
2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 263. 


1182 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Greek). See in particular Eph. 2:8, καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν, where 
τοῦτο refers to the whole conception, not to χάριτι. The simple 
copulative idea is, however, the most common use of καί where 
words are piled together by means of this conjunction. Sometimes 
the connection is as close as with τέ. Thus 6 θεὸς καὶ πατήρ (2 Cor. 
1:3); καλῇ καὶ ἀγαθῇ (Lu. 8:15). But the words may be very 
loosely joined in idea, as of Φαρισαῖοι καὶ Σαδδουκαῖοι (Mt. 16: 1). 
Kai may be used to connect all sorts of words, clauses and sen- 
tences. Thus λέγω "Epxov, καὶ ἔρχεται (Mt. 8:9). The use of καί 
after the imperative is seen in Mt. 11:29. The chain with καί 
as the connective may go on indefinitely. Cf. the four examples 
in Ph. 4:9; five in Ro. 9:4; the six in Rev. 7:12 (so 5:12). So 
we have καὶ ὅτι three times in 1 Cor. 15:4 (καί to connect ὅτι 
clauses). In Rev. 12-16 every paragraph and most of the sen- 
tences begin with καί. In fact it is true of much of the Apoca- 
lypse. If one turns to First Maccabees, it is true even to a much 
greater extent than in the Apocalypse. In First Maccabees καί 
translates the Hebrew 1. But Thumb! has found this repetition 
of καί in Aristotle so that the Hebrew influence simply intensified 
a Greek idiom. We have noted the use of καί with τέ (τέ --- καί. 
Cf. Ro. 1:20). The use of καί --- καί is far more common in the 
sense of ‘both—and’ as in Ac. 2:29, καὶ ἐτελεύτησε καὶ ἐτάφη. 
Cf. Mk. 4:41; Ph. 2:13; Ac. 26:29. Sometimes the connection 
almost amounts to ‘not only, but also.’ In Col. 2:16 note 
kai — }. Cf. κἂν --- κἄν (Lu. 12:38). A. Brinkmann contends that 
in the papyri and late Greek κἄν is sometimes ‘at any rate’ 
and is never a mere link (Scriptio continua und Anderes, Rhein. 
Mus. LXVII, 4, 1912). In Lu. 5:36 we have xai— καί — καὶ οὐ 
(so Jo. 6: 36), and in Jo.'17.: 25 καὶ ob) — δὲ ---- καί. It is usual to 
have καὶ ov after an affirmative clause as in Jo. 10:35. Cf. καὶ 
μή in 2 Cor. 9:5. See Negative Particles. In Lu. 12:6 καὶ οὐ 
follows a question with οὐχί. Kai connects two negative sentences 
in Lu. 6:37. For οὔτε --- καί see Jo. 4:11. Sometimes καί be- 
gins a sentence when the connection is with an unexpressed idea. 
Children use “and” thus often in telling stories and asking 
questions. Cf. καὶ od ἦσθα in Mt. 26 : 70 (and 73) like Ht tu, Brute. 
See also Mk. 10 : 26, καὶ ris δύναται σωθῆναι. So also Lu. 10: 29; 
Jo. 9:36; 2 Cor. 2:2. Cf. also the use of καί in parenthesis as 
in Ro. 1:18, καὶ ἐκωλύθην ἄχρι τοῦ δεῦρο. The context gives other 
turns to καί that are sometimes rather startling. It is common 
to find xai where it has to bear the content ‘and yet.’ So Jo. 
1 Hellen., § 129. 


PARTICLES (AI ΠΛΡΑΘΗΚΑΙ) 1183 


3:19; 4:20; 6:49; 7:30; 1Jo.2:9. The examples are common 
in John’s Gospel (Abbott, Joh. Gr., pp. 135 ff.). See Jer. 23 : 21. 
In Mk. 4:4 note μέν --- καί. In 1 Cor. 10:21 we have οὐ — καί in 
contrast. Cf. also Mt. 3:14, καὶ σὺ ἔρχῃ πρός we; So also Ph. 
1:22, καὶ τί αἱρήσομαι. This idiom occurs in Plato, and Abbott 
notes a number of them in the Gospel of John. Cf.1:5; 2:20; 
12) 0:99} 01 2/7 ἢν» 825%, etc, In Lu 12324 Καί is almost 
equal to ἀλλά, that is, the context makes contrast. Cf. also Mt. 
6:26 (ob — καί) ; Mk. 12:12; Lu. 20:19; Jo. 18:28. Tholuck! 
so takes καί in Ro. 1:18 (the parenthetical καί). Sometimes καί 
seems imitative of the Hebrew 1 by almost having the sense of 
ὅτι or ἵνα (‘that’) as in Mt. 26:15; Mk. 14:40; Lu. 9:51; 12:15. 
In particular note καὶ ἔγένετο καί (as in Lu. 5:1, 12,17, etc.). In 
Mt. 16:6 observe ὁρᾶτε καί. So Lu. 12:15 and Mt. 26:15. In 
modern Greek xai has so far usurped the field that it is used not 
only in all sorts of paratactic senses like ‘and,’ ‘but,’ ‘for,’ ‘or,’ 
‘and so,’ but even in hypotactic senses for va or ποῦ, declarative 
and even consecutive (Thumb, Handb., p. 184). In Mk. 3:7 καί 
comes near taking the place of 6, for in the next verse there are 
five instances of καί co-ordinate with each other, but subordinate 
to καί in verse 7. Sometimes after καί we may supply ‘so’ as in 
καὶ λάμπει, Mt. 5:15; καὶ βλέπομεν, Heb. 3:19. See also Ph. 4:7. 
This is a kind of consecutive? use of καί. Cf. Lu. 24:18. The 
fondness for co-ordination in the Gospels causes the use of καί 
where a temporal conjunction (ὅτε) would be more usual. Cf. 
Mk. 15: 25, ἣν ὥρα τρίτη καὶ ἐσταύρωσαν (Lu. 23:44). But Blass? 
admits that this is a classic idiom. Cf. Mt. 26:45; Lu. 19 : 49, 
where καί drifts further away from the ancient idiom. Cf. also 
καὶ ἰδού in the apodosis, ‘and behold,’ as in Lu. 7:12. In 2 Tim. 
2:20 note καί followed by ἃ μέν -- ἃ δέ. In Ph. 4:16 note καί 
thrice (one= ‘even,’ two= ‘both — and’). 

(iii) Aé. This conjunction is generally ranked wholly as an ad- 
versative particle Monro® says: “The adversative δὲ properly 
indicates that the new clause stands in some contrast to what 
has preceded. Ordinarily, however, it is used in the continuation 
of a narrative.” As a matter of fact, in my opinion, Monro has 
the matter here turned round. The ordinary narrative use 
(continuative) I conceive to be the original use, the adversative 
the developed and later construction. The etymology confirms 

1 Beitr. zur Spracherklirung d. N. T., p. 35. 


2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 262. 4 So Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 407. 
5710: 5 Hom. Gr., p. 245. 


1184 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


this explanation, though it is largely conjectural. Brugmann! 
associates it with the aksl. Ze and possibly also? with δή and the 
enclitic ending —6€ (οἴκα-δε, ὅ-δε, roods-de), While Hartung* connects 
it with δύο, dis, and Biiumlein* with deb-repos. ‘The enclitic —de thus 
means ‘again,’ ‘back,’ while the conjunction δὲ would mean ‘in 
the second place’ or ‘a second comment’ or ‘an important addi- 
tion’ (67). But, however we take it, there is in the word no essen- 
tial notion of antithesis or contrast. What is true is that the 
addition is something new°® and not so closely associated in thought 
as is true of τέ and καί. I prefer therefore to begin with the narra- 
tive and transitional (copulative) use of δέ. Kiihner-Gerth® call 
this use of δέ for ‘something new’ (etwas Neues) copulative and 
give it separate discussion. Abbott’ has the matter correctly: 
“Tn classical Greek, δέ, calling attention to the second of two 
things, may mean (1) in the next place, (2) on the other hand.” 
The first of these uses is the original one and is copulative. The 
second is adversative. Abbott notes also that δὲ in both senses 
occurs in Matthew and Luke nearly three times as often as in 
Mark and John. Its use is mainly in the historical books of the 
N. T. It is so common there that, as with καί, Moulton and 
Geden do not give any references. A good place to note the mere 
copulative force of δὲ is in the genealogy in Mt. 1: 2-16 where 
there is no notion of opposition at all. The line is simply counted 
from Abraham to Christ. In verses 6 and 12 there are breaks, but 
the contrast is made by repetition of the names, not by δέ, which 
appears with every name alike. In Mt. 23:4 we have both 
uses of δέ. The first is properly translated ‘yea’ and the second 
‘but’ (adversative). See further 1 Cor. 4:7 (δὲ and δὲ καί) where 
there is a succession of steps in the same direction. So 15:35; 
2 Cor. 6:15 f.; Heb. 12 : 6; and in particular the list of virtues in 
2 Pet. 1:5-7. Sometimes a word is repeated with δὲ for special 
emphasis, as δικαιοσύνη δὲ in Ro. 3: 22 (cf. 9:30). A new topic 
may be introduced by δὲ in entire harmony with the preceding 
discussion, as the Birth of Jesus in Mt. 1:18 (‘Now the birth of 
Jesus Christ,’ etc.). The use of δὲ in explanatory parenthesis is 
seen in Jo. 3: 19 (‘And this is,’ etc.) ; 19 : 23 (‘Now the coat,’ etc.). 
For ὡς δὲ (‘and when,’ ‘so when’) in John see 2:9, 23. In John 


1 Griech. Gr., p. 547. 

2 Ib. Cf. also Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 410. Cf. Klotz ad Dev., II, p. 355. 
api outs 

πὶ Partin. aos $- IT, p. 274. 

6 W.-Th., p. 443. 7 Joh. Gr., p. 104. 


PARTICLES (AI ΠΑΡΑΘΗΚΑΙ) 1185 


as elsewhere it is sometimes not clear whether 6é is copulative or 
adversative. Cf. 3:1, ἣν δὲ. Is Nicodemus an illustration or 
an exception?! The resumptive use of δέ, after a parenthesis, to 
go on with the main story, is also copulative. Cf. Mt. 3:1; Lu. 
4:1. There is continuation, not opposition, in the use of καὶ δέ, 
as in Lu. 1: 76, καὶ od δέ, where δέ means ‘and’ and καί ‘also’ Cf. 
further Mt. 10:18; 16:18; Jo.15:27. In Jo. 6:51 we have xal 
dé in the apodosis of the condition in this sense. Aé is always 
postpositive and may even occupy the third place in the sentence 
(Mt. 10:11) or even the fourth (Jo. 6:51) or fifth (1 Jo. 2:2) or 
sixth (Test. xii, Patr. Jud. 9:1) as shown in chapter on Sentence. 
In accord with the copulative use of δέ we frequently have οὐδέ 
and μηδὲ in the continuative sense, carrying on the negative with 
no idea of contrast. Cf. Mt. 6: 26, οὐ σπείρουσιν οὐδὲ θερίζουσιν 
οὐδὲ συνάγουσιν. So also 6:28; Mk. 4:22, etc. In Jo. 7:5, οὐδὲ 
γάρ, we have οὐδέ in the sense of ‘not even’ as often (Mt. 6 : 29, 
etc.). In Mt. 6:15 οὐδέ means ‘not also’ (cf. also 21 : 27, etc.). 
All three uses of καί are thus paralleled in οὐδέ (merely οὐ δὲ). For 
μηδέ in the continuative sense see Mt. 7:6. It means ‘not even’ 
in 1 Cor. 5:11. For the repetition of continuative μηδὲ see 1 
Cor. 10: 7-10. In Mk. 14: 68, οὔτε οἶδα οὔτε ἐπίσταμαι (some MSS. 
ovk — οὐδέ), we come pretty close to having oe — οὔτε in the merely 
continuative sense as we have in οὔτε --- καί (Jo. 4:11; 3 Jo. 10). 
(iv) ᾿Αλλά. Here there is no doubt at all as to the etymol- 
ogy. ᾿Αλλά is a virtual proclitic (cf. ἔπι and ἐπί), and the neuter 
plural was ἀλλά (ἄλλα, ‘other things’). Biumlein? does take ἀλλά 
as originally an adverb. But in reality it is ‘this other matter’? 
(cf. ταῦτα and τοῦτο). In actual usage the adversative came to 
be the most frequent construction, but the original copulative 
held on to the N. T. period. It is a mistake to infer that ἄλλος 
means ‘something different.’ In itself it- is merely ‘another.’ 
Like δὲ the thing introduced by ἀλλά is something new, but not 
essentially in contrast.4 So the classic Greek used ἀλλὰ μήν in the 
emphatic continuative sense.’ Blass® observes that “the simple 
ἀλλά also has this force of introducing an accessory idea.’ Cf. 
2 Cor. 7:11, πόσην κατειργάσατο ὑμῖν σπουδήν, ἀλλὰ ἀπολογίαν, ἀλλὰ 
. ἀγανάκτησιν, ἀλλὰ φόβον, ἀλλὰ ἐπιπόθησιν, ἀλλὰ ζῆλον, ἀλλὰ ἐκδίκησιν. 
All these six examples are confirmatory and continuative. See 
further Lu. 24:21, ἀλλά γε καὶ σὺν πᾶσιν τούτοις, Where it is cli- 


1 Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 105. 4 K.-G., II, p. 286. 
2 Unters. tiber griech. Partikeln, p. 7. 1} 
83. Paley, Gk. Particles, p. 1. ¢ Gr ΟΝ 2. Gkiy pedo, 


1186 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


macteric, not contradictory. The story is carried on by ἀλλὰ 
καὶ ‘in -versé 22; Cif ‘also 2 Gort: 9. bu 5}; ἢ ῦυη 
Ph. 1:18, χαίρω, ἀλλὰ καὶ χαρήσομαι, the connection is very close. 
The most striking example of all is Ph. 3:8, ἀλλὰ pevotvye καὶ 
ἡγοῦμαι. In 2 Cor. 11:1, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀνέχεσθε, the tone of irony 
makes it doubtful whether to take ἀλλά as copulative or adver- 
sative. These and similar passages are not a dropping of the 
adversative idea, but merely the retention of the original copula- 
tive meaning. Abbott! sees that ‘it is hard to find a satisfactory 
explanation of Jo. 8 : 26” along the usual line. If one no longer 
feels impelled to translate by ‘but,’ the trouble vanishes. Just 
make it ‘now’ or ‘yea’ and it is clear. Abbott? likewise considers 
ἀλλά “inexplicable” in 4 : 23, because it has to mean ‘but.’ Cf. 
Jo. 16:2, ἀλλ᾽ ἔρχεται ὥρα, ‘yea, the hour comes.’ The same 
use of ἀλλά occurs also in negative sentences. In 1 Cor. 3:3, 
ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ viv δύνασθε after οὔπω ἐδύνασθε. In 4:3, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ after 
an affirmative clause. In Ac. 19:2, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽, the thought answers 
the preceding question and is probably adversative, as is possible 
in 1 Cor.3:3. The ἀλλά at any rate is negative like the οὐδέ. So 
as to ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ‘Hpwdns (Lu. 23 : 15). 

(b) Adversative. It should be stated again that not all of 
these conjunctions mean contrast (antithesis) or opposition, but 
the context makes the matter clear. The modern Greek keeps 
ἀλλά, ὅμως, πλήν, but not δέ and μέντοι (Thumb, Handb., p. 185). 

(i) Ae. In Jas. 1:13f. note the two uses of δέ (continuative 
and adversative). Sometimes the positive and the negative are 
sharply contrasted and then δέ is clearly adversative as in Mt. 
23:4, αὐτοὶ δὲ οὐ θέλουσιν. More obvious still is 6:14 f., ἐὰν ἀφῆτε 
— ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἀφῆτε. Cf. also 6:23. So μὴ θησαυρίζετε --- θησαυρίζετε 
dé (6:19f.). Cf. 1 Cor. 1:10, ete. The contrast may lie in the 
nature of the case, particularly where persons stand in contrast 
as in ἐγὼ δέ (Mt. 5: 22, 28, 32, etc.), σὺ δὲ (Mt. 6:6; 1 Tim. 6: 
11); ἡμεῖς δὲ (1 Cor. 1: 23); ὑμεῖς δὲ (Mk. 8 : 29); the common ὁ δέ 
(Mk. 1:45), of δὲ (Mt. 2:5); αὐτὸς δέ (Lu. 8 : 37), αὐτὸς δὲ Ἰησοῦς 
(Jo. 2: 24), ete. The contrast is made more manifest by the use 
of μέν (see Intensive Particles) as in Mt. 3:11. In 1 Cor. 2:6, 
σοφίαν δὲ οὐ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, an exception is filed to the preceding. - 
This adversative use of δέ is very common indeed. Cf. further 
Mk. 2.218; Lu. 5 75379 ΠΟΙ 3. 242 ΤΕΣ ΑἸ 2. 15 ΠΟ Ὁ od: 

(ii) ᾿Αλλά. Just as ἄλλος (ef. 2 Cor. 11:4) can be used in the 
sense of érepos (when it means ‘different,’ not merely ‘second’), so 

1 Joh. Gr., p. 100. 2 Ib., p. 99. 


PARTICLES (AI ΠΑΡΑΘΗΚΑΙ) 1187 


ἀλλά can mean ‘another’ in contrast to the preceding. With a 
negative the antithesis is sharp as in Lu. 1:60, οὐχί, ἀλλὰ κληθή- 
σεται Ἰωάνης. So Jo. 6:32, ob Μωυσῆς --- ἀλλ᾽ ὁ πατήρ (cf. 6 : 38). 
Cf. Mk. 9:37; 1 Cor. 15:37. In verse 39 of 1 Cor. 15 note 
ἀλλὰ ἄλλη μέν --- ἄλλη δὲ Where both ἀλλά and ἄλλη have the no- 
tion of difference due to the context. In 1 Cor. 9:12 note ἀλλά 
twice. In Mt. 15:11 οὐ begins one clause and ἀλλά the other. 
Cf. 2 Cor. 4:5, ob yap ἑαυτοὺς κηρύσσομεν, ἀλλὰ Χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν 
κύριον. So Mt. 5:17. In Lu. 12:51 note οὐχί, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ, and in 2 
Cor. 1 : 18, ἀλλά --- ἀλλ᾽ ἤ, a sort of pleonastic use of ἀλλά. This 
is a classical idiom.! Cf. also οὐ μόνον --- ἀλλά (Ac. 19 : 26) or 
ἀλλὰ καί (Ro. 5:3). See Negative Particles. For οὐχ ὅτι --- ἀλλά 
see Jo. 7: 22, for οὐχ ἵνα --- ἀλλά see 6:38. For ἀλλά γε in apod- 
osis see 1 Cor. 9:2, for ἀλλά Col. 2:5, for ἀλλ᾽ οὐ, 1 Cor. 4: 
15. Sometimes ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα may be elliptical as in Mk. 14:49; Jo. 
1:8. ’AAda alone may refer to an interruption in thought not 
expressed, as in Jo. 12:27. One of the most striking instances of 
ἀλλά occurs in Ac. 16 : 37, οὐ yap, ἀλλά, where οὐ yap means ‘not 
much’ with fine scorn (cf. καὶ νῦν; just before). Both Winer and 
W. F. Moulton (W.-M., p. 566) felt certain that ἀλλά never 
equalled εἰ μή, not even in Mt. 20: 23 and Mk. 4:22. But J. H. 
Moulton (Prol., p. 241) quotes Tb. P. 104 (i/s.c.), καὶ μὴ ἐξέστω 
Φιλίσκωι γυναῖκα ἄλλην ἐπαγαγέσθαι ἀλλὰ ᾿Απολλωνίαν, Where ἀλλά 
means practically ‘except.’ See also Gen. 21:26. Moulton sug- 
gests that, since εἰ μή (brachylogy) in Lu. 4: 26f.; Rev. 21: 27, 
means ‘but only,’ the same may be true of ἀλλά. 

(iii) Πλήν. Curtius gets it from πλέον (‘more’), but Brugmann? 
finds its original meaning to be ‘near by.’ At any rate it was 
a preposition (Mk. 12:32). Cf. Ac. 15:28, πλέον πλὴν τούτων 
where the two words exist together. Probably its original use 
as a conjunction is seen in the combination πλὴν ὅτι (Ph. 1: 18). 
It is chiefly confined to Luke’s writings in the N.T. As a con- 
junction it is always adversative (cf. Lu. 6 : 24; 12:31, etc.). In 
Mt. 26:39 note πλὴν οὐχ ὡς --- ἀλλ᾽ ὡς. The classical language 
used it as a preposition and with ὅτι, but Aristotle* shows the 
existence of πλήν as a conjunction which developed in the ver- 
nacular. Blass‘ notes that Paul uses it at the end of an argument 
to single out the main point. Cf. 1 Cor. 11:11; Eph. 5 : 33; Ph. 3: 
16; 4:14. 

1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 269. 


2 Griech. Gr., p.. 550. 
3 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 268. 4 Tb. 


1188 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(iv) Μέντοι. This word is a combination of two intensive par- 
ticles (μέν, rot), and is used to mean ‘however.’ Cf. Jo. 4 : 27; 
12:42. It occurs in the N. T. only eight times. 

(v) “Ὅμως. This word is even more rare than μέντοι. It occurs 
with two participles (1 Cor. 14:7; Gal. 3:15) and once with μέν- 
τοι (Jo. 12 : 42). 

(vi) Εἰ μή. This phrase marks an exception, as in Mt. 12:4; 
Jo. 17:12. We even have ἐκτὸς εἰ μή. (1 Cor. 14:5; 15:2; 1 Tim. 
5 749); 

(ὦ Disjunctives. Dionysius Thrax calls this construction σύν- 
θεσις διαζευκτικῆ. It was always possible to express alternative 
ideas without any conjunction (cf. the Latin nolens volens) or by 
copulative conjunctions (δέ, καί), a construction common in the 
vernacular! (cf. Hebrew 7). Dissimilar things may be united by 
καί as in Col. 3:11, but we do not have to take καί as being 4 or 
vice versa.” 

(i) Ἤ. Its origin from ἦέ (enclitic) is held by Brugmann.? They 
are equivalent in Homer. We may have just 7 as in Mt. 5:17. 
For ἢ καί see Mt. 7:10; Lu. 18:11. In the sense of ‘or’ 7 may 
be repeated indefinitely (Ro. 8:35). In Ro. 1:21 we have οὐχ--ἤ 
as in 4:13. See μήπω--- μηδέ--- 7 (Ro. 9:11). This use in negative 
clauses appears in Thuc. 1, 122, and later writers. In 1 Th. 
2:19 note ἢ οὐχὶ cai. In Mt. 21:23 we have καὶ τίς, while in 
Lu. 20:2 (parallel passage) the reading is ἢ ris. This does not 
prove καί and 7 to be synonymous. The logion was translated 
differently. The modern Greek retains οὔτε, μήτε and 4 (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 185). In 1 Cor. 11:27, ὃς ἂν ἐσθίῃ τὸν ἄρτον ἢ πίνῃ τὸ 
ποτήριον τοῦ κυρίου, some MSS. have καί, but ἤ is the true text. 
This, however, does not mean that some partook of one element 
and some of the other, but that, whatever element was taken in 
this way, there was guilt. The correlative use of ἤ --- 4 (‘either 
—or’) is also frequent. Cf. Mt. 6:24; 1 Cor. 14:6. In Ro. 6: 
16 note ἤτοι — 4. As a disjunctive we have πότερον --- ἤ in Jo. 
7:17 and 7—7—%4—7 in Mk. 18:35. For πρὶν ἤ see Mt. 
1:18; for ἤ after θέλω see 1 Cor. 14:19; after καλόν, Mt. 18:8; 
after χαρά, Lu. 15:7; for ἀλλ᾿ 4, Lu. 12:51. Radermacher 
(NV. T. Gr., p. 27) finds ἤ τοι --- ἢ, B. G. U. 956; ἤ τοι --- ἤ τοι, 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 406. 
2 W.-Th., p. 440. 
* Griech. Gr., p. 541. 


4 Cf. Margolis, The Particle 4 in O. T. Gk. (Am. Jour. of Sem. Lang. and 
Lit., July, 1909). 


PARTICLES (AI ΠΑΡΑΘΗΚΑΙ) 1189 


Vett. Val., p. 188, 11; ἦτε --- 4, I. G. XII, 2, 562, 5 (Roman 
time); ἤτε --- ἤτε, Quaest. Barth., pp. 24; 30. 

(ii) Etre — εἴτε (ἐάντε --- ἐάντε). These conditional particles are 
like the Latin sive — sive. Cf. 1 Cor. 10: 31, ere — εἴτε --- εἴτε. 
So 12:18; 14:7. We have εἴτε eight times in 3:22. In 14:7 it 
follows ἤ — ἤ in verse 6. For ἐάντε --- ἐάντε see Ro. 14 : 8. 

(iii) Οὔτε --- οὔτε (unre — μήτε). We have seen that there is noth- 
ing inherent in οὔτε to make it disjunctive. Cf. Jo. 4:11; 3 Jo. 
10. It is simply οὐ and τέ (cf. οὐ δέ), a negative copulative con- 
junction. In Rev. 5:3f. we have οὐδέ --- οὔτε (cf. Gal. 1 : 12) 
and the next verse οὐδείς --- οὔτε. In Ac. 24:12f. we have οὔτε 
— οὔτε --- οὔτε --- οὐδέ. Cf. Lu. 20:35 f. In Jo. 5:37. note οὔτε 
- οὔτε --- καὶ ov. In 1 Cor. 6:10 note οὔτε --- οὔτε --- οὐ — οὐ In 
Jas. 8 : 12 cf. οὔτε after question. A good example of the correla- 
tive οὔτε --- οὔτε is 1 Cor. 3:7. In Ro. 8:38 f. οὔτε occurs ten 
times. In Ac. 23:8 we find μή — μήτε --- pyre. This is also just 
a copulative negative conjunction (μή τε. In Mt. 5:34-36 we 
have μή — μήτε — μήτε — μήτε — μήτε. In 2 Th. 2: 2 we have 
μηδέ --- μήτε --- pyre. In Lu. 7:33 μή --- μήτε, while in 9:3 μηδέν 
is followed by μήτε five times. There is often some confusion 
in the MSS. between μηδὲ and μήτε, οὐδὲ and οὔτε. Blass! rejects 
οὔτε οἶδα οὔτε ἐπίσταμαι in Mk. 14: 68 (NBDL), but on whimsical 
grounds. 

(d) Inferential Conjunctions. It is not easy to draw a dis- 
tinction between “inferential”? and ‘‘causal.’”’ There is no 
doubt about ἄρα and οὖν. These are inferential paratactic par- 
ticles. What about yap? Monro? calls it causal. Kiihner-Gerth? 
treat all three as causal. Perhaps it is just as well to reserve 
the term “causal”’ for the hypotactic particles ὅτι, ἐπεί, etc. One 
has to be arbitrary sometimes. And even so these particles (apa, 
οὖν, yap) were originally just transitional or explanatory in sense. 
Blass‘ calls them ‘‘consecutive”’ co-ordinate conjunctions. 

(i) "Apa. The etymology seems to be clear, though not ac- 
cepted by all scholars. The root ap— (ap— ap— ἰσκω, ‘to fit’) suits 
exactly.6 It means then ‘fittingly, accordingly.’ Cf. our “ar- 
ticulate”’ (ar-ticulus). The word expresses some sort of corre- 
spondence between the sentences or clauses. It was postpositive 
in the ancient Greek, but in the N. T. it is not always so. Cf. 


1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 265. ΠῚ 51. 

2 Hom. Gr., p. 253. AIP, OLIN om Loe Cake tree ta 

’ Cf. K.-G., II, p. 317f., for the discussion of the theories. So Brug., 
Griech. Gr., p. 539. 


1190 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Mt. 12:28; Ac. 17:27. It occurs some 50 times in the N. T., 
in Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, Paul’s Epistles, and Hebrews. 
The original notion of mere correspondence is apparently pre- 
served in Lu. 11:48, ἄρα μάρτυρές ἐστε, ‘So ye are witnesses.’ Cf. 
also Ac. 11:18. In Mk. 11:13; Ac. 17:27, εἰ apa has the idea 
of ‘if haply.’ Klotz takes ἄρα to describe the unexpected and 
strange, something extrinsic, while Baumlein considers it a par- 
ticle giving point to what is immediately and necessarily conclu- 
sive. Most of the N. T. instances seem to be clearly illative. Cf. 
Mt. 17: 26f.; Ro. 7:21. It has ye added several times (cf. Mt. 
7:20; 17:26f.; Ac. 17:27). Paul is specially fond of dpa oty 
(Ro. 5:18; 7:3, 25, etc.). Once he has dpa viv (Ro. 8:1). “Apa 
occurs also in the apodosis (Mt. 12 : 28; Gal. 2:21). We have 
μήτι ἄρα in a question in 2 Cor. 1:17. 

(ii) Tap. There is no doubt as to the origin of this word. It is 
a compound of ye and ἄρα and is always postpositive. It is called 
σύνδεσμος αἰτιολογικός, but it does not always give a reason. It 
may be merely explanatory. We have seen that ἄρα itself was 
originally just correspondence and then later inference. So then 
γέ can accent as an intensive particle either of these ideas. It 
is a mistake, therefore, to approach the study of yap with the 
theory that it is always or properly an illative, not to say causal, 
particle. It is best, in fact, to note the explanatory use first. 
Thayer wrongly calls the illative use the primary one. The word 
is common in all the larger books of the N. T. It is least common 
in the Gospel of John and in Revelation. In Matthew and Luke 
it is much more frequent in the discourses and is rare in the strict 
narrative. In Mark and John it is about half and half.!. In gen- 
eral the N. T. use of γάρ is in accord with that of the classic period. 
The explanatory use is common in Homer.? The N. T. examples 
are numerous. Cf. Mt. 19:12; Mk. 5:42; 16:4; Lu. 11:30; 
18:32. Here the explanation follows immediately. Sometimes 
the explanation comes in by way of appendix to the train of 
thought. So Mt. 4:18, ἦσαν yap ἁλιεῖς. Cf. also Mk. 2:15; Ro. 
7:2. In questions we have good examples, particularly τί γάρ. 
So Mt. 27: 28, ri yap κακὸν ἐποίησεν; Cf. Ro. 3:3. In Ac. 16: 
37, οὐ yap, ἀλλά, we have to resolve yap into its parts and make 
the phrase=‘not much, but.’ In Jo. 9 : 30, ἐν τούτῳ yap, the man 
uses γάρ with fine scorn, ‘why, just in this,’ ete. In Jo. 19:6 
it is hardly creditable to Pilate’s common sense to take γάρ as 
illative. Cf. also Jo. 7:41; Ac. 19:35; Mt. 9:5. Τάρ sometimes 

1 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 102. 2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 253. 


PARTICLES (AI ΠΑΡΑΘΗΚΑΙ) 1191 


gives the major premise (Mt. 26: 52), more often the minor prem- 
ise (2 Pet. 1:15 f.), sometimes both (Jo.3:19f.). The purely 
illative use of yap is simple enough, though the force of the 
ground or reason naturally varies greatly. See Mt. 1:21, αὐτὸς 
γὰρ σώσει; (0 : 24) ἢ yap; (Ro. 8:18) λογίζομαι yap. Paul begins 
every sentence with yap in Ro. 8 : 18-24, For καὶ γάρ see Ro. 
11:1; 15:3. The precise relation between clauses or sentences 
is not set forth by yap. That must be gathered from the con- 
text if possible. Cf. Jo.4:44. Note yap — ὅτι in 1 Tim. 6: 7. 
(11) Otv. The etymology of οὖν is unknown. Brugmann! thinks 
it probable that it is derived from *6 ἐν or ὁ ὁν (ef. ὄντως, τῷ ὄντι). 
The Ionic also has ὧν (so Lesbian, Doric, Boeotian). But, how- 
ever that may be, it is important to note that the particle is 
not illative nor even consequential in Homer. It is merely a 
transitional particle relating clauses or sentences loosely together 
by way of confirmation. It was common in this sense in Homer, 
though rare in the Attic writers save in μὲν οὖν. But it is very 
frequent in the Gospel of John as a mere transitional particle. In 
this Gospel it occurs about 200 times, nearly as frequent as all 
the rest of the N. T., though it is rare in the other Johannine 
writings. In John’s Gospel, outside of 8 examples in the words 
of Jesus, the rest occur in the narrative portion.’ Abbott* seems 
puzzled over the many non-illative instances of οὖν in John and 
suggests that ‘the writer perhaps had in view the objections of 
controversialists.”’ But this is wholly gratuitous and needless in 
the light of the history of the particle. Probably a majority of 
the instances in John’s Gospel are non-illative as in Homer, the 
original use of the word.’ Luke preserves the literary Attic idiom 
by the common use of μὲν οὖν as in Ac. 15:3, 30, ete. But John 
boldly uses οὖν alone and needs no apology for doing so. It just 
carries along the narrative with no necessary thought of cause or 
result. It is, because of John’s free use, one of the commonest 
particles in the N. T. and is oftener in the narrative books than 
in the epistles. It is interesting in John to take a chapter and 
note when οὖν is merely continuative and when illative. Cf. ch. 
11, for instance, verses 3, 6, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 31, 32, 33, 36, 
38, 45, 47, 54, 56. So we start off again in 12: 1 with ὁ οὖν Ἰησοῦς 


1 Griech. Gr., p. 549. 3 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 165. 

2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 255. 4 Ib., p. 168. 

5 Cf. K.-G., II, p. 326. See also Weymouth, App. A, Rendering into Eng. 
of the Gk. Aorist and Perfect, 1894. 

6 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 272. 


1192 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(continuative). It is the commonest connective between sen- 
tences in this Gospel. We moderns do not feel the same need 
for connecting-particles between independent sentences. ‘The an- 
cient Greeks loved to point out these delicate nuances. The in- 
terrogative οὐκ οὖν occurs only in Jo. 18:37. A good instance of 
the purely illative use is in Mt. 3:8, ποιήσατε οὖν καρπόν. It is 
common in Paul’s Epistles (Ro. 5:1; 6:12, ete.). Paul is fond 
also of ἄρα otv (Ro. 8:12) and of zi oty (6:1, 15; 7:7; 8:31, 
etc.). Οὖν is always postpositive. 

2. Hypotactic CoNJUNCTIONS (σύνδεσμοι ὑποτακτικοί). The 
conjunctions used in the N. T. with subordinate clauses have been 
discussed and the constructions given in detail already. See 
Modes (Subordinate Clauses). The relative, temporal, compara- 
tive, local, causal, final and consecutive, apprehensive, conditional 
and declarative conjunctions make a goodly list. But it is not 
necessary to go over the same ground again. Most of these con- 
junctions, as previously shown, are of relative origin.! All are 
adverbs. It was necessary to treat at length the paratactic con- 
junctions which antedate the hypotactic in origin and were always 
exceedingly abundant in the vernacular. The hypotactic belong 
to the more highly developed speech, but one must not think that 
the hypotactic conjunctions regulate the construction of the sen- 
tence. They get their meaning from the sentence, not the sentence 
from the conjunction. The other view is a mechanical theory of 
language out of harmony with the historical growth of both mode 
and particle.2 Hypotaxis grew out of parataxis. This paratactic 
origin survives in many ways. Cf., for instance, the relative at 
the beginning of sentences, as ἐν οἷς (Lu. 12:1). So also ὅτι in 
1 Jo. 3:11f. The Greek is particularly rich in its subordinating 
conjunctions as compared with the Sanskrit and the Hebrew. 
Each subordinate clause possesses a case-relation toward the 
principal sentence as substantive, adjective or adverb, so that the 
sentence expansion is on the lines of the word-relations. In gen- 
eral the disappearance of the ancient Greek conjunctions from 
the modern Greek is noticeable. ‘Ozdére (ὁπόταν), ἄχρις, μέχρις, El, 
ἐφ᾽ ᾧ “have entirely disappeared”? (Thumb, Handb., p. 186). 
Thumb goes on with the story. We have as in σάν and ὥστε va= 
‘until.’ “Ὅτι is gone before ποῦ and va, though ὅπως has revived. 


1 On the relative origin of conjs. like ὅτι, ὅτε, ὅπως, ὡς, ἕως see yoo Le 
Pronom Relatif et la Conjonction, 1891, pp. 95 ff. 

2 Cf. Nilsson, Die Kausalsitze im Griech. bis Arist. See also Gildersl., Am. 
Jour. of Philol., 1907, Ὁ. 354 f. 


PARTICLES (AI IAPAOHKAI) 1193 


Na has greatly extended its functions. Some survive greatly 
modified, like ἀφοῦ, ἐάν, εἴτε --- εἴτε, ἐνῷ, ἐπειδή, πρίν, ὡς ποῦ (ews), 
ποῦ (ὅπου), προτοῦ, etc. The paratactic conjunctions are “pressed 
into service to form dependent clauses” as at the beginning. 
Parataxis turns into hypotaxis. 

VI. Interjections. Winer! considers interjections to be mere 
sounds, and so entirely outside of the sphere of syntax and in- 
deed of grammar. But one? of the imperatival forms (aye) is 
exclamatory in origin. Or is the interjection an imperative in 
origin? We see this form still used as an interjection in Jas. 
4:13. So also ἴδε in Jo. 1: 29, ἴδε ὁ &uvos τοῦ θεοῦ. Cf. δεῦρο (Mk. 
10:21), δεῦτε, (Mt. 11:28). Δεῦρο is very vivid in Jo. 11:48, 
Adfape δεῦρο ἔξω. ᾿Ἰδού is either used absolutely (Mt. 11:10) or 
with the nominative (Rev. 4:1) and is of frequent occurrence. 
Kai ἰδού is good Greek, but its frequency reminds one of the 
Hebrew idiom. We have ἔα in Lu. 4:34. Once οὐά occurs (Mk. 
15 : 29) with the vocative. So οὐαί is found with the vocative in 
Lu. 6:25. It is found absolutely in Rev. 18:10, 16, 19, οὐαί, 
οὐαί. ‘Twice it is used with the accusative (Rev. 8:13; 12:12), 
as the object of thought. Usually the dative is found with ovat 
as in Mt. 11: 21; Lu. 6: 24 f.; 11:42. The word occurs mainly in 
Matthew and Luke. Sometimes we have with the vocative 
assin Mt. 15:28; 4 γύναι. So Ac. 18:10; Ro. 2:1; -Gal. δὲ 1. 
There is usually some vehemence or urgency when ὦ is used. 
But not always. See Ac. 1:1;18:14. In Ro. 10:15 ὡς is an 
exclamatory particle, as τί is in Lu. 12:49. It is not quite true, 
therefore, to say that interjections le quite outside of gram- 
mar. Indeed, language may come from just these ejaculatory 
sounds, like “‘mama”’ with the babe. 'Tragedians* naturally use 
interjections more frequently. People differ greatly in the use of 
“Oh” and “Ah.’? The English audiences are fond of “Hear, 
hear,’ while the American crowds love to clap their hands or 
stamp their feet. Farrar‘ follows Scaliger and Destutt de Tracy 
in regarding them as words par excellence and as having high 
linguistic importance. Grammar can deal with emotion as well 
as with thought. 


1 W.-Th., p. 356. 2 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 171 f. 
8 Miiller, De interjectionum apud Sophoclem, Euripidem que Usu, 1885, p. 3. 
4 Gk. Synt., p. 201. | 


CHAPTER XXII 


FIGURES OF SPEECH (rOPTIEIA 2XHMATA) 


I. Rhetorical, not Grammatical. Strictly speaking there is no 
need to go further in the discussion of the points of syntax. There 
are various matters that the grammars usually discuss because 
there is no N. T. rhetoric. These points belong to language in 
general, though in some of them the Greek has turns of its own. 
Each writer has, besides, his own style of thought and speech. 
See discussion in chapter IV. Under The Sentence we have 
already discussed the ellipsis (of subject, predicate or copula), 
matters of concord, apposition, the position of words (emphasis, 
euphony, rhythm, poetry, prolepsis, ὕστερον πρότερον, postpositive 
words, hyperbaton, order of clauses), simple and compound sen- 
tences, connection between words (polysyndeton and asyndeton), 
connection between clauses and sentences (paratactic and hypo- 
tactic) and asyndeton again, running and periodic style, parenthe- 
sis, anacoluthon, oratio variata, connection between paragraphs. 
These matters call for no further comment. They could have 
been treated at this point, but they seemed rather to belong to 
the discussion of sentences in a more vital way than the remain- 
ing rhetorical figures. For attraction and incorporation see 
Cases and Relative Pronouns. The points now to be discussed 
have not so much to do with the orderly arrangement (ctvOects)! 
as with the expression and the thought. 

II. Style in the N. T. The characteristics of the N. T. writers 
received treatment in chapter IV. The precise question here is 
whether the writers of the N. T. show any marks of rhetorical 
study. We have seen already (The Sentence, Rhythm) that the 
scholars are divided into two camps on this subject. Blass? 
(but not Debrunner) argues that Paul’s writings and the Epistle 
to the Hebrews show the influence of the rules of rhythm of the 
literary prose of Asia (Asianism) and Rome (Pausanias, Cicero, 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 295. 
2 Die Rhythmen der asianischen und rémischen Kunstprosa, 1905. 
1194 


FIGURES OF SPEECH (TOPrIEIA =XHMATA) 1195 


Curtius, Apuleius). Deissmann! will have none of it. It is a 
pretty quarrel and, as usual, there is truth in both views. One 
must get his bearings. We can all agree with Blass? at once 
that the N.T. writers are not to be compared on this point with 
the literary masters of Attic prose, but with writers like Polybius. 
We are surely not to look for the antithetic style of the Attic 
orators (Isocrates, Lysias, Demosthenes).? If there is sxsthetic 
beauty in 1 Cor. 13 or Heb. 11, it may be the natural esthetic 
of Homer’s rhapsodies, not the artificialities of Isocrates. Blass* 
admits the poverty of the Oriental languages in the matter of 
periods and particles and does not claim that the N. T. writers 
rose above the O. T. or rose to the level of Plato. And yet 
Norden in his Antike Kunstprosa claims that in his best diction 
Paul rises to the height of Plato in the Phadrus. Wilamowitz- 
Mollendorff likewise calls Paul ‘a classic of Hellenism.” Sir 
W. M. Ramsay is a stout advocate for the real Hellenic influence 
on Paul’s life. But Ramsay scouts the word “rhetoric”’ in con- 
nection with Paul: “I can hardly imagine that one who had ever 
experienced the spell of Paul could use the word rhetoric about 
the two examples which he mentions from First Corinthians, and 
Romans.”’* There was in Paul’s time artificial rhetoric with 
which Paul evidently had no connection, nor did any of the writers 
of the N. T. One cannot believe that Paul, for instance, studied 
at one of the famous schools of rhetoric nor that he studied 
the writings of the current rhetoricians. This much may be 
freely admitted about’ all of the N. T. writers, who wrote in 
the language of the people, not of the schools. Deissmann? 
correctly says: “The history of Christianity, with all its wealth 
of incident, has been treated much too often as the history 
of the Christian literary upper class, the history of theologians 
and ecclesiastics, schools, councils and parties, whereas Chris- 
tianity itself has often been most truly alive in quarters remote 


1 Theol. Lit., 1906, p. 434; The Expositor, 1908, p. 74. See also his St. 
Paul (1912). 

2 Hermeneutik und Kritik, 1892, p. 198. The true grammarian is but too 
willing to see the other point of view. Cf. Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, 
p. 266. 

8. Hahne, Zur sprachl. Asthetik der Griech., 1896, p. 4. 

4 Hermeneutik und Kritik, p. 198. 

5 Cf. the controversy between him and Principal Garvie in The Expositor 
for 1911 anent Garvie’s book, Studies of Paul and His Gospel (1911). 

6 The Expositor, Aug., 1911, p. 157. 

T Light from the Ancient East, p. 404. 


1196 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


from councils.”’ This is all pre-eminently true and we must never 
forget that Jesus was a carpenter, John a fisherman and Paul 
a tentmaker. And yet Deissmann! himself will say of John: 
“St, John has no liking for progress along an unending straight 
road; he loves the circling flight, like his symbol, the eagle. 
There is something hovering and brooding about his production; 
repetitions are in no wise abnormal with him, but the marks 
of a contemplation which he cherishes as a precious inheritance 
from St. Paul and further intensifies.” There is a perfection of 
form in the Parables of Jesus that surpasses all the rules of the 
grammarians and rhetoricians. The eagle flight of John makes 
the cawing of the syntactical crows pitiful. The passion of Paul 
broke through all the traditional forms of speech. He lacked 
the punctilious refinements? of the Stoic rhetoricians, but he had 
the cyclonic power of Demosthenes and the elevation of Plato. 
Even Blass? sees that “the studied employment of the so-called 
Gorgian assonances is necessarily foreign to the style of the N. T., 
all the more because they were comparatively foreign to the whole 
period; accident, however, of course produces occasional instances 
of them, and the writer often did not decline to make use of any 
that suggested themselves.’”’? This would seem modest enough to 
satisfy Deissmann. In particular Blass* notes “the absence of 
rhetorical artifice in the Johannine speeches.”’ He finds little of 
that nature in Mark and Luke. “But in Matthew there really 
is some artistic sense of style,” but it is ‘‘mainly drawn from 
Hebrew and not from Greek.” The many quotations in this 
Gospel show a close use of the LX X and the Hebrew O. T. And 
yet, on the whole, the Greek runs smoothly enough. Ké6nig has 
a valuable article on ‘“‘Style of Scripture” in the Extra Volume of 
Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, but he deals mainly with the 
O.T. There is in truth little that is distinctive in the style of 
the N. T. apart from the naturalness, simplicity, elevation and 
passion of the writers. It is only in the Epistle to the Hebrews 
that Blass® finds “‘the care and dexterity of an artistic writer” 
as shown by his occasional avoidance of hiatus, but even here 
Blass has to strain a point to make it stick. Bultmann® draws a 
definite parallel between the style of Paul and the Cynic-Stoic 


1 Light from the Anc. East, p. 410. 

2 J. Weiss, Beitr. zur paulinischen Rhetorik, 1897, p. 168. 

8. Gr. of IN. VE. Gkyn) 298; 

4 Ib., p. 302. 5 Tb. p. 296. ; 
6 Der Stil der paulinische Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe, 1910. 


FIGURES OF SPEECH (rOPrIEIA ΣΧΗΜΑΤΑ) 1197 


Diatribe and makes his point, but even so one wonders if after 
all Paul uses question and answer so skilfully by reason of definite 
study of the subject or because of his dialectical. training as a 
rabbi and his native genius in such matters. It is per se, how- 
ever, entirely possible that Paul knew the common Stoic dialectic 
also as he did the tenets of current Stoicism (cf. Paul’s work in 
Athens). The examples of figures of speech in the N. T. are due 
to the nature of speech in general, to the occasional passion! of 
the writer, to the play of his fancy, to unconscious expression 
of genius, to mere accident. We must not make the mistake of 
rating men like Luke, Paul, James and the author of Hebrews as 
boorish and unintellectual. They lived in an age of great culture 
and they were saturated with the noblest ideas that ever filled 
the human brain. As men of genius they were bound to respond 
to such a situation. They do show a distinct literary flavour as 
Heinrici? has so well shown. In 1 Cor. 13 we have finish of form 
and thought. Even John, called ἀγράμματος καὶ ἰδιώτης (Ac. 4 : 13), 
rose to the highest planes of thought in his Gospel. Deissmann 
in his St. Paul goes to the extreme of making Paul a mere man of 
affairs devoid of theological culture, — an untenable position in 
view οἱ Acts and Paul’s Epistles when he says: ‘ His place is with 
Amos, the herdsman of Tekoa, and Tersteegen, the ribbon-weaver 
of Miilheim” (p. 6). We may brush aside the artificial rules of 
Gorgias as too studied efforts for the N. T. Indeed, the men of the 
time had largely refused to follow the lead of Gorgias of Sicily, 
though his name clung to the figures of speech. His mannerisms 
were not free from affectation and pedantry.* The Attic orators of 
the fourth century B.c. had their own rules for easy and flexible 
practical speech. The writers and speakers of the later time 
modified these in their own way. We are not concerned here to 
follow Blass‘ in his effort to prove that Paul and the writer of 
Hebrews were students of the current rhetoricians. This we fail 
to see, but we do see that the language of the N. T. was a living 
organism and exhibits many of the peculiarities of human speech 
which the rhetoricians have discussed. For convenience, therefore, 
we adopt their terminology. 


1 Norden (Die ant. Kunstprosa, Bd. II, p. 508) speaks of Paul’s use of rhe- 
torical figures as due to his “Ton.” Heinrici (Zum Hellen. ἃ. Paulus, Komm. 
zu II Kor.) sees Paul’s “Eigenart.”’ 

2 Der literarische Charakter d. neut. Schriften, 1908. 

Gr. of Neil Gk! p. 295: 

4 Die Rhythmen der asianischen und rémischen Kunstprosa, 1905. 


1198 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Ill. Figures of Idea or Thought (σχήματα διανοίας). Blass! 
observes that these figures of thought belong more to the later 
period of Attic oratory. Some of them are distinctly rhetorical 
in character, as the rhetorical question of which Paul makes 
abundant use, especially in the Epistle to the Romans. Blass? 
makes a good critique of such questions as showing dialectical 
liveliness and perspicuity, as in Ro. 3:1 τί οὖν τὸ περισσὸν τοῦ 
Ἰουδαίου; (4:10) πῶς οὖν ἐλογίσθη; ἐν περιτομῇ ὄντι ἢ ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ; 
This is quite like the diatribe in Epictetus and other κοινή writers 
(Radermacher, N. 7. Gr., p. 182). Cf. 1 Cor. 7: 18 ff. Other ques- 
tions are quite emotional, as in 2 Cor. 11: 22. In Ro. ὃ : 31-35 we 
have a “brilliant oratorical passage,” worthy of any orator in the 
world. There are others almost equal to it, Ro. 6, 7, 9, 10, 11; 
1, Cor. 3, 4, 8, 9, 12, 18, 15; 2 Cor. 2, 8, 4, 5,8, 10, 11,13: Here 
we have oratory of the highest kind with the soul all ablaze with 
great ideas. The words respond to this high environment and 
are all aglow with beauty and light. Certainly the Epistle to 
Hebrews is oratory of the highest order, as are the addresses in 
Acts. Blass? thinks that Luke is distinctly “unprofessional (idio- 
tisch)”’ in his manner of presenting the great speeches in Acts, 
ἰδιωτικὴ φράσις, Not τεχνικὴ φράσις. That is true, but one would 
have a martinet spirit to cavil at the word eloquence here. The 
discourses of Jesus in Matthew, Luke and John are above all 
praise in content and spirit. One cannot think that Jesus was a 
technical student of rhetoric, but he sang with the woodrobin’s 
note, and that far surpasses the highest achievement of the best 
trained voice whose highest praise is that she approaches the 
woodrobin or the nightingale. There is perfection of form in the 
thoughts of Jesus whether we turn to the Sermon on the Mount 
in Matthew, the Parables in Luke 15, or the Discourses in the 
Upper Room and On the Way to Gethsemane in John 14-17. 
The style of the reporters does not conceal the consummate skill 
of Christ as the ‘“‘Master Preacher” of the ages. 

There is undoubted use of irony (εἰρωνεία) in the N. T. We see it 
in the words of Jesus. See the high scorn in καὶ ὑμεῖς πληρώσατε τὸ 
μέτρον τῶν πατέρων ὑμῶν (Mt. 23 : 32). This is the correct text, not 
πληρώσετε. SO also καλῶς ἀθετεῖτε τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ (Mk. 7:9) and 
ὅτι οὐκ ἐνδέχεται προφήτην ἀπολέσθαι ἔξω ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ (Lu. 13 : 33). 


τ Gre of NSE Gk pols: 

2 Ib. The “Terminology of Grammar” is not fixed like the laws of the 
Medes and Persians. Cf. Rep. of the Joint Com. on Gr. Terminol., 1911. 

* Gr. ΟΝ ΤΣ Gk. pesvb: 


FIGURES OF SPEECH (TOPIIEIA =XHMATA) 1199 


There is more of it in Paul’s writings. Cf. 1 Cor. 4:8; 2 Cor. 
11:19 f.; 12:13; Ro. 11:20. There was never a more nimble 
mind than that of Paul, and he knew how to adapt himself to 
every mood of his readers or hearers without any sacrifice of 
principle. It was no declaimer’s tricks, but love for the souls of 
men that made him become all things to all men (1 Cor. 9 : 22). 
He could change his tone because he loved the Galatians even 
when they had been led astray (Gal. 4: 20). The rhetoricians call 
it prodiorthosis, as in 2 Cor. 11:21, ἐν ἀφροσύνῃ λέγω (ef. also 11: 
1f., 16 f., 23) and epidiorthosis, as in Ro. 8 : 5, κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω. 
Cf. also 1 Cor. 7:3; 12:11; Ro. 8:34; Gal. 4:9. So Paul uses 
paraleipsis, as in 2 Cor. 9:4, μή πως καταισχυνθῶμεν ἡμεῖς, ἵνα μὴ 
λέγωμεν ὑμεῖς, instead of μή ποτε καταισχυνθῆτε. As Blass! suggests, 
Paul’s innate delicacy of feeling makes him take the reproach 
on himself. Cf. also Phil. 19, ἵνα μὴ λέγω ὅτι καὶ σεαυτόν μοι προσο- 
φείλεις. So in Ro. 7:4 Paul says καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐθανατώθητε τῷ νόμῳ 
rather than bluntly assert καὶ ὁ νόμος ἀπέθανεν (or ἐθανατώθη). There 
is sometimes a lack of parallelism (heterogeneous structure). Cf. 
1 Jo. 2:2, ἱλασμὸς περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, ob περὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων 
μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου, instead of τῶν ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου. Cf. 
also Ph. 2:22, πατρί --- σὺν euoi. Cf. περιπατεῖν καὶ ἀσπασμούς in 
Mk. 12 : 88 f., τὴν μένουσαν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν ἔσται in 2 Jo. 2. 

IV. Figures of Expression (σχήματα λέξεως). What Winer? 
calls “Broken and Heterogeneous Structure” (anacoluthon, oratio 
variata) has had sufficient discussion under The Sentence. So as 
to asyndeton. There remain a number of other points which may 
be grouped for convenience. 

(a) PARALLELS AND Contrasts (Parallelismus membrorum). 
There are many illustrations of this idiom in the N. T., both in 
the Gospels and Epistles. The O.'T. is full of such words and 
phrases, particularly in the Psalms. One who read these hymns 
much would naturally have his eye and ear trained to this form 
of rhythm. We do not need to see conscious effort at poetry, 
though in 1 Tim. 8 : 16 we probably have a fragment of an early 
Christian hymn. The Hebrew parallelism is manifest in Lu. 1: 
42-45 (the song of Elizabeth), 46-56 (the song of Mary), and 
68-79 (the song of Zacharias), 2 : 29-32 (the song of Simeon). 
One does not have to go to the Greek rhetoricians. The spirit of 
rhapsody here shown is due to the Spirit of God moving the heart 
and stirring the highest impulses of the soul. There are other 
examples of primitive Christian song in the N. T., as in Eph. 5: 

1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 304. 2 W.-Th., p. 566. 


1200 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


14; Jude 24f.; Rev. 5: 12-14, and often in this book. There is 
_ the perfection of poetic form in the noble prose in 1 Cor. 13; 15: 
54-7; Col. 1: 10-12. One hesitates to think that this use of 
antithesis or parallelism is artificial even if it is conscious. This 
parallelism may be synonymous (Mt. 10 : 26; Jo. 1: 17; Ro. 11:33) 
or antithetic (Jo. 3:6; Ro. 2:7).!. There are also examples of 
Chiasm or Reverted Parallelism (from the letter X) as in Phile- 
mon 5, τὴν ἀγάπην καὶ THY πίστιν ἣν ἔχεις εἰς τὸν κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν καὶ εἰς 
πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους.. So Mt. 7 ΟΣ Ph.1:15f.; 1 Th. 5:6; Ph. 3: 102 
I doubt very much if Paul was at all conscious of the stilted paral- 
lelism that Blass* sees in 1 Cor. 1: 25 ff. with anaphora (the first 
words alike) as in οὐ πολλοί---οὐ πολλοί, or antistrophe (the last words 
alike) as in τοῦ θεοῦ--- τοῦ θεοῦ--- τῶν ἀνθρώπων --- τῶν ἀνθρώπων, Or sym- 
ploce (both alike) as in ἐξελέξατο ὁ θεὸς ἵνα καταισχύνῃ, ἐξελέξατο ὁ θεὸς 
ἵνα καταισχύνῃ. Cf. Heb. 2:16. The manuscripts vary a deal in 1 
Cor. 1: 25 ff., and Blass has to juggle the text in order to make 
it come out in “rounded periods of three sections.” What 
if this finesse was praised by dilettante rhetoricians when they 
found it in Demosthenes or Cicero? Surely Paul was not a 
“stylist”? of the fashion of Cicero nor even of Demosthenes. 
Perhaps no orator ‘‘would have regarded the eloquence of this 
passage with other feelings than those of the highest admiration.” 
Doubtless so, but for the passion and force, not for the mere 
word-play. Just so the three poetical quotations (Ac. 17: 28; 
1 Cor. 15 : 33; Tit. 1 : 12) do not justify straining after accidental 
lines in Ac. 23: 5; Jas. 1:17; Heb. 12: 12f., or elsewhere. Blass+ 
is so fond of finding poetic parallelism in the Gospels that he 
actually makes it tilt the scales against the best manuscripts 
in some passages as in Mt. 5:45; 7:13 f.; 25:35. This seems 
much like ezsegesis. 

(b) Conrrasts In Worps. There is the solemn repetition of 
a word with powerful effect (the epanadiplosis of the rhetoricians), 
but Blass does not claim this as a rhetorical device in the N. T. 
It is natural to strong emotion. Cf. ἐπιστάτα ἐπιστάτα (Lu. 8 : 24); 
κύριε κύριε (Mt. 25:11); σταύρωσον σταύρωσον (Jo. 19:6); Rev. 18: 2, 
ἔπεσεν ἔπεσεν. See Ph. 3:2. Cf. also the two hours of shouting in 
Ac. 19:34. Climax is as old as Homer. This is again a perfectly 
natural method of emphasis. Cf. the links in the list of virtues 
in 2 Pet. 1: 5-7. See also Ro. 5:3-5; 10:14. There is a cumu- 
lative force in the repetition. Per contra, zeugma puts together 


1 W.-Th., p. 639. =" Gr, of Ne ΓΟ pn. ou & 
2 Green, Handb. to N. T. Gk., p. 355. 4 Ib.; p.302. 


FIGURES OF SPEECH (fOPrIEIA =XHMATA) 1201 


words that do not properly go together, as in 1 Cor. 3:2, γάλα 
ὑμᾶς ἐπότισα, ov βρῶμα. So also Lu. 1:64, ἀνεῴχθη τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ 
παραχρῆμα καὶ ἡ γλῶσσα αὐτοῦ. (ΟἿ. 1 ΤΊ. 4:8. This construc- 
tion is usually explained as elliptical, one verb (as above) being 
used where two are necessary for the full statement. Kihner- 
Gerth! treat it as a species of brachylogy.. The use of synonyms 
is not absent in the N. T., though not in the richness of the classic 
idiom. Cf. Lu. 8:15, ἐν καρδίᾳ καλῇ καὶ ἀγαθῇ, and the use of aya- 
maw and φιλέω side by side in Jo. 21: 15-17 where Peter makes a 
point of using φιλέω. See chapter on Formation of Words.? The 
play on words takes many turns. The bdnomatopoetic words like 
γογγύζω (cf. our ‘‘murmur’’) are very simple. Cf. Jo.6:41. Ex- 
amples of initial alliteration occur, like πονηρίᾳ, πλεονεξίᾳ (Ro. 1: 
29); ὑβριστάς, ὑπερηφάνους (1:30); ἀπειθεῖς, ἀσυνέτους, ἀσυνθέτους, 
ἀστόργους, ἀνελεημόνας (1 : 30 1.). It is hard to tell whether this is 
conscious or unconscious. There are also instances of paronoma- 
sia and annominatio. Paronomasia is rather loosely applied in 
the books. Winer? uses it only for words of similar sound, while 
Blass‘ confines it. to the recurrence of the same word or word- 
stem, like κακοὺς κακῶς (Mt. 21:41); ἐν παντὶ πάντοτε πᾶσαν (2 Cor. 
9:8); ὁ νόμος νομίμως (1 Tim. 1:8), and uses parechesis for differ- 
ent words of similar sound, like λιμοὲ καὶ λοιμοί (Lu. 21:11); ἔμαθεν 
ad’ ὧν ἔπαθεν (Heb. 5:8); φθόνου φόνου (Ro. 1:29); ἀσυνέτους ἀσυν- 
θέτους (1:31). See also 2 (οσ. 10:12: Ηο. 11:17. The point isa 
fine one and need not be pressed. But annominatio deals with 
the sense as well as the sound. Thus Πέτρος and πέτρα in Mt. 
16:18; γινώσκεις ἃ ἀναγινώσκεις (Ac. 8:30); ὑπερφρονεῖν --- φρονεῖν 
— σωφρονεῖν (Ro. 12:3); μηδὲν ἐργαζομένους, ἀλλὰ περιεργαζομένους 
(Cal ΠΝ 1... .Giralso Μύυ 7: 9: Lu:.9 ΘΟ: Ac: 288... ὦ Cor. 
0. θη. 3: 2.2. Cor. 4: δ 1: Ro. 205 δὲ 
19; 12:15; Eph. 4:1. Even so there is ἃ certain amount οἵ. 
overlapping in the two figures. The ancients did not smile because 
a pun was made. It was merely a neat turn of speech and was 
very common. So Jesus says to Thomas, μὴ γίνου ἄπιστος ἀλλὰ 
πιστός (Jo. 20: 27). 

(c) CONTRACTION AND Expansion. It is difficult to draw lines 
between groups among these figures of speech. Zeugma, as we 
have seen, can very well come in here as a sort of ellipsis. The 
ellipsis of subject or predicate came up for discussion under 


1 TI,.p. 570. 
2 Cf. Trench, N. T. Synonyms; Heine, Synonymik d. neut. Griech. 
$ W.-Th., p. 636. 4 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 298. 


1202 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


The Sentence. But a few more words are needed here. Cf. 
πιστὸς ὁ θεός (2 Cor. 1:18); ὁ κύριος eyyis (Ph. 4:5) as samples 
of the absence of the copula. So Jo. 14:11; Ac. 19 : 28, 34; 2 
Cor. 11:6. It is not always clear what verb is to be supplied, 
though εἰμί and γίνομαι are the most common. Cf. φωνὴ πάλιν ἐκ 
δευτέρου πρὸς αὐτόν, Ac. 10:15; οὐκ ἐν λόγῳ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ 
ἐν δυνάμει, 1 Cor. 4: 20. Cf. Jo. 21:21; 1 ον. ὅ : 12. Usually the 
context makes clear what verb is wanting, as in Mt. 27:25; 
Ac.-.18.:-6;. Roe. 4:39; 5183 2) θη. aie) Gale 2e0 a evens 
In 2 Cor. 8:15 the participle ἔχων must be supplied with ὁ ac- 
cording to a common Greek idiom. Cf. also Ro. 18:7, τῷ τὸν 
φόρον, where Winer! supplies ἀποδιδόναι κελεύοντι. Cf. also 1 Cor. 
4:6. It is easy to supply 6 θεός in passages like Heb. 1:7 λέ- 
yet, 4:3 εἴρηκε. The context supplies the noun in a case like 
Ac. 21:31, ζητούντων τε αὐτὸν ἀποκτεῖναι. Cf. Jo. 20:2, ἦραν τὸν 
κύριον (‘people took away’). In Ac. 21:16, συνῆλθον καὶ τῶν μαθη- 
τῶν, supply τινές as in Lu. 11:49, twas. Many verbs are con- 
sidered clear enough without the object. So διάγω (sc. βίον) in 
Tit. 3:3; προσέχω (se. νοῦν) in Lu. 17:3, ἐπέχω in 14 : 7, ἐνέχω (se. 
χόλον) in Mk. 6: 19; συμβάλλω (sc. λόγους) as in Ac. 4:15 (οἵ. Lu. 
24 : 17, ἀντιβάλλετε with object); συλλαμβάνω in Lu. 1:31. It is 
unnecessary (see Adjectives) to recount again the many instances 
of the adjective without a substantive where the gender and 
number and context make it clear. A few common examples suf- 
fice. For the absence of ἡμέρα note τῇ τρίτῃ (Lu. 18 : 32); ἡ αὔριον 
(Mt. 6:34); τῆς σήμερον (Mt. 27:8); τῇ ἐχομένῃ (Lu. 18 : 33); τῇ 
ἐπιούσῃ (Ac. 16:11); ἡ ἑξῆς (21:1); τῇ ἑτέρᾳ (Ac. 20:15). TH is 
easily supplied in Mt. 23 : 15, ἡ ξηρά, and in Heb. 11: 26, ἐν Aiyiz- 
tov. Supply γλῶσσα in Rev. 9:11, ἐν τῇ Ἑλληνικῇ. So with ὁδός 
in Lu. 5:19, ποίας; 19:4, ἐκείνης. We miss ἱμάτιον in Jo. 20: 12, 
ἐν λευκοῖς, and ὕδωρ in Mt. 10 : 42, ψυχρόν. So with χείρ in Mt. 6: 
3, ἡ δεξιά, ἡ ἀριστερά and χώρα in Lu. 17: 24, ἐκ r#s — εἰς την. Much 
more serious is the ellipsis in Mt. 26:5, and Gal. 5:13, where 
the context must supply both verb and subject. Cf. also οὐχ ὅτι 
— add’ in Jo. 7:22. In a case like 2 Th. 2:3f., ὅτι ἐάν --- ὅτι, 
there is no apodosis expressed. These are but samples of the 
ellipses common to Greek (cf. εἰ δὲ μή) as to all languages more or 
less. It is not worth while to try to bring under this rhetorical 
figure all the lapses and turns of style in each writer. Cf. the 
absence of the verb with ἵνα in 1 Cor. 1:31, with τὸ μή in 4:6, 
with ἕν δέ in Ph. 3:18, with τοῦτο δὲ in 2 Cor. 9:6, with ἵνα 
1 W.-Th., p. 590. 


FIGURES OF SPEECH (TOPIIEIA =XHMATA) 1203 


again in Gal. 2:9. Cf. also Mk. 14:29; 1 Cor. 10:24; 2 Cor. 
Ber 13: 

Aposiopesis stands to itself since it is a conscious suppression of 
part of a sentence under the influence of a strong emotion like 
anger, fear, pity. Curiously enough Blass,! who sees so many 
rhetorical tropes in the N. T., denies that any instances of aposio- 
pesis occur in the N. Τ᾿. I do not consider his objections well 
founded. We may dismiss Mk. 7:11 and Lu. 22 : 42 because of 
the true text (see W. H.), and need not quibble over ὅρα μή in Rev. 
22:9. We may agree with Winer? that we have simply anaco- 
lutha in 2 Th. 2:3 ff. But we have left others like Mk. 11:32, 
ἀλλὰ εἴπωμεν" ἐξ ἀνθρώπων; --- ἐφοβοῦντο τὸν ὄχλον. See also Lu. 
13:9, κἂν μὲν ποιήσῃ καρπόν εἰς τὸ μέλλον --- εἰ δέ μήγε, ἐκκόψεις αὐτήν. 
So again 19 : 42, εἰ ἔγνως καὶ σύ. So Jo. 6:62, ἐὰν οὖν θεωρῆτε τὸν 
υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀναβαίνοντα ὅπου nv τὸ πρότερον; Then again Ac. 
28:9, εἰ δὲ πνεῦμα ἔλάλησεν αὐτῷ ἢ ἄγγελος ---- It is possible to 
regard Ro. 7: 24 as aposiopesis. What differentiates these pas- 
sages from ellipses or abbreviations of other clauses (cf. Mt. 25: 
14; Mk. 13 : 34; 2 Cor. 3 : 18) is the passion. One can almost see 
the gesture and the flash of the eye in aposiopesis. 

We need not follow minutely the various sorts of breviloquence 
or brachylogy that are possible. Thought moves more rapidly 
than expression and the words often crowd together in a com- 
pressed way that may be not only terse, but at first obscure. A 
good illustration occurs in Mt. 9 : 6, ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε ὅτι ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ὁ 
vids τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας --- τότε λέγει τῷ παρα- 
λυτικῷ "Ἔγειρε apov σου τὴν κλίνην, κτλ. Here the Evangelist has 
inserted τότε λέγει τῷ παρ. before the conclusion to make it clearer. 
The same thing is done in the parallel passages in Mk. 2 : 10; Lu. 
5 : 24 (an incidental argument for a common document for this 
paragraph). Cf. also Mk. 14:49, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα πληρωθῶσιν αἱ γραφαί. 
So Jo. 13:18; 15:25. Cf. Ac. 1:1, where ἤρξατο implies καὶ διε- 
τέλει before ποιεῖν τε καὶ διδάσκειν ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας, κτλ. See a similar 
use of ἀρξάμενος in Mt. 20:8, Lu. 23:5. A case like Lu. 24: 47, 
ἀρξάμενοι, amounts to anacoluthon or the use of the participle as 
a principal verb. Cf. also καθαρίζων in Mk. 7:19. Various ex- 
amples of ellipsis-like zeugma are also instances of brachylogy. 
No clear line of distinction appears. So in comparisons we 
sometimes have to fill out the sense. Cf. Rev. 13:11, εἶχε κέρατα 
δύο ὅμοια ἀρνίῳ, i.e. κέρασιν apviov. Cf. 1 Jo. 3:11 f.; 2 Pet. 2:1. 
Other instances of brachylogy may be seen in Lu. 4: 26f.; Jo. 

1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 294. 2 W.-Th., p. 600. 


1204 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


5:36; 15:11; Ac. 27:22; Gal. 2:16. The so-called construc- 
tio praegnans belongs here also. Cf. 2 Tim. 4:18, σώσει eis τὴν 
βασιλείαν, though εἰς of itself does not mean ‘into.’ But note δια- 
σώσωσι πρὸς Φήλικα (Ac. 23 : 24) where the notion is that of taking 
to Felix and so saving Paul. Cf. also ἐκάθητο παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν (Mk. 
10:46). See also Lu. 11:18 ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, (Col. 4 : 16) 
τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικίας. Blass! distinguishes brachylogy from ellipsis in 
that brachylogy affects the thought rather than the grammatical 
form, but both ideas are usually present. Cf. Ro. 11:18. It would 
be wearisome to endeavour to put a name or tag upon every struc- 
ture that seems defective from the standpoint of formal gram- 
mar or rhetoric. “It will be seen that many of them are due to 
that agility and acuteness of the Greek intellect which enables 
the Hellene or Hellenist readily to sacrifice the grammar of a 
sentence to its logic, or in other words its form to its meaning. 
Hence arose the many forms of the sense-figure (σχῆμα πρὸς τὸ 
σημαινόμενον, constructio ad sensum).”? We have seen illustra- 
tions of this construction κατὰ σύνεσιν under Concord (The Sen- 
tence) and only a few further are called for here. Indeed, this 
section is largely an illustration of this principle. In Jo. 15:6 
αὐτά refers to τὸ κλῆμα; in Ac. 17:16 αὐτοῦ points to Christ, who 
has not been mentioned; in 7: 24, τὸν Αἰγύπτιον, though no Egyp- 
tian had been mentioned; in 1 Cor. 7:36, γαμείτωσαν, the subject 
being drawn from the context (the two young people). Winer? 
was glad to note a decline in emphasis on these overrefinements 
in his day. These supposed abnormalities were called hypallage. 
From the present standpoint Winer himself yielded entirely too 
much to the very thing that he condemned. What is the use in 
figuring out the various ways that Paul could have expressed 
himself in 2 Cor. 3:7, for instance? The papyri have taught us 
to be chary about charging John with being ungrammatical in 
πλήρης χάριτος (Jo. 1:14). These matters simply show that the 
N.T. writers used a live language and were not automata.‘ It 
is doubtless true that no other writer used repetition of word and 
phrase as did the author of the Fourth Gospel, but no one will 
deny that he did it with consummate skill and marvellous vivid- 
ness and dramatic power.® 


1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 294. 

2 Warrar, Οὐ syle pace: 3 W.-Th., p. 634. 

‘ Cf. Emil Heinrich, Die sogenannte polare Ausdrucksweise im Griech., 
1899, p. 26. 

δ Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., pp. 401-465. 


FIGURES OF SPEECH (TOPrIEIA =XHMATA) 1205 


There are many instances of pleonasm in the N.'T. as in all 
vernacular speech. It is of many sorts. The same word may be 
repeated for clearness as in ὑμᾶς --- ὑμᾶς (Col. 2 : 13); σπούδασον --- 
ταχέως (2 Tim. 4:9). This redundancy is usually due to the cus- 
tom of the language with no thought of the repetition,! as in ἧς 
- αὐτῆς (Mk. 7:25); περισσοτέρως μᾶλλον (2 Cor. 7:18); ob — μή 
(Ac. 20 : 20, 27); ἐκτὸς ef μή (1 Cor. 15:2); ἀπεκρίθη λέγων (Mk. 
16 : 0); ἀνάστηθι καὶ πορεύου (Ac. ὃ : 26); τῷ οἰκοδεσπότῃ τῆς οἰκίας 
like our ‘church-house”’ (Lu. 22:11); ἔπειτα μετὰ τοῦτο (Jo. 11: 
7); mpodpayav ἔμπροσθεν (Lu. 19:4); ἐξάγειν ἔξω (24:50); ὅρκῳ 
ὥμοσεν (Ac. 2:30); ἀρνούμενος ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν (1 Jo. 2 : 22); πάλιν ἐκ 
δευτέρου (Ac. 10 : 15), ete. Cf. also the cognate accusative. Re- 
dundances like these examples are not linguistic vices. They seem 
pleonastic to the technical student who is unwilling to allow for 
the growth of the language. Emphatic words have the constant 
tendency to become less so and to need re-enforcement. This 
love of emphasis in the N. Τ᾿. is natural to conversation and to a 
certain extent has the Oriental richness and wealth of colour.’ 
We see the same thing in the O. T. and in the papyri letters. 
It is a sign of life and in particular life in the East. These vivid 
details give life and beauty to the picture. Cf. ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα 
(Mt. 26:51); ἔρχεται “Inoods καὶ λαμβάνει (Jo. 21:13); γράψαντες 
διὰ χειρὸς αὐτῶν (Ac. 15:23); ὡμολόγησε καὶ οὐκ ἠρνήσατο (Jo. 1:20). 
Epexegetical clauses are common. Cf. τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν 
(Ro. 12:1), in apposition with the infinitive clause, παραστῆσαι, 
κτλ. So 1 Cor. 7: 26, ὅτι καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ, aS an expansion of τοῦτο 
καλὸν ὑπάρχειν. In Jo. 7:35 ὅτι is probably causal. 

We meet hyperbole in Jo. 21:25, οὐδ᾽ αὐτὸν οἶμαι τὸν κόσμον 
χωρήσειν τὰ γραφόμενα βιβλία. Cf. also Mt. 18:32. Lntotes is 
common enough, as in Ac. 1: 5, οὐ μετὰ πολλὰς ταύτας ἡμέρας; 14 : 
28, χρόνον οὐκ ὀλίγον. See also 15:2; 19:11, 28 f.; 21:39; 27: 
14, 20; 28:2. Meiosis is, of course, only a species of hyperbole by 
understatement. Cf. Paul’s use? of it in 1 Th. 2:15; 2 Th. 
3:2, 7. We may put together two remarks of Milligan.4 “St. 
Paul had evidently not the pen of a ready writer, and when he 
had once found an expression suited to his purpose found it 
very difficult to vary it.” “St. Paul had evidently that highest 
gift of a great writer, the instinctive feeling for the right word, 
and even when writing, as he does here, in his most ‘normal 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 295. 
2 Cf. A. J. Wilson, Emphasis in the N.T., Jour. of Theol. Stu., VIII, pp. 75 ff. 
8 Milligan, Comm. on Thess. Epistles, p. lvu. Δ p: -lvi f. 


1206 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


style, and with an almost complete absence of the rhetorical 
figures, so largely practised in his day, he does not hesitate to 
avail himself of the more popular methods of adding point or 
emphasis to what he wants to say.”” There is no necessary in- 
consistency in these two statements. Add another from Milligan! 
which will help to reconcile them. ‘We readily recognise that 
the arresting charm of the Apostle’s style is principally due to 
‘the man behind,’ and that the highest form of all eloquence, ‘the 
rhetoric of the heart,’ is speaking to us.” So it is with all the 
N. T. writers more or less. They are men of genius, of varying de- 
grees of culture, and men of love for Christ and man. Language 
with these men is not an end in itself. They do not say “pretty” 
things and toy with them. As the words of Jesus are spirit and 
life, for they throb and pulse to-day (Jo. 6 : 63), so the Letters of 
Paul are βαρεῖαι καὶ ἰσχυραί, as even his enemies admit (2 Cor. 10: 
10). The Judaizers at Corinth did not discuss the rhetorical 
niceties of these Letters. They felt the power of the ideas in 
them even when they resisted Paul’s authority. Paul used tropes,? 
but he smote hearts with them and did not merely tickle the fancy 
of the lovers of sophistry. Paul denied that he spoke ἐν πιθοῖς 
σοφίας λόγοις, though his words seem to the lover of Christ to be 
full of the highest appeal to the soul of man. One must discount 
this disclaimer not merely by Paul’s natural modesty, but by 
contrast with the Corinthian’s conception of πιθός. They loved 
the rhetorical flights of the artificial orators of the time. 

(d) METAPHORS AND SIMILAR TRopPEs. We need not tarry over 
antiphrasis, ambiguity, hendiadys, hypokorisma, oxymoron, peri- 
phrasis, polyptoton, syllepsis, and the hundred and one distinc- 
tions in verbal anatomy. Most of it is the rattle of dry bones 
and the joy of dissection is gone. We may pause over Metaphor 
(μεταφορά), since little progress could be made in speech without 
the picture of the literal and physical carried over to the moral 
and spiritual as in ὁ ποιμήν ὁ καλός (Jo. 10:11). Cf. the greatest 
metaphor in the N. T., Paul’s use of σῶμα for the church (Eph. 
1:22f.). The Simile is just a bit more formal, as is seen in the 
use of ὅμοιος in Mt. 13:52, πᾶς γραμματεὺς ὅμοιός ἐστιν ἀνθρώπῳ 
οἰκοδεσπότῃ. Parables are but special forms of the metaphor or 
simile and form the most characteristic feature of the teaching of 
Jesus in so far as form is concerned. The parable (παραβολή) 

1 Comm. on Thess. Epistles, p. ἵν]. 


2 Cf. Heinrici, Zum Hellen. des Paulus, Komm. zu 2 Kor. 
8.1 Cors2 24. 


FIGURES OF SPEECH (rOPriEIA =XHMATA) 1207 


draws a comparison between the natural and the moral or implies 
it. It may be a crisp proverb (Lu. 4: 23) or a narrative illustra- 
tion of much length, as in the Sower (Mt. 13). The Allegory 
(ἀλληγορία) is a parable of a special sort that calls for no explana- 
tion, a speaking parable (cf. the Good Shepherd in Jo. 10 and the 
Prodigal Son in Lu. 15). Metonymy (uerwrvpia) and Synecdoche 
(cuvexdoxn) are so much matters of exegesis that they must be 
passed by without further comment. 

It is certain that no words known to man are comparable in 
value with those contained in the N. T. Despite all the variety 
of diction on the part of the reporters, probably partly because 
of this very fact, the words of Jesus still fascinate the mind and 
win men to God as of old. Kai éyévero ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς τοὺς 
λόγους τούτους, ἐξεπλήσσοντο οἱ ὄχλοι ἐπὶ TH διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ" ἦν yap δι- 
δάσκων αὐτοὺς ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ γραμματεῖς αὐτῶν (Mt. 
7:28 f.). It is the constant peril of scribes and grammarians! to 
strain out the gnat and to swallow the camel. I may have fallen 
a victim, like the rest, but at least I may be permitted to say at 
the end of the long road which I have travelled for so many 
years, that I joyfully recognise that grammar is nothing unless it 
reveals the thought and emotion hidden in language. It is just 
because Jesus is greater than Socrates and Plato and all the Greek 
thinkers and poets that we care so much what Luke and Paul 
and John have to tell about him. Plato and Xenophon hold us 
because of their own message as well as because they are the 
interpreters of Socrates. It matters not if Jesus spoke chiefly 
in the Aramaic. The spirit and heart of his message are enshrined 
in the Greek of the N. T. and interpreted for us in living speech 
by men of the people whose very diction is now speaking to us 
again from the rubbish-heaps of Egypt. ‘The papyri and the 
ostraca tell the story of struggle on the part of the very class of 
people who first responded to the appeal of Paul (cf. 1 Cor. 1: 
26 ff.). Christianity is not buried in a book. It existed before 
the N. T. was written. It made the N. T. It is just because 
Christianity is of the great democracy that it is able to make uni- 
versal appeal to all ages and all lands and all classes. The chief 
treasure of, the Greek tongue is the N. T. No toil is too great if 
by means of it men are enabled to understand more exactly the 


1 Gildersl. is scornful of those who fear ‘‘that anthropology is going to invade 
the sacrosanct realm of syntax, which belongs, strictly speaking, to the microt- 
omists and statisticians — otherwise known as Dead Sea Apes.” Am. Jour. 
of Philol., 1907, p. 235. 


1208 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


mind of Christ. If one is disposed to think less of the N. T. 
because it stands in the vernacular κοινή, let him remember that 
the speech of these Christians was rich beyond measure, since out 
of it came the words of Jesus. These were carried in the common 
tradition of the period and written down from time to time (Lu. 
1:14). Paul was not a rhetorician, though a man of culture, but 
he cared much for the talk of the Christians that it should be 
worthy. ‘O λόγος ὑμῶν πάντοτε ἐν χάριτι ἅλατι. ἠρτυμένος, εἰδέναι πῶς 
δεῖ ὑμᾶς ἑνὶ ἑκάστῳ ἀποκρίνεσθαι (Col. 4:6). That was good advice 
for the Colossians and for all speakers and writers, grammarians 
included, and makes a fitting bon mot to leave with the rhetori- 
cians who might care to quibble further over niceties of language. 
Ταῦτα μελέτα, ἐν τούτοις ἴσθι. 


ADDITIONAL NOTES 


1. Καθαρίζω or καθερίζω (p. 183). Mr. H. Scott furnishes me 
the following table for the variations between a and ε in the aug- 
mented tenses of καθαρίζω: 


éxabep ἐκαθαρ 
Se RA, Beane τος O/ Se ΝΗ Gaon os 8/8 
IB Gar hh Wage τς ἌΝ 5/7 
Jk Go Re Ci Lge eae casa ora Vea 0/7 
οὐ στο ΣΝ ΑΙ δας ai ens reek ΡΟ τς V5 
1D ee eRe ants fee Οὐθ τον αν ἡ 6/6 
Shere SS ee a Ἢ (δ ER Ty men eee 6/6 


For LXX see Helbing and Thackeray. 


2. Prothetic Vowels in the N. T. (p. 206). The following is a 
table of (probable) prothetic vowels in N. T. (supplied by Mr. 
H. Scott). | 








BEFORE a € Oo ι 
ρ ἐ-ρυθρός ὀ-ρύσσω 
ἐ-ρεύγομαι 

ἀ-λείφω ἐ-λαχύς, ἐ-λεύθερος 
ν ἀ-νεψιός ὀ-νειδίζω, ὄτνομα, ὄ-νυξ 
μ ἀ-μοιβή, ἀ-μύνω ἐ-μέ, ἐ-μός ὀ-μίχλη 
χθ ἐ-χθές ἰ-χθὺς 
στ ἀ-στήρ [ἄ-στρον] 

ἀ-στράπτω 
dp ὀ-φρύς 
κ ἀ-κούω ἐ-κεῖ, ἐ-κεῖνος (ἐπ-) ὀ-κέλλω 
θ ἐ-θέλω 
ὃ ὀ-δύνη 


ὀ-δυρμός [ὁ-δύρομαι 
F ἀ-εἰδω = abu 
a-016 -- δὴ : 
τ ὀ-τρύνω 





1209 


1210 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


3. Elision (p. 208). Mr. H. Scott adds οὐδ᾽ ἐάν (Lu. 16:31, 
W. H. text), οὐδ’ ἡ (Tisch., οὐδὲ ἡ W. H.), οὐδ᾽ αὐτόν (Jo. 21:25). 
We have both καθ᾽ and κατὰ eis, but κατὰ ἑκατόν (Mk. 6:40). There 
is much variation with prepositions before nouns. 


4, Παρρησία (p. 212). Mr. H. Scott notes that out of 40 oc- 
currences in the N. T. 24 read zapp— without variant. In the 
remaining 16 δὲ reads zapp— 13/16, B 10/16, A 14/14, C 9/10, 
Ὁ 7/14, L 8/9, Syr. 16/16. In Gospels B always has παρ- ex- 
cept in Jo. 11:14, δὲ only in Jo. 11:14. 


5. Assimilation of ἐν μέσῳ (p. 216). Mr. H. Scott notes that 
the phrase ἐν μέσῳ occurs 27 times in the N. T., of which 2 (Jo. 
8:3, 9) are in a spurious passage. Hort (Notes on Orth., p. 150) 
observes that NBD never have ἐμμέσῳ. But A of Gospels and E 
of Acts always have éupéow, while C has it 9/12 times. 


6. Rules for Assimilation of Consonants (p. 216). The fami- 
liar rules are given in all the school grammars (cf. Hadley and 
Allen, Goodwin, etc.), and need not be given here in detail. Note 
‘only these: 


Before a τ mute a z or x mute is co-ordinated. 
Before μ a 7 mute changes to μ, 

“a κ mute changes to jy, 
a τ mute changes to o (analogy). 
Before σ a 7 mute makes y, 

“ax mute makes &, 
a 7 mute drops out. 
Before a labial ν changes to μ. 

“<a palatal ν changes to y (nasal). 
Δ or p, v is assimilated. 
a, v is dropped, and the preceding vowel is lengthened. 
Between two consonants σ is dropped. 


{( {( 


(( (( 


(( 


ce 


The insertion of σ in some tenses is treated in the chapter on 
Conjugation of the Verb. 


7. Metathesis (p. 221). We find φαινόλιον in P. Oxy. ITI, 531, 
14 (ii/a.D.), but also φαι[λο]νίων, B. U. iii, 816, 24 (iii/a.p.). So 
the modern Greek φελόνι. Φάτνη (Lu. 2:7, etc.) is the Homeric 
and Attic form. Moeris (212, 9) says that πάθνη is the Hellenistic 
form. Modern Greek has πάθνη. Some LXX MSS. have it so. 
Cf. Thackeray, p. 106; Blass-Debrunner, p. 20. 


ADDITIONAL NOTES 


8. Enclitics and Proclitics (p. 233 f.). 


Mr. H. Scott: 


1211 


Rules for accent by 


ENCLITICS 


Indefinite, τὶς in all its forms. 
Pers. pron., μοῦ, μοί, μέ; 
σοῦ, σοί, σέ. 
Pres. indic., εἰμί (except 2d sing. εὖ); 
φημί, φησίν, φασίν. 
Particles, γέ, τέ and the inseparable 
—de. 
Indef. adverbs, ποτέ, πού, πέρ, πώ, πώς. 
Enclitics incline their accent when 
the preceding word is 
(a) proparoxytone, 
(b) properispomenon, 
(c) a proclitic. 
Enclitics lose their accent when the 
preceding word is 
(a) oxytone, 


(b) perispomenon, 
(c) paroxytone. 
Enclitics retain their accent: 

(a) if they begin or end a sentence; 

(b) if dissyllables, after a paroxy- 
tone; 

(c) if dissyllables, after perispo- 
mena; 

(d) after an elided vowel; 

(e) if dissyllables, after a proclitic. 


If two or more enclitics occur to- 
gether, each one receives the accent 
of the preceding, the last being 
unaccented. Editors differ in 
practice as to this rule. 


PROcLITICS 


ATi δ ol, al. 

Prep., eis, ἐκ, ἐξ, ἐν. 
Conj., εἰ, ὡς. 
Negative, οὐ (οὐκ, οὐχ). 


9. Βουστροφηδόν (p. 243). 


Proclitics receive the acute accent: 
(a) when they are at the end of a 
sentence; 
(b) when followed by an enclitic. 


The Greeks first wrote from right 


to left and then alternately. This alternate method (right to 
left, left to right) was called βουστροφηδόν, ‘as oxen turn at the 
plow.’ Cf. Geddes, A Compendious Greek Grammar, 1888, p. xiv. 
The Greeks had a fine system of abbreviations in frequent use. 
For full particulars see Thompson, Handbook of Greek and Latin 
Paleography, pp. 86-96. 


10. Perfect of ὁράω (p. 364). Mr. H. Scott counts the perf. 
active (indic., inf., part.) 34 times in the N. T. (Luke, Gospel 3, 
Acts 2; John, Gospel 20, Epistles 6; Paul 3). Luke has -ω- 
established 5 times, John’s Gospel 20. ΝΑΟῚ) so always, B 
20/24. In 1 Ep. John B has 6/6 -o-, Paul 3 -ο- (δ 3/3, B 2/8, 
C 2/2, Ὁ 1/3; -o— A 3/8). 


11. Augment in the Past Perfect (p. 366). Mr. H. Scott notes 
that of the 15 out of 22 verbs with past perfects in the N. T. 
the active verbs are equally divided as to augment. Of the 7 


1212 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


passive verbs only θεμελιόω is unaugmented. Baddw is augmented 
in the passive, but not in the active. Γίνομαι and ἵστημι have 
both the augmented and the unaugmented forms in the active. 


12. List of Important Verbs. (Purely normal verbs are not 
listed here. Only the tenses are given that occur in the N. T.) 
Mr. H. Scott has rendered valuable aid in preparing it. 


᾿Αγαλλιάω. Pres. act. in 1 Pet. 1:8 and Rev. 19:7; aor. act. ἠγαλλίασα 
(Lu. 1: 47), but the active does not occur in LXX. The middle isin LXX 
(Ps. 15:9) and the N. T. (Jo. 8 : 56, etc.). The aor. passive appears in 
Jo. 5:35 (ἀγαλλιαθῆναι, BL --σθῆναι). 

᾿Αγγέλλω (comp. ἀν-, ἀπ--, δι--, ἐξ--, ἐπ--, mpo-er—, κατ--, προ-κατ--) Simplex 
only in Jo. 20:18 ἀγγέλλουσα, and Jo. 4:51 in 8D. -αγγελῶ, -ἠγγειλα, 
—nyyeruat, -ηγγέλην. The classic aor. pass. ἠγγέλθην does not occur in 
LXX or N..T. 

* Ayvupe (only κατ-άγνμυι as in Attic and LXX). Three forms in N. T.: a fut. 
act. κατ-εάξει (Mt. 12:20; LXX has κατάξω), an aor. act. κατ-έαξαν (Jo. 
19:32 f.), an aor. pass. κατεαγῶσιν (Jo. 19:31. Cf. κατεαγῆναι in Plato, ete.). 
The copyists kept the augment where it did not belong, so that even a 
pres. act. κατεάσσω is found. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 258. 

“Ayw (comp. ἀν--, ἐπ-αν--, ἀπ--, συν-απ--, δι--, εἰσ--, παρ-εἰσ--, ἐξ--, ἐπ--, κατ--, μετ--, 
παρ--, περι--, προ--, προσ--, συν--, ἔπι-συν-- , ὑππὴ. The principal parts are reg- 
ular save the aorist active (usually the reduplicated second aorist form 
ἤγαγον, but sometimes the rare sigmatic aorist ἦξα as in Hesiod). 

Aipéw (comp. ἀν--, ἀφ--, δι--, ἐξ--, καθ--, περι--, προ-). Simplex only middle. --ελῶ 
(as LXX), αἱρήσομαι, --αιρεθήσομαι; --εἶλον and --εἶλα (middle also); --προύμην, 
πήρημαι, --ῃρέθην. 

Αἴρω (ἀτ--, é&,, ἐπ--, μετ--, συν--, ὑπερ-). Principal parts regular. Only note 
imperative aor. act. ἄρον and inf. aor. act. ἄραι, while ind. aor. act. is ἦρα 
and fut. act. ἀρῶ. 

Αἰσθάνομαι. Only once in N. T. (Lu. 9:45), aor. mid. αἴσθωνται. 

᾿Ακούω (δι--, εἰσ--, ἐπ--, παρ--, mpo-, ὑπ--). ᾿Ακούσω, ἤκουσα, ἀκήκοα (‘Attic perf.’’), 
ἀκούσομαι, ἀκουσθήσομαι, ἠκούσθην. 

᾿Αλλάσσω (ἀτ--, δι--, κατ--, ἀπο-κατ--, μετ--, συν-). ᾿Αλλάξω, ἤλλαξα, ἠλλαξάμην 
(Ro. 1:28, LXX); pass. -ἤλλαγμαι, -ηλλάγην, ἀλλαγήσομαι (1 Cor. 15:51). 

“Addopat (ἐξ--, ἐφ-). Aor. —aunv and —dunv. Confined to Acts save Jo. 4:14. 

“Αμαρτάνω (rpo-). ᾿Αμαρτήσω, ἥμαρτον and ἡμάρτησα, ἡμάρτηκα. 

᾿Αμφιάζω. So W. H. in Lu. 12:28 instead of ἀμφιέζω. 

᾿Αμφιέννυμι, ἠμφίεσμαι. 

᾿Αναθάλλω (only comp.). ᾿Ανεθάλετε (Ph. 4:10). 

᾿Αναλίσκω (only comp., also κατ-αν-ὴ. Other tense-stems from ἀναλόω; ἀνα- 
λώσω; aor. act. inf. ἀναλῶσαι; aor. pass. ἀναλωθῆτε (N. T. forms do not show 
augment). In 2 Th. 2:8 W. H. in margin give ἀναλοῖ as present (so Attic 
and LXX). 

"Avolyw (δι--, €&-, Ac. 12:16 D). The simplex οἴγω, οἴγνυμι does not occur in 
LXX or N. Τ. Imperf. διήνοιγε (Lu. 24:32); fut. ἀνοίξω; aor. act. ἤνοιξε, 
ἀνέῳξε, nvewte. ‘The aor. ind. (22 times) is confined (H. Scott) to John (6), 
Acts (5), Rev. (10), except διήνοιξεν (Lu. 24:45). The predominant form is 


ADDITIONAL NOTES εἰ BA 


ἤνοιξ-- (16 times without v. 1.) and read by W. H., except ἀνέῳξεν (Jo. 
9:14), and jvéwte (Jo. 9:17, 32). Pass. fut. ἀνοιχθήσεται (Lu. 11:9 f. A); 
ἀνοιγήσεται (W. H., Mt. 7:7, 8=Lu. 11:9, 10). Aor. indic. occurs 9 times: 
nvotxOn— (Rev. 20:12 (bis), δι--, Lu. 24:31); ἀνεῴχθη-- (Lu. 1:64); ἠνεφχθη-- 
(Mt. 3:16; 9:30; 27:52; Jo. 9:10; Ac. 16:26). 2d aor. indic. ἠνοίγη- (4 
times, Mk. 7: 35; Ac. 12:10; Rev. 11:19; 15:5); subj. Mt. 20:33. Perf. 
part. (only) 11 times: διτηνοιγμένος (Ac. 7:56); ἀνεῳγμένος (Ac. 9:8; 10: 
11; 16:27; Ro. 3:13; 2 Cor. 2:12); qvewypuévos (Rev. 3:8; 4:1; 10:2, 8; 
19:11). 

᾿Αντάω (ἀπ--, κατ--, συν--, ὑπ-). The simplex does not occur. The parts. are 
regular. Fut. infin. κατ-αντήσειν (Ac. 26:7, W. H. marg.); fut. part. συν- 
αντήσοντα (Ac. 20:22). 

᾿Απο-κτείνω. The simplex does not occur. Pres. varies between --κτείνω, 
-κτέννω (2 Cor. 3:6 W. H. alt., Mt. 10:28 W. H. alt., Lu. 12:4 W. H. 
alt.) and --κτέννυμι (Mk. 12:5); fut. ἀπο-κτενῶ; aor. ἀπ-ἔκτεινα; pass. inf. 
ἀπο-κτέννεσθαι (Rev. 6:11); Ist aor. ἀπ-εκτάνθην. 

“Anta (ἀν--, καθ--, περι-) “Hya, ἡψάμην, ἥφθην. 

᾿Αρνέομαι (ἀπ--), ἀρνήσομαι, --ἀρνηθήσομαι, --ηρνησάμην, ἤρνημαι. 

“Αρπάζω (δι--, συν-). ‘Apraow, ἥρπασα; pass. 2d aor. ἡρπάγην; Ist aor. ἡρπάσθην; 
2d fut. ἁρπαγήσομαι. 

Βαίνω (only in comp., ἀνα--, προσ-ανα--, συντανα--, ἀπο-- , δια--, ἐκ--, ἐμ--, ἐπι--, 
κατα--, μετα--, παρα--, προ--, συμ--, συγ-κατα--, ὑπερ--). --βήσομαι, —EBnv, —BEBnxa. 
Short forms of the imperative ἀνάβα, ἀνάβατε. 

Βάλλω (ἀμφι--, ἀνα--, ἀντι--, ἀπο--, δια--, ἐκ--, ἐμ--) ἔπι--, κατα--, μετα-- ,. παρα--, παρ- 
εἐμ--, περι--, προ--, συν--, ὑπερ-- , ὑπο-). Imperf. ἔβαλλον (ἐξ-- ἐπ-- ovr—); fut. 
βαλῶ (ἐκ--, ἐπι--, παρ-εμ--, περι-). 1st aorist (‘‘Alexandrian’’) ἔβαλαν (Ac. 
16:37); ἐξ- (Mt. 7:22 W. H. alt.;.21:39 W. H. alt.); ἐπ Ξ- (Ac. 21:27; Mk. 
14:46); 2d aorist, ἔβαλον (ἐξ--, ἐἔπ--, παρ--, περι--, συν--, ba—); perf. βεβληκώς; 
pluperf. ἐκ- βεβλήκει. Mid. fut. περι-βαλεῖται (Rev. 3:5); 2d aor. ἀν--, περι-, 
συν-εβαλόμην; pass. fut. βληθήσομαι, ἐκ--; Ist aor. δι--, ἐξ--, ἐβλήθην; perf. 
βέβλημαι, περι--; pluperf. ἐβέβλητο. 

Βαρέω (ἐπι--, κατα-). ᾿Ἐβάρησα, βεβάρημαι, ἐβαρήθην (2 Cor. 1:8, Lu. 21:34). 
Only passive save in compounds. 

Βαρύνω. ‘The older verb is ousted in N. T. by βαρέω except in Mk. 14:40, 
κατα-βαρυνόμενοι. It is read in Lu. 21:34 Rec. βαρυνθῶσι. 

Βλαστάνω. This is the old form of the pres. The pres. in N. T. is βλαστάω 
(Mk. 4:27). The aor. ἐβλάστησα may be from βλαστάω or βλαστέω, a form 
of the pres. occurring in LXX. 

Βλέπω (ava-, ἀπο“, δια--, ἐμ--, ἐπι--, περι--; Tpo—). "Ἔβλεπον, βλέψω, ἔβλεψα; περι- 
εβλέπετο; περι-προ-βλεψάμενος. 

Γαμέω. ᾿Εγάμουν, Attic ἔγημα, late ἔγάμησα, γεγάμηκα, ἔγαμήθην. Ταμίζω is a 
late form and only pres. active and pass. and imperf. pass. ἐγαμίζοντο ap- 
pear in N.T. Γαμίσκω likewise in pres. pass. stem appears in Lu. 20:34 
(W. H.) and ἐκ-γαμίσκω in some MSS. in Lu. 20:34 Rec. 

Τίνομαι (ἀπο--, δια--, ἐπι--, παρα--, συμ-παρα-,, προ-). Never γίγνομαι like Attic. 
᾿Εγινόμην; γενήσομαι; part. γενησόμενος (1 Cor. 15:37), ἐγενόμην and ἐγενήθην. 
Opt. γένοιτο; part. γενόμενος. The frequent use of the part. in comp., 
ἀπο-, δια--, ἔπι--, παρα--, συν-παρα-, is noteworthy. Τενάμενος is a frequent 
variant. J. H. Moulton counts 69 instances of the part. (simple and 
comp.) in Luke’s writings, and 48 in remainder of N. T. It does not 


1214. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


occur at all in the Johannine writings. ‘Strong perfect,” γέγονα, γεγένη- 
pa. A in 1 Mace. 14:30 has ἐγένην, probably an error (cf. γέγονα). 
Pluperf. γεγόνει (Ac. 4:24), and ἐγεγόνει (Jo. 6:17). Tew is a rather fre- 
quent spelling, e.g. Ac. 21:14 ΒΊΑΙ); 23:10 B*; Lu. 22:26 8BD; 42 
ΒΑΔ; 1 Cor. 10:20 B*D%, ete. 

Τινώσκω (ava-, δια--, ἔπι--, κατα--, tpo—). Τνώσομαι, ἔγνων, ἔγνωκα, ἔγνώκειν, ἔγνω- 
σμαι, ἐγνώσθην, γνωσθήσομαι. Subj. aor. both γνῷ (Jo. 7:51) and γνοῖ (Mk. 
5:43; 9:30; Lu. 19:15); imper. γνῶθι; inf. γνῶναι; part. γνούς. 

Tpddw (ἀπο--, &y—, ἐπι--, κατα--, προ-). “Eypadov, γράψω, ἔγραψα, yéypada; pass. 
γέγραμμαι, --εγεγράμμην, ἐπι-- , ἔγράφην, προ-. Mid. Ist aor. ἀπο-γράψασθαι 
(Lu. 2:5). 

Δείκνυμι and δεικνύω (ava-, ἀπο--, ἐν--, ἐπι--, bro-). Δείξω, ἔδειξα; pass. ἐδείχθην 
(Heb. 8:5); perf. ἀπο-δεδειγμένος; mid. Ist aor. ἐν-εδειξάμην. The pres. has 
forms from --νυμι and --νύω. 

Aépw. “Edetpa, δαρήσομαι. 

Δέχομαι (ἀνα--, ἀπο--, δια--, εἰσ--, ἐκ--, ἀπ-εκ--, ἐν--, ἐπι--, παρα--, Tpoc-, ὑπο-"). 
᾿Εδεξάμην; pass. δέδεγμαι, --εδέχθην. 

Δέω (xpoo—). ᾿Εδεόμην, ἐδεήθην. In Lu. 8:38 W. H. read ἐδεῖτο rather than 
ἐδέετο (W. H. alt.) or ἐδεεῖτο. Impersonal δεῖ and ἔδει. 

Aéw (κατα--, περι--, συν--, ὑπο-). Anow, ἔδησα, δέδεκα; PASS. δέδεμαι, περι-εδεδέμην, 
ἐδέθην; mid. ἐδησάμην. 

Δίδωμι (ἀνα--, ἀντ-απο--, ἀπο--, δια--, ἐκ--, ἐπι--, μετα--, παρα--, mpo—). Pres. παρα- 
δίδως (2d sing.), 3d pl. διδόασιν (Rev. 17:18); subj. παρα-διδῷ (1 Cor. 15:24, 
πδιδοὺ BEG); imperf. ἐδίδοσαν (Jo. 19:3), map— (Ac. 16:4); fut. δώσω; part. 
ἀπο- (Heb. 13:17), παρα- (Jo. 6:64) δώσων; --κα aor. ἔδωκα, 3d pl. ἔδωκαν; 
2d aor. 3d pl. παρ-έδοσαν (Lu. 1:2); imper. δός; subj. δῶ, δῷς (Mk. 6:25), 
δῷ (Jo. 15:16); subj. 3d sing. cont. do (Mk. 8:37), wapa— (Mk. 4:29), δῴη or 
δώῃ (2 Tim. 2:25, Eph. 1:17); opt. 3d sing. δῴη (Ro. 15:5; 2 Th. 3:16; 2 
Tim. 1:16, 18); inf. δοῦναι; part. dots; perf. δέδωκα; plup. δεδώκειν; mid. fut. 
δώσομαι, ἐκ-- (Mt. 21:41); 2d aor. ἐξέδετο (& Mt. 21:33 =Mk. =Lu.) with vari- 
ant 1. -oro in each passage; plur. without variant, ἀπ-έδοσθε, --ἐδοντο. Pass. 
pres. and imperf. --ἐδίδετο, δι-- (Ac. 4:35), rap— (1 Cor. 11:23), with variant 
—oro in each case; fut. δοθήσομαι, ἀνταπο--, παρα---. Ast aor. ἐδόθην, ἀπ--, ἐπ--, 
παρ--; perf. δέδομαι. Dr. Hort considers the change of the vowels in imperf. 
and 2d aor. from —oro to —ero as probably euphonic. Διδέω (ἀπο--, δια--, apa). 
Pres. διδῷ (Rev. 3:9); imper. δίδου (Lu. 6:30; 11:3); part. ἀπο-διδοῦν (Rev. 
22:2); imperf. ἐδίδουν (Mk. 3:6; Ac. 1:20), ἐπ--, παρ--; fut. δια-διδώσουσιν (Rev. 
17:13 Rec.) ex fictione Hrasmi. 

Δύναμαι. Pres. 2d sing. δύνασαι (Mt. 5:36; 8:2; Mk. 1:40; Lu. 6:42). Opt. 
δυναίμην (Ac. 8:31; 27:12, 39). ᾿Εδυνάμην and ἠδυνάμην, δυνήσομαι, ἠδυνήθην 
and ἠδυνάσθην. Δύνομαι, 2d sing. δύνῃ (Mk. 9:22 f.; Lu. 16:2; Rev. 2:2). 
There are traces of this late Greek form in B in present tense in Mt. 19:12; 
26:53; Mk. 10:39; Ac. 4:20; 27:15. 

Δύω (ἐκ--, ἀπ-εκ-- πὰς ἐν--, ἐπ-τ-εν--, παρ-εισ--, émt—). Simplex only, Mk. 1:32. 
Pres. ἐπι-δυέτω; 2d aor. ἔδυν, ἔδυσα (Mk. 1:32); mid. --εδυσάμην; pass. παρεισ- 
εδύην. 2d aor. (Ju. 4) εν-δεδυμένος. 

Δύνω (ex—-). In pres. only. 

’Edw (προσ--). Eiwv, ἐάσω, εἴασα. Augt. ecaf =eaf =e. See Jannaris, ὃ 719. 

’Eyy({o (προσ-). YHyyifov, éyyiow and ἐγγιεῖ (Jas. 4:8 W. H. alt.), ἤγγισα, 
ἤγγικα. 


ADDITIONAL NOTES 1215 


᾿Εγείρω (δι--, ἐξ--, ἐπ--, συν-). ᾿Ἐγερῶ, ἤγειρα, δι-εγείρετο (Jo. 6:18 διτηγ. alt.), 
ἔγήγερμαι, ἠγέρθην, ἔγερθήσομαι. In Mk. 2:9 ἐγείρου, but usually intransitive 
ἔγειρε (cf. ἄγε, ἔπειγε) as Mk. 5:41. "Εγειραι not in N. T., nor éyphyopa. 

᾿Εἰδαφίζω. ᾿Εδαφιῶ (“ Attic” fut.). 

’’E@w. Obsolete in pres. Εἴωθα, εἰώθειν. 

Εἰδέω and εἴδω (ἀπ--, ἐπ--, προ--, συν--, ὑπερτὴ. Not used in pres. Fut. εἰδήσω 
(Heb. 8:11, LXX). Ist aor. εἶδα, εἴδαμεν, εἴδατε, εἶδαν (W. H. text 18 times 
and 2 alt.). 2d aor. εἶδον and ἴδον (ind. both complete); imper. ἴδε; subj. ἴδω; 
inf. ἰδεῖν; part. ἰδών. 2d perf. οἶδα complete, and ἴστε (?), ἴσᾶσιν (Ac. 26:4); 
imper. ἴστε (?); subj. εἰδῶ; inf. εἰδέναι; part. εἰδώς ; pluperf. ἤδειν complete. As 
εἶδον and οἶδα have the same root they are put together. It does not seem 
reasonable to divide the same root between εἶδον and ὁράω. See ἴδω. 

Hip (ἄπ--, ἔν--, ἔξ--, πάρ--, σύν--, συμ-πάρ-). Ἦν and mid. ἤμην, ἦσθα, ἤμεθα; 
imper. pres. ἴσθι, ἔστω, ἤτω, ἔστωσαν (ἔστε 2d pl. does not occur); opt. εἴην 
ἔσομαι, ἔσεσθαι, ἐσόμενος (Lu. 22:49). 

Εῤμι. Only in comp. (ἄπ--, εἴσ--, ἔξ--, ἔπ--, σύν-). Only pres. (fut. sense) 3d 
pl. -iaot, εἰσ-- (Heb. 9:6); imper. εἴσ-ιθι (Ac. 9:6 B) and imperf. (-ἠεω). 

᾿Ελαύνω (i.e. ἐλα-νύω) (ἀπ--). Pres. inf. ἐλαύνειν. Ist aor. ἀπ-ήλασα; perf. ἐληλα- 
κώς; imperf. pass. ἠλαύνετο. 

“Ἑλκω. Pres. act. and pass. ἐξ--; imperf. εἷλκον; other tenses from ἑλκύω. ‘Edxbow, 
εἵλκυσα. 

"Ew (ἀντ--, ἀπ--, tpo—). Pres. ποῦ used. Fut. ἐρῶ. Ist aor. εἶπα, etc.; imper. 
εἰπόν (?), εἰπάτω, --ατε, --ἀτωσαν; part. εἴπας. 2d aor. εἶπον; imper. εἰπέ; subj. 
εἴπω; inf, εἰπεῖν; part. εἰπών. Perf. εἴρηκα, 3d pl. --καν and --κασιν (Ac. 17:28); 
inf. εἰρηκέναι; part. εἰρηκώς. Pluperf. εἰρήκει. Mid. 1st aor. ἀπ-ειπάμεθα. 
Pass. Ist aor. ἐρρήθη and ἐρρέθη; part. ῥηθείς ; perf. εἴρηται; part. εἰρημένος. 

᾿Εργάζομαι (κατ--, περι--, mpoo—). Eipyatouny (Ac. 18:3 HIP) and ἠργαζόμην 
(W. H.), ἠργασάμην (Gosp.) and κατ-ειργάσατο (2 Cor. 7:11), εἴργασμαι (pas- 
sive). Ist aor. κατ-ειργάσθην and κατ-ηρ-- (BDC, W. H. alt.). 

*’Epxopar (ἀν--, éx-av, ἀπ--, δι--, εἰσ--, ἔπ-εισ--, παρ-εισ--, συν-εισ--, ἐξ--, δι-εξ--, ἔπ--, 
κατ--, παρ--; ἀντι-παρ--, περι--, προ--, προσ--, συν-ὴ. ᾿ἪἬρχόμην, ἐλεύσομαι, ἦλθον 
and ἦλθα, ἐλήλυθα. Pluperf. ἐληλύθειν. 

᾿ΕἘρωτάω (δι--, ἐπ--). ᾿ἩΗρώτων and ἠρώτουν, ἐρωτήσω, ἠρώτησα; ἐπ-ερωτηθεῖίς, Ist 
aor. pass. 

"Eo Ol and ἔσθω (κατ--, συν-). Pres. only. Ἤσθιον, φάγομαι, 2d sing. φάγεσαι 
(Lu. 17:8); ἔφαγον complete; opt. φάγοι (Mk. 11:14). 

EvayyeAltw (προ-). Active only, Ist aor. (Rev. 10:7; 14:6). Προ--, εὐηγγελι- 
ζόμην, εὐηγγελισάμην, εὐηγγέλισμαι, εὐηγγελίσθην. 

Evdoxéw (συν-), (εὐ, ηὐ)δοκοῦμεν (1 ΤῊ. 2:8), (εὖ, ηὐ)δόκησα (εὐ-- in Gospels. In 
the Epistles the reading varies). 

Εἰὑρίσκω (ἀν-). Εὕρίσκον and nip., εὑρήσω, εὗρον (εὕραμεν, etc.) and εὕρησα (Some 
MSS.), εὕρηκα, ni-, εὑρισκόμην, εὑρέθην, εὑρεθήσομαι. Mid. εὑράμενος. 

"Ex (ἀν--, ἀντ--, ἀπ--, ἐν--, ἐπ--, κατ--, μετ--, παρ--, περι--, προ-, προσ--, συν-;, ὑπερ--, 
ὑπο-). Εἶχον (εἴχαμεν, εἴχοσαν, as well as εἶχαν and εἶχον), ἕξω, ἔσχον, ἔσχηκα, 
εἰχόμην, ἕξομαι; 2d aor. mid. ἀν-εσχόμην. 

Zaw (ἀνα--, συν-). Pres. ζῶ, ζῇς, ζῇ; inf. ζῆν. Εζων, ζήσω, ζήσομαι, ἔζησα. 

Zovvupe and ζωννύω (i.e. ¢ wo-vu-) (ἀνα--, dva-, περι-, ὑπο-). ᾿Εἰζώννυον, ζώσω, 
πέζωσα, mid. fut. περι-ζώσομαι. Ast aor. ἐξζωσάμην, --ἐξωσμαι. 

“Ἥκω (ἀν--, καθ-). Ἧκον, ἥξω, ἧξα (in subj.), ἧκα in Mk. 8:3. Some MSS. have 
ἥκασιν instead of ἥκουσιν. 


1216 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Ἡσσόομαι once (2 Cor. 12:13). Elsewhere ἡττάομαι, ἥττημαι, ἡττήθην. 

Θάπτω (συν-). ἴξθαψα, ἐτάφην. 

Θαυμάζω (ἐκ--). ᾿Εθαύμαζον, ἐθαύμασα, ἐθαυμάσθην, θαυμασθήσομαι and mid. θαυ- 
μάσομαι (Rev. 17:8 8B). 

Θνήσκω (ἀπο-, ovvaro—). Simplex perf. only, ἀπ-έθνησκον; -θανοῦμαι, --ἐθανον, 
τέθνηκα. Both τεθνάναι and τεθνηκέναι (Ac. 14:19), but τεθνηκώς. 

᾿Ιάομαι. Pres. ἰᾶται, ἰώμην; mid. ἰάσομαι, ἰασάμην; pass. ἴαμαι (ἴαται Mk. 5:29), 
ἰάθην, ἰαθήσομαι. 

"TS obsolete. For εἶδον and εἶδα see εἴδω (εἰδέω). 

‘Ix-véopar (ἀφ--, δι--, ἐφ-). Simplex not found in N. T. Pres. —uvobpevos; 
2d aor. ἀφίκετο; inf. ἐφ-ικέσθαι; part. ἀφ-ικόμενος. 

“Type (i.e. ἔἜσι-ση-μι) (ἀν--, ἀφ--, καθ--, παρ--, συν--). Simplex does not occur in LXX 
or N. T. forms in --μο. Pres. complete, ἀν--, ἀφ--, συν--. Fut. ἀφ--, συν-ήσω. 
Ist aor. ἀφ--, καθ--, συν-ῆκα (complete). 2d aor. imper. ἄφ-ες; 2d pl. a¢-, 
σύν-ετε; SUD]. ἀν-, ad—-, συν-ῶ, etc.; Inf. ἀφ--, παρ--, συν-εἴναι; part. av-, 
ἀφ-εἰς. Medio-pass. pres. ἀφ-ίεμαι; part. καθ-ιέμενος. Fut. ἀφ-εθήσομαι; 
Ist aor. av—-, ἀφ-έθην; subj. ἀφ-εθῇ; perf. ἀφ-έωνται (Lu. 5:20); part. παρ- 
ειμένος. —iw (ἀφ--, συν-). Pres. ἀφ-ίομεν (Lu. 11:4), ἀφ--, συν-ίουσιν; subj. 
συν-ίωσι; part. συν-ίων (Ro. 3:11); imperf. ἤφ-τιεν (Mk. 1:34; 11:16). Pass. 
pres. ἀφ-ίονται (Jo. 20:23 W. H. marg.). -πέω (ἀφ-). Pres. ἀφ-εῖς (Rev. 
2:20, 2d sing.). 

“Tornpt, ἱστάνω, ἱστάω (ἀν--, ἐπαν--, ἀνθ--, ἐξαν--, ἀφ--, δι--, &-, ἐξ--, ἐπ-[ἰσταμαι], 
ἐφ--, κατεφ--, συνεφ--, καθ--, ἀντικαθ--, ἀποκαθ--, μεθ--, παρ--, περι--, προ--, συν-". 
Simplex has not the pres. and imperf. active or passive. Στήσω; 2d aor. 
ἔστην (complete), ἔστησα (complete), ἕστηκα, εἰ[ἱ]στήκειν; mid. fut. στήσο- 


μαι! ἀνα--, ἔπανα-- , ἀπο-, etc. Passive ἀνθ--, ἀφ--, ἐξ-ιστάμην, ἐστάθην, στα- 


θήσομαι. Both ἑστώς and ἑστηκώς, ἐξ-εστακέναι and ἑστάναι. Both ἕστακα 
and ἕστηκα. 

Καθαίρω (δια--, ἐκ--). --εκάθαρα, κεκάθαρμαι. Inf. καθᾶραι. 

Καθαρίζω (δια-). Καθαριῶ, ἐκαθάρισα, κεκαθάρισμαι, ἐκαθαρίσθην and ἐκαθερίσθη 
(Mt. 8:3=Mk.). 

Καθέζομαι (παρα-). The simplex ἕζομαι does not: occur in LXX or N. T. Pres. 
part. καθεζόμενος ; imperf. ἐκαθεζόμην. Ast aor. part. παρα-καθεσθείς. 

Κάθημαι (ovr). Pres. 2d sing. κάθῃ (Ac. 23:3); imper. κάθου (Jas. 2:3); subj. 
καθῆσθε (Lu. 22:30); inf. καθῆσθαι; part. καθήμενος; imperf. ἐκαθήμην; fut. 
καθήσομαι. 

Ἐαθίζω (ἀνα--, ἐπι--, παρα-- [Rec.], συν-). The simplex ἵζω does not occur in 
LXX or N.T. Fut. καθίσω; Ist aor. ἐκάθισα; perf. κεκάθικα; mid. fut. καθίσεσθε 
(Mt. 19:28). ; 

Kalw (é-, κατα--). Κατ-έκαιον, κατα-καύσω, κατ-έκαυσα, κέκαυμαι, κατ-εκάην, ἐξ- 
εκαύθην, κατα-καήσομαι, κατα-καυθήσομαι. In 1 Cor. 18:8 some MSS. have xav- 
θήσωμαι (fut. subj., Byz.). 

Κ αλέω (ἀντι--, ἐν--, eio— [--μαι], ἐπι--, μετα--, παρα-- , συνπαρα--, προ-, προσ--, avy-). 
᾿Εκάλουν, καλέσω, ἐκάλεσα, κέκληκα, κέκλημαι, ἐπ-εκέκλητο, ἐκλήθην, κληθήσομαι. 
Mid. fut. ἐπι--, μετα-καλέσομαι, ἐπι--, μετα--,͵ προσ-εκαλεσάμην. 

Κάμνω. "Exapov, κέκμηκα. 

Kepa-vvv-ut, κερα-ννύω (συγ-). The present does not occur in N. T. ’Exépaca, 
κεκέρασμαι, συν--. 

Κερδαίνω. Pres. and imperf. do not occur. Fut. κερδανῶ (1 Cor. 9:21 W. H.); 
aor. subj. κερδάνω: a matter of editing. 


ADDITIONAL NOTES 1217 


Κερδάω. Fut. κερδήσω (Jas. 4:18); aor. ἐκέρδησα; subj. κερδήσω (1 Cor. 
9:19-21). Pass. fut. κερδηθήσομαι (1 Pet. 3:1). 

Κλαίω. “Exdaov, κλαύσω, ἔκλαυσα, κλαύσομαι (Rev. 18:9 W. H. marg.). 

KAdw (ἐκ--, κατα--). "Εκλασα, ἐκλάσθην, ἐξ--. 

Κλείω (ἀπο--, ἐκ--, κατα--, συγ-). ᾿Κλείσω, ἔκλεισα, κέκλεισμαι, ἐκλείσθην. 

Κλίνω (ἀνα--, ἐκ--, κατα--, mpoo—). ᾿Δνα-κλινῶ, ἔκλινα, κέκλικαᾳ. Pass. fut. ἀνα- 
κλιθήσομαι, --εκλίθην, ἄνα--, κατα--, προσ--. ὶ 

Κομίζω (ἐκ--, συγ--, ἐκόμισα, συν-). Pass. ἐξ-εκομίζετο; mid. κομίσομαι and κομιοῦ- 
μαι (1 Pet. 5:4; some MSS. in Col. 8:25), ἐκομισάμην. 

Κόπτω (ἀπο--, ἐκ--, ἐν--, κατα--, mpo-, mpoo—). "Ἑκοπτον, ἐκ--, προ-κόψω, ἔκοψα; 
pass. 2d aor. ἐξ-εκόπην; 2d fut. ἐκ-κοπήσομαι, ἐκοψάμην, κόψομαι, ἀπο--. 

ἸΚορέννυμι, κεκορεσμένος, κορεσθείς. 

Κράζω (ἀνα-). "Expafov, κράξω, ἔκραξα and ἐκέκραξα; 2d aor. av-éxpayov; 2d 
perf. xexpaya. Some MSS. have κεκράξομαι in Lu. 19:40. 

Kpépapor, κρεμαννύω, κρεμάζω and κρεμάω (ἐκ-). The active pres. does not 
occur. ᾿Εκρέμασα, ἐκρεμάσθην. In Lu. 19:48, ἐξ-εκρέμετο and —paro. 

Kplve (ἀνα--, ἀπο--, ἀνταπο- [-μαι], δια--, &—, ἐπι--, κατα--, συν--, ὑπο--, ovvuToO—). 
Διέκρινα, κρινῶ; pass. ἐκρινόμην; κατα-κρινῶν (both a question of accent), ἔκρινα, 
κέκρικα, κεκρίκειν, KéKpiuat, ἐκρίθην, κριθήσομαι. Mid. Ist aor. ἀπ-εκρινάμην. 

Κρύπτω (ἀπο-., ἐν--, περι-). "Expuya; 2d aor. περι-τέκρυβεν (Lu. 1:24). [This 
may be the imperf. οἵ κρύβω.] Κέκρυμμαι, ἐκρύβην. 

KvAlw (ἀνα--, ἀπο-- , mpoo—). ᾿Απο-κυλίσω, ἀπο--, προσ-εκύλισα; pass. ἐκυλίετο, 
κεκύλισμαι, ἀνα--, απο--. 

Aakxéw or λάσκω. Both presents could give ἐλάκησε (Ac. 1:18). 

«Λαμβάνω (ava-—, ἀντι--, συναντι-- [--μαι], ἀπο--, ἐπι--, κατα--, μετα--, παρα--, συν-παρα--, 
προ-- ͵ προσ--, συν--, συν-περι--, ὑπο-). ᾿Ελάμβανον, λήμψομαι, ἔλαβον; opt. λάβοι. 
Λάβε, ποῦ λαβέ; ἐλάβατε (1 Jo. 2:27); παρ-ελάβοσαν (2 Th. 3:6), ἔλαβαν (Jo. 
1:12). Et\nda; εἴληφες (Rev. 11:17); -είλημμαι, ἐλήμφθην. Pass. fut. παρα- 
λημφθήσομαι; mid. 2d aor. ἐλαβόμην ; imper. ἐπι--, προσ-λαβοῦ. 

AavOdve (ἐκ--, ἐπ-- [--μαι}]}. Simplex active only, ἔλαθον. ᾿Επ-ελαθόμην, --λέλησ- 
μαι (éx—, ἐπι-). 

“Λέγω, ‘say’ (ἀντι--, δια--, ἐπι--, προ-). The simplex has pres. and imperf. act. 
and pres. mid. only. Imp. ἔλεγον, ἀντ--, προ--; ἔλεγαν (Jo. 11:56 8D). Pass. 
imperf. δι-τελεγόμην; Ist aor. διτελέχθην; mid. Ist aor. δι-ελεξάμην. 

Λέγω, ‘choose’ (ἐκ--, ἐπι--, κατα--; παρα--, ov—). Simplex has not this meaning. 
Συλ-- is the only compound with active forms. Fut. συλ-λέξω; Ist aor. συνέ- 
λεξα; mid. pres. κατα--, παρα--, συλ--ἰ imperf. ef-, παρ-ελεγόμην; 1st aor. δι--, 
éx—, ἐπι-ελεξάμην; pass. perf. ἐκ-λελεγμένος. 

Nelarw (ἀπο-, δια--, ἐκ--, ἐπι--, κατα--, &-Kata-, Tept—). Simplex only pres. (act. 
and pass.) except Tit. 3:13 W. H. marg. Ἔλειπον, -λείψω, --ἐλειψα, ἔλιπον; 
pass. --λέλειμμαι, --ελείφθην. (Some MSS. have a compound of λι-μ-πάνω in 
pres. and imperf., Ac. 8:24.) See 1 Pet. 2:2. 

«Λογίζομαι (ava—, δια--, παρα--, συλ-). ᾿Εἰλογιζόμην,. ἐλογισάμην, ἐλογίσθην, λογι- 
σθήσομαι. 

Aotw (ἀπο-). "Ἑλουσα; pass. λέλουμαι and λέλουσμαι (Heb. 10:23); mid. Ist 
aor. ἐλουσάμην. 

Mav0dvw (κατα-). "ἔμαθον, μεμάθηκα. 

Mao. Only μέλει, ἔμελεν, impersonal. Pass. μέλομαι, ἐπι--, μετα--; mid, fut. 
ἐπι-μελήσομαι. Pass. μετ-εμελόμην, ἐπι--, μετ-εμελήθην; μετα-μεληθήσομαι. 

Mado. "“Epeddov and ἤμελλον, μελλήσω. 


1218 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Μένω (ἀνα--, δια--, ἐν--, ἐπι--, κατα--, παρα--, συν-παρα-- [Rec.], περι--, προσ--, ὑπο-). 
Ἔμενον, μενῶ, ἔμεινα, --μεμένηκα, μεμενήκειν. 

Μιαίνω. Μεμίαμμαι, ἐμιάνθην. 

Μίηνυμι and μίσγω (συν-ανα-). “Ἐμιξα, μέμιγμαι. 

Μιμνήσκω (ἀνα--, ἐπ-ανα--, ὑπο-). --μνήσω, μέμνημαι, ἐμνήσθην, μνησθήσομαι. 

Μνηστεύω. ᾿Εμνήστευμαι, ἐμνηστεύθην. 

Νύσσω (κατα-). ἤΕνυξα; 2d aor. pass. κατ-ενύγην. 

Ἐηραίνω. Pres. does not occur. ’Eénpava, ἐξήραμμαι, ἐξηράνθην. 

tiupdw. The form ἕυρασθαι occurs (1 Cor. 11:6), which may be accented ξυρᾶ- 
σθαι (pres. inf.) or ξύρασθαι (1st aor. mid. inf.). ᾿Εξύρημαι, ξυρήσομαι. 

Οἰκοδομέω (ἀν--, ἐπ--, συν-). ᾿Θικοδόμουν, οἰκοδομήσω, φκοδόμησα (also oixod-), 
φκοδόμημαι, φκοδομήμην, φκοδομήθην (also οἰκοδ--), οἰκοδομηθήσομαι. 

Ὄλλυμι and ὀλλύω. Simplex does not occur in N. T. It is confined in LXX 
to Job, Prov. and part of Jer. (Thackeray, p. 279). Comp. ἀπ--, ovv-ar-. 

Pres. act. ἀπ-ολλύω; pres. pass. ἀπ-τόλλυμαι; Imperf. ἀπτώλλυντο (1 Cor. 10:9); 

fut. ἀπ-ολέσω and ἀπ-ολῶ (1 Cor. 1:19 Q); 1st aor. ἀπ-ώλεσα; 2d perf. ἀπ-ολωλώς; . 
mid. imperf. ἀπ-ωλλύμην; fut. ἀπ-ολοῦμαι; 2d aor. ἀπ-ωλόμην, συν-απ--; inf. : 
ἀπ-ολέσθαι; part. ἀπ-ολόμενος. 

“Ὁμοιόω (ἀφ-). ‘Oporwow, ὡμοιώθην (also ὁμοιώὠθην), ὁμοιωθήσομαι, ἀφ-ωμοιωμένος. 

‘Opdw (ἀφ--, καθ--, προ-). Pres. complete. Imper. ὅρα, ὁρᾶτε; imperf. ἑώρων (3d 
pl., Jo. 6:2); perf. ἑώρακα (Gospels and Acts. In Paul and 1 John variation 
between éw— and é0-); plup. ἑωράκει; pass. pres. καθ-ορᾶται; imperf. προ- 
ορώμην (LXX). Stem ὁπ-: fut. ὄψομαι; fut. pass. ὀφθήσομαι; Ist aor. pass. 
ὥφθην; Ist aor. mid. subj. ὄψησθε (Lu. 13:28). Stem ἰδ--: see εἰδέω. 

᾿ΟὈρύσσω (δι--, ἐξ-). "Ὥρυξα, ἐξ--, δι-τορυχθῆναι or δι-ορυγῆναι (W. H. alt.). 

Πάσχω (rpo-, συμ-). “ἔπαθον, πέπονθα. 

Tlavw (ἀνα--, ἔπ-ανα--, συν-ανα [--μαι], κατα--). Simple aor. act. once only. Παύσω, 
ἔπαυσα; mid. παύομαι, ἐπαυόμην, παύσομαι, ἐπαυσάμην, πέπαυμαι, --παήσομαι. 

Πείθω (ἀνα-). “Επειθον, ἔπεισα, πέποιθα, ἐπεποίθειν; pass. ἐπειθόμην, πέπεισμαι, 
ἐπείσθην, πεισθήσομαι. 

Πιάζω and πιέζω, ἐπίασα, πεπίεσμαι, ἐπιάσθην. 

Πίμπλημι. Pres. part. ἐμπιπλῶν, ἔπλησα, ἐμ-πεπλησμένος, ἐπλήσθην, πλησθήσομαι. 

Πίνω (κατα--, συμ-). Πίομαι (πίεσαι, Lu. 9:8), ἔπιον (both πεῖν and πιεῖν, but 
only πίε), πέπωκα, κατ-επόθην. 

Ilumpackw, πέπρακα, πέπραμαι, ἐπράθην. 

Πίπτω (ἀνα--, ἀντι--, ἀπο-- , ἐκ--, ἐν--, ἐπι--, κατα--, παρα--, περι--, προσ--, ovp-). 
ἽἝπιπτον, πεσοῦμαι, ἔπεσον, ἔπεσα (3d pl. ἔπεσαν, Gospel 5, Acts 2), πέπτωκα. 
In Rev. 2:5 πέπτωκες, Rev. 18:3 πέπτωκαν. 

Πλέω (ἀπο--, δια--, ἐκ--, κατα--, παρα--, ὑπο--, -ἔπλεον (3d sing. ἐξ-έπλει contracted), 
πέπλευσα. 

ΠΠλέκω (éu- only comp.), πλέκομαι; aor. act. part. πλέξας; 2d aor. pass. ἐμ- 
πλακείς. 

Πλήσσω (ἐκ--, ἐπι-). Act. Ist aor. subj. ἐπι-πλήξῃς (1 Tim. 5:1); pass. pres. 
ἐκ-πλήσσεσθαι; imperf. ἐξ-επλησσόμην; 2d aor. ἐπλήγη (simplex) and ἐξ-επλάγην 
(see Veitch). 

Πνίγω (ἀπο--, ἐπι--, συμ--). "Ἑπνιγον, ἔπνιξα, ἐπνιγόμην, ἀπ-επνίγην. 

Πράσσω. Πράξω, ἔπραξα, πέπραχα, πέπραγμαι. 

IIvv0avopar. ᾿Επυνθανόμην, ἐπυθόμην. 

“Pavritw. ᾿Εράντισα (some MSS. ἐρράντ.), ῥεράντισμαι (So W. H., but some MSS. 
épp.). Mid. 1st aor. subj. ῥαντίσωνται (Mk. 7:4). 


ADDITIONAL NOTES 1219 


“Ῥέω (παρα-). ‘Petow; 2d aor. pass. -ερρύην. 

“Ῥήσσω (δια--, περι--, προσ-- and ῥήγνυμι).. The active forms belong to ῥήσσω 
and the passive to ῥήγνυμι. Act. pres. ῥήσσει, δια--; fut. ῥήξω; Ist aor. ἔρ(ρ)ηξα, 
di—, περι--, προσ--; Pass. pres. ῥήγνυνται; imperf. δι-τερ(ρ)ήγνυτο (Lu. 5:6). The 
reading of Lu. 5:6 varies between δι-ερ(ρ)ήγνυντο and δι-ερ(ρ)ήσσετο. 

Σβέννυμι and σβεννύω, σβέννυμαι, stem σβε(σ)---. Pres. σβέννυτε, σβέσω, ἔσβεσα; 
pass. σβέννυμαι 

Σείω (ἀνα--, δια--, κατα-). ᾿Αν-δι-κατ-έσεισα, σείσω; pass. pres. σειόμενος; 1st aor. 
ἐσείσθην. 

Σκάπτω (κατα-). "Εσκαψα, --ἐσκαμμαι (Ac. 15:16 Rec.). 

Σκέπτομαι is not found in Ν. T. save in ἐπισκέπτεσθαι (Jas. 1:27; Heb. 2:6 6), 
ἐπι-σκέψομαι; Ist aor. mid. ἐπ-εσκεψάμην. 

Σπάω (ava—, ἀπο-, δια--, ἐπι--, περι-). Pres. inf. ἀπο-σπᾶν, ἀνα-σπάσω, ἀπ-ἔσπασα; 
Pass. περι-εσπώμην, -εσπάσθην, av—, ἀπο--  δια--; perf. inf. δι-τεσπάσθαι. Ast aor. 
mid. σπασάμενος (simplex). 

Σπείρω (δια--, ἐπι-)ὴ. “ἔσπειρα, ἔσπαρμαι, ἐσπάρην, δι--. 

Στέλλω. Simplex only in pass. pres. (’Amo-, ἐξ-απο--, συν-απο--, δια--, ἐπι--, 
κατα--, ov(v)—, ὑπο-). ἹὙπ-έστελλον, δι-εστελλόμην, —TTEAG, --ἐστειλα, ἀπ-έσταλκα 
(ἀπέσταλκαν in Ac. 16:36), -ἐσταλμαι, ἀπ-εστάλην, δι--, ὑπ-εστειλάμην. 

Στήκω. Cf. modern Greek στέκω from ἕστηκα. Imperf. ἔστηκον in Jo. 8: 44 
and Rev. 12:4 according to W. H. 

Στηρίζω (ἐπι-). Στηρίξω (—iow in MSS., 2 Th. 3:3, W. H. alt.; οἵ. -πιἰῶ in LXX), 
ἐστήριξα and ἐστήρισα, στηρίξαι (opt. and inf.), ἐστήριγμαι, ἐστηρίχθην. 

Στρέφω (ἀνα--, ἀπο-, δια--, ἐκ--, ἐπι--, κατα--, μετα--, συ(ν), ὑπο-). ‘Tx-éorpedor, 
-στρέψω, ἔστρεψα, --ἔστραμμαι, ἐστράφην, μετα-στραφήσομαι. 

Στρώννυμι Or στρωννύω (κατα--, ὑπο-). Present does not occur. “Εστρώννυον, 
ἔστρωσα, ἔστρωμαι, κατ-εστρώθην. 

Σφάζω (κατα-). Present does not occur. Σφάξω, ἔσφαξα, ἔσφαγμαι, ἐσφάγην. 

Σόζω (δια--, ἐκ-). Σώσω, ἔσωσα, σέσωκα, ἐσωζόμην, σέσωσμαι, ἐσώθην, σωθήσομαι. 

πίάσσω. (ἀνα-- [--μαι], ἀντι--, ἀπο--, δια--, ἐπι-δια- [--μαι], ἐπι--, [προ--Ἰ προσ--, συν--, 
ὑπο-). “Erata, δια-τεταχέναι, téray— [-μαι]; 2d aor. δι-, ὑπ-ετάγην, δια-τάξομαι; 
2d fut. ὑπο-ταγήσομαι; Ist aor. δια-ταχθείς; Ist aor. mid. ἐταξάμην. 

Tedéw (ἀπο--, δια--, ἐκ--, ἐπι--,) συν-). --ττελέσω, ἐτέλεσα, τετέλεκα, τετέλεσμαι, ἔτε- 
λέσθην, τελεσθήσομαι. 

πέλλω (ἀνα--, ἐξανα--, ἐν-). Simplex does not occur in N. T. Ist aor. ἀν--, 
ἐξαν-ἐτειλα; perf. ἀνα-τέταλκα; mid. pres. ἐν-τέλλομαι; fut. ἐν-τελοῦμαι; perf. 
ἐν-τέταλμαι; mid. Ist aor. ἐν-ετειλάμην. 

Τέμνω (περι--, συν-). Simplex does not occur. 2d aor. περιτέτεμον; inf. περι- 
τεμεῖν; pass. pres., Ist aor. περι-ετμήθην; perf. περι-τετμημένος. 

Τίθημι (ἀνα--, προσ-ανα--, ἀπο--, δια--, ἀντι-δια--, ἐκ--, ἐπι--, συν-επι--, κατα--, συν-κατα--, 
μετα-- , παρα--, περι--; προ--, προσ--, συν--, ὑπο-)ὴ. Act. pres. complete. Imperf. 
ἐτίθει and ἐτίθεσαν, ἐτίθουν (from τιθέω); fut. θήσω; aor. ἔθηκα, --κας, --καν (3d 
pl.); imper. θές (ἐπι--, mpoo—); subj. θῶ (complete); inf. θεῖναι; part. θείς; perf. 
τέθεικα; mid. and pass. τίθεμαι, τέθειμαι, συν-ετέθειντο, ἐτιθέμην (ἐξ--, προσ--); mid. 
fut. δια--, ἐπι-θήσομαι; 2d aor. ἐθέμην (complete); imper. θοῦ (zapa—); θέσθε 
(ἀπο-)); inf. θέσθαι (ἀπο--, κατα--); part. θέμενος (ἀπο--, dia—). Pass. fut. τεθή- 
σομαι; aor. ἐτέθην; inf. τεθῆναι; part. τεθείς. 

πίκτω. Τέξομαι, ἔτεκον, ἐτέχθην. 

Tpérw (ava—, ἀπο--, ἐκ--, ἐν--, ἐπι--, μετα--, Tept-, mpo-). Simplex not in Ν. T. 
Ist aor. ἀν-, éx-érpeva; mid. pres. imperf. &-erperdunv; 1st aor. part. προ- 


1220 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


τρεψάμενος; pass. “strong” fut. ἐκ--, ἐν-τραπήσονται; 2d aor. ἐκ--, ἐπ-ετράπην; 
perf. ἐπι-τέτραπται (1 Cor. 14:34 Rec.). é 

Τρέφω (ava-, ἐκ--, ἐν-). Εθρεψα, --εθρεψάμην, τέθραμμαι, --ετράφην. 

Τρέχω (εἰσ--, κατα--, περι--, προ-, προσ--, συν-- ἔπι-συν--, ὑπο-). Pres. complete. 
"Erpexov, ἔδραμον. 

πρίβω (δια--, συν--). Simplex does not occur. Pres. δια--, συν--; imperf. δι-έτριβον; 
fut. συν-τρίψω; 1st aor. δι--, συντέτριψα; pass. pres. συν-τρίβομαι; 2d fut. συν- 
τριβήσομαι; perf. inf. συν-τετρίφθαι; part. συν-τετριμμένος. 

Τυγχάνω (ἐν--, ὑπερ-εν--, ἔπι--, Tapa-, συν-). “Ervxov, opt. τύχοι, τέτυχα (Heb. 
8:6, 8*AD*KL), τέτευχα (Rec., BE, or even τετύχηκα in MSS.). 

Palvw (ava-, ἐπι-). Pres. —épava (φανη, Rev. 8:12, 18:23 is variously accented), 
ἐφάνην, φανήσομαι and φανοῦμαι (LXX). 

Φείδομαι. Φείσομαι, ἐφεισάμην. 

Φέρω (ἀνα--, ἀπο-,, δια--, εἰσ--, παρ-εισ--, ἐκ--, ἐπι--; κατα--, παρα--, περι--, προ--, Tpod-, 
συν-- , ὑπο-). "Εφερον, ἐφερόμην, οἴσω, —hveyxa, indic. ἤνεγκον; other parts 
ἠνέχθην; 2d perf. act. προσ-ενήνοχα. 

Φεύγω (ἀπο--, dia-, ἐκ--, κατα-)ὴ. Mid. fut. φεύξομαι; 2d perf. ἐκ-πεφευγέναι, 
ἔφυγον. 

Φθάνω (προ-). “EdOaca, ἔφθακα (1 Th. 2:16 W. H. marg.). 

Φθείρω (δια--, xata—). Imperf. (?) ἔτφθειρεν (Rev. 19:2). Φθερῶ, ἔφθειρα, --ἐφθαρ- 
μαι, ἐφθάρην, φθαρήσομαι. 

Φράσσω. “Edpata, ἐφράγην, φραγήσομαι. 

Φύω (ἐκ--, συν-). Pres. part. φύων; pass. 2d aor. part. φυέν, συν-φυεῖσαι. A 
further form ἐκτφυη (Mt. 23:32 =Mk.) may be accented --φύῃ ΟΥ̓. H.) and 
will then be active pres. subj. or 1st aor. subj.; or --φυῇ and will then be 
pass. 2d aor. subj. In this case τὰ φύλλα is considered the subject. 

Xéw (ἐκ--, ἐπι--, κατα--, συν-). Simplex does not occur in N. T. and χύννω 
(simplex not in LXX or N.T.). Comp. ἐκ--, ὑπερεκ--, συν--- Active part. 
ἐπι-- (Lu. 10:34); imperf. συντέχυννεν (Ac. 9:22); fut. ἐκ-χεῶ (L.X_X); Ist aor. 
ἐκ--, κατ-έχεα; inf. ἐκ-χέαι (Ro. 3:15, LXX); 2d aor. (?) imper. é&-xéere 
(Rev. 16:1), συν-έχεον (Ac. 21:27). Hort. (II, p. 165) would refer the 
above forms “to an otherwise virtually unknown 2d aor.’ Pass. pres. 
ἐκ-χεῖται (Mt. 9:17) and ἐκ-συν--, -ὑπερ-εκ-χύννομαι; imperf. ἐξ-εχύννετο (Ac. 
22:20); fut. ἐκ-χυθήσομαι; Ist aor. é&-, cuv-exbOnv; perf. ἐκ--, συν-κέχυμαι. 

Xplw (ἐγ--, ἐπι-). Aor. Expioa, éy-xptoa (Rev. 3:18) may be inf. of 1st aor. 
active (W. H.) or imper. of 1st aor. mid. (ἔγχρισαι). 

Xalpw (συν-). “Exaupov, ἐχάρην, χαρήσομαι, some MSS. χαρῶ (Rev. 11:10). 

Χαρίζομαι. Mid. χαρίσομαι, ἐχαρισάμην; pass. κεχάρισμαι, ἐχαρίσθην, χαρισθήσο- 
μαι. ; 

Xpdopat (κατα-). ᾿Εχρώμην, ἐχρησάμην, κέχρημαι. Impers. χρή only once (Jas. 
3:10). 

Ψύχω (ava-, ἀπο--, ἐκ--, κατα--; ἀν--, ἐκ--, κατ-έψυξα). Ψυγήσομαι. 

᾿Ωνέομαι. ᾿Ωνησάμην, not ἐπριάμην. 


13. Ablaut. It is important for the student to note the part 
played in Greek words, both root-syllables and other syllables, 
by ablaut or vowel-gradation. We find qualitative ablaut, as 
φέρω, φόρος and λείπω, λέλοιπα. Then there is quantitative: or 
qualitative-quantitative ablaut, as in ἴμεν, εἶμι and λιπεῖν, λείπω. 


ADDITIONAL NOTES 1221 


The subject is still more or less obscure as to the precise order of 
these vowel-changes and the precise factor in each change (ac- 
centuation, vowel-contraction, compensative lengthening). For 
a brief account see Wright, Comparative Grammar of the Greek 
Language, 1912, pp. 49-61; Brugmann, Kurze vergl. Gr., pp. 
138-50; Hirt, Handbuch der griech. Laut- und Formenlehre, pp. 
84-105. For a fuller discussion see Hirt, Der indogermanische 
Ablaut; Brugmann, Grundrif, vol. I, pp. 482-505. 


are" 











ἽΝ = ie 
a ὁ 7 ὡς 
i ad 


ne μῶν Soe en 
ἌΝ ἙΝ 


Νὰ ᾿ “J ὧν iets hae ae 
Ε γ᾽ 4 ἴ ᾿ μ᾿ ia 
ie ϊ ' 
i . 
᾿ "" 
j 
> ᾿ ἃ 
we ἊΣ " 
᾿ 
" my 
: : Aa Na 
: " ᾿ 1 a P ow On ; 7 4 
= ‘ ᾿ oe δε, ΔῈΝ ἬΔΗ ε % es ὟΝ ve Ἃ 
΄ ry ᾿ J ers Ὁ ; “ p ἢ ite ᾿ 
ἴω ᾿ v ‘ τ 


Hae ah art ne Ἰὰς 


> ae 


ol . 
7 Se ate ; mats νον ἂν 


| ae 
v ie ae iy eee 
ἮΝ Lh A BO TES αν ae 
| De ee a. 
f ἡ okie tee ‘OS eath ttes τοῖς 
τ ae ν γεν. nh 
eo ala 


᾿ f ; DoF ol ae Pras 
- Py 4 τ i a 1) ae ' 
: ᾿ ᾿ : may 
Α ᾿ : an 
ἐν ih, 


* J 4 Ni 4 ᾿ Ψ a oF a ἮΝ 
Ἥ ᾿ Lat Ch, γ᾽ ayy is aed 








aie Ale 





INDEX OF SUBJECTS 


References to pages. 


A 


&: see Sinaiticus. 

a-text: see Syrian text. 

A: see Alexandrinus. 

Abbreviations: of personal names, 
171-3. 

Ablative case: form, 248; Doric geni- 
tive-ablative, 254; Attic gen.-abl., 
255 f.; name, 514; meaning, 514; 
rare with substantives, 514 f.; with 
adjectives, 515f.; with preposi- 
tions, 516f. and ch. XIII; with 
verbs, 517-20 (of departure and 
removal 518, of ceasing and ab- 
staining 518, of missing, lacking, 
despairing 518, of differing, excel- 
ling 519, of asking and hearing 519, 
with the partitive idea 519, attrac- 
tion of relative 519 f.); after com- 
parative, 667. 

Ablaut: 1220 f. 

Absolute: use of cases, 416; nomina- 
tive, 459 f.; accusative, 490 f.; geni- 
tive, 512-4; positive adjective in 
absolute sense, 661; inf., 1092 f.; 
participle, 1130-2. 

Abstract nouns: 152, 794. 

Accent: discussion of, 226-36 (age of 
Greek accent 226-8, significance 
of, in the κοινή 228 f., signs of 229, 
later developments in 229 f., short- 
ening stem-vowels 230 f., separate 
words 231f., difference in sense 
232 f., enclitics and proclitics 233- 
5, proper names 235, foreign words 
235 f.); rules for accent of. enclitics 
and proclitics, 1211. 

Accidence: in the vernacular κοινή; 


A complete List of Topics ts not attempted. 


72 {.; in the N.T., 82; part II, 141- 
376. 

Accumulation of prepositions: see 
prepositions. 

Accusative case: form, 248; double 
accusative, 257; singular in third 
decl., 264f.; plural, 265 f.; like 
nom. in —es, 266; singular of adjec- 
tives, 274; name, 466 f.; meaning 
of, 467f.; with verbs of motion, 
468 f.; extent of space, 469; for 
time, 469-71; with transitive verbs, 
471-7; cognate, 477-9; double, 
479-84; with passive verbs, 484-6; 
adverbial, 486-8; by antiptosis, 
488; by inverse attraction, 488; 
with the infinitive, 489 f.; acc. ab- 
solute, 490 f., 1130; with preposi- 
tions, 491 and ch. XIII; compared 
with genitive, 506-10. 

Achean: origin, 16; Achszan-Doric, 
17, 54, 266; Achzan-Dorian κοινή: 
53, 63. 

Active voice: endings, 337-9; displa- 
cing future middle, 356; meaning 
of, 799; transitive or intransitive, 
799 f.; effect of prepositions, 800; 
variation in tenses, 800 f.; causa- 
tive, 801 f.; with reflexives, 802; 
impersonal, 802; infinitives, 802; 
as passive of another verb, 802 f. 

Acts: 120-3. See Index of Quota- 
tions, and passim in the volume. 

Adjectives: with formative suffixes, 
157-60 (primitive, 157 f.; secon- 
dary, 158-60: from verbs 158, from 
substantives 158, from adjectives 
159f., from adverbs 160); com- 
pound, 161-9 (with inseparable 


1223 


1224 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


prefixes 161f., agglutinative or 
juxtapositive 168 f.); declension 
of adjectives, 270-6 (origin of the 
adjective 270f., inflection of ad- 
jectives with one termination 271 f., 
with two terminations 272 f., with 
three 273 f., the accus. singular 
274, contraction in 274 f., inde- 
clinable 275 f.); comparison of, 
276-81 (positive, 276, comparative 
276-8, superlative 278-81); in pred- 
icate, 401; and substantive, 407; 
gender in, 412f.; with vocative, 
464; with genitive, 503-5; with 
ablative, 515 f.; with locative 
or instrumental, 523; with da- 
tive, 537; distinguished from ad- 
verbs, 549 f., 657; syntax of, ch. 
XIV, 650-75; origin of, 650; adjec- 
tival or appositional use of sub- 
stantive, 651.f.; as substantive, 
652-4 (any gender 652, masculine 
652, feminine 652 f., neuter 654 f.); 
agreement with substantives, 654 f. 
(number 654f., gender 655, case 
655, two or more adjectives 655); 
attributive, 655 f.; predicate, 656 f.; 
personal construction, 657 f.; with 
cases, 658; with the inf. and clauses, 
658 f.; as adverb, 659; positive, 
659-61 (relative contrast 659 f., as 
comparative or superlative 660 f., 
with prepositions 661, comparison 
implied by ἤ 661, in absolute sense 
661); comparative, 662-9 (contrast 
or duality 662 f., degree 663, with- 
out suffixes 663, double 663 f., with- 
out object of 664-6, followed by ἤ 
666, by the ablative 666f., by 
prepositions 667, displacing the su- 
perlative 667-9); superlative, 669- 
71 (vanishing 669, few true in N. T. 
669 f., elative 670, no ‘ Hebrais- 
tic’? 671); numerals, 671-5; with 
inf., 1076 f.; part. originally, 1100 f.; 
adjectival aspects of part., 1104-- 
10; negatives with, 1163 f. 


Adverbs: with formative suffixes, 


160; agglutinative compounds, 
169-71; neglect of adverbs, 293; 


formation of, 294-7 (fixed cases 
294, accus. 294f., ablative 295, 
genitive 295, locative 295, instru- 
mental 295 f., dative 296, suffixes 
296, compound adverbs 297, anal- 
ogy 297, comparison of adverbs 
297); adverbial stems, 297-9 (sub- 
stantives 298, adjectives 298, nu- 
merals 298, pronouns 298, verbs 
298 f.); use of adverbs, 299-300 
(manner 299, place 299f., time 
300); scope of, 300-2 (relative be- 
tween adverbs and _ prepositions 
301, adverbs and _ conjunctions 
301 f., adverbs and intensive par- 
ticles 302, adverbs and interjec- 
tions 302); adverbial accusative, 
486-8; genitive with, 505; dative 
with, 537 f.; syntax of, ch. XII, 
544-52; special difficulties, 544; 
nature of, 544; narrower sense of, 
544 f.; adverbs with verbs, 545 f. 
(commonest 545, N. T. usage 545, 
predicate uses 545 f., with ἔχω 546, 
with participles 546, loose relation 
546); with other adverbs, 546; with 
adjectives, 546f.; with substan- 
tives, 547; as substantives, 547 f.; 
frequent use of, 548; as marks of 
style, 548 f.; distinguished from ad- 
jective, 549f. (different meaning 
549, difference in Greek and Eng- 
lish idiom 549 f.); adverbial phrases 
550-2 (incipient adverbs 550, prep- 
ositional phrases 550 f., participles 
551, 1109 f.); the verb, 554 f.; prep- 
ositions, 554 f.; adjective as, 659; 
article with, 765 f. 

Adversative particles: 1187 f. 

Eolic: lyric odes, 17; persistence of, 
52; relation to Doric, 17, 53; influ- 
ence on κοινή, 63; on the N. T., 82; 
and here and there, ad libitwm. 

ZEschylus: see Index of Quotations. 

Affixes: 146. 

Agent: words expressing, 153 f.; da- 
tive of, 542; with passive, 820. 

Agglutinative: type of languages, 37; 

. compounds, 163-71. 

Agreement: see concord, 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS 


Aktionsart: 344 f., 823 f., 828 f., 831- 
5, 850 f., 858 f. | 

Alexander the Great: 44, 49-51, 53 ff., 
60-3, 66-8, 71, 239, etc. 

Alexandrian: grammarians, 31; do 
not treat adjectives, 650; no Alex- 
andrian dialect, 68, 91, 100, 213, 
215, 227, 242. 

Alexandrian type of text: 180 and 
passim. 

Alexandrinus: 179 and passim. 

Allegory: 1207. 

Alliteration: 1201. 

Alphabet: original Greek, 178; law 
enforcing Ionic alphabet, 181, 209, 
222. 

Alternative: pronouns, 745-50 (see 
distributive); questions, 736 f. 

Amplification: of subject, 598-400; 
of predicate, 400 f. 

Anabasis: passim. 
Quotations. 

Anacoluthon: discussion of, 435-40 
(suspended subject 436 f., digres- 
sion 437-9, participle in 439 f., 
asyndeton 440); distinction from 
oratio variata, 440f.; kinds of, 
1203 f. 

Analogy: passim. 

Anaphora: 1200. 

Anaphoric: see article, demonstra- 
tive, relative. 

Anarthrous: attributive, 782-4; pred- 
icate, 790-6; participle, 1105 f. 

Annominatio: 1201. 

Antecedent: see demonstrative, rela- 
tive, preposition. 

Antiptosis: 488. 

Antistrophe: 1200. 

Antithesis: 1199 f. 

Aorist: second aorist of —y verbs, 
307-11; forms of, strong and weak, 
second and first, 345-50; passive, 
816 ff.; name, 831; Aktionsart in, 
831-5 (constative 831-4, ingressive 
834, effective 834 f.); indicative, 
835-48 (narrative or historical 
tense 835 f., gnomic 836 f., relation 
to imperfect 837—40, relation to past 
perfect 840 f., relation to present 


See Index of 


1225 


841-3, relation to present per- 
fect 843-5, epistolary 845 f., rela- 
tion to the future 846 f., in wishes 
847, variation in use of tenses 847, 
translation of aorist into English 
847 f.); subjunctive and optative, 
848-55 (no time-element 848, fre- 
quency of subj. 848-50, Aktions- 
art 850 f., aorist subj. in prohibi- 
tions 851-4, aorist subj. with 6d μή 
854, aorist opt. 854 f.); imperative, 
855 f.; infinitive, 856-8; participle, 
858-64 and 1112-4 (Aktionsart 
858 f., 6 and aorist 859f., ante- 
cedent action 860, simultaneous 
action 860 f., subsequent action 
861-3, aorist participle in indirect 
discourse 863 f.). 

Aoristic: see punctiliar, present, per- 
fect, future. 

Apheresis: 205 f. 

Apocalypse: 101, 135 f.; solecisms in, 
413-6 and passim. See Index of 
Quotations. 

Apocrypha: passim. 
Quotations. 

Apodosis: see 921-3 and conditional 
sentences, 1007—27. 

Aposiopesis: 1203. 

Apostrophe: use of, 244. 

Appian: see Index of Quotations. 

Apposition: with substantive, 368- 
400; partitive, 399; predicative am- 
plifications, 401; peculiarities in, 
416; to vocative, 464; genitive of, 
498 f.; appositional use of substan- 
tive, 651 f.; with οὗτος, 698-700; 
ἐκεῖνος, 708; appositional inf., 1078 f. 

Aquila: see Index of Quotations. 

Aramaic: 24; spoken by Jesus, 26-9; 
distinct from the Hebrew, 102; 
portions of the O. T. in, 103; the 
vernacular of Palestine, 103 f.; Jo- 
sephus’ use of, in his War, 104; 
signs of, in the N. T., 104 f.; pos- 
sible use by Mark and Matthew, 
105; proper names, 214 f., 236; on 
prepositions, 556 f.; and passim. 

Arcadian: 63, 67, 82, 84, 184, pas- 
sim. 


See Index of 


1226 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Aristophanes: and the vernacular, 
66. See Index of Quotations. 

Aristotle: shows influence of Ionic 
and marks transition to κοινή, δῦ, 
58, 128, 146, 148-53, 168 f., 171, 
passim. See Index of Quotations. 

Arrangement: see sentence. 

Arrian: see Index of Quotations. 

Article: use by Peter, 127; with voca- 
tive, 465 f.; as possessive, 684; with 
possessive, 685; with reflexive, 690; 
with οὗτος, 700-2; with ἐκεῖνος, 708; 
origin and development of, 754 f. 
(a Greek contribution 754, derived 
from demonstrative 755); signifi- 
cance of, 755; method employed 
by, 756-8 (individuals from indi- 
viduals 756, classes from classes 
757, qualities from qualities 758); 
varied usages of, 758-76 (with sub- 
stantives, context, gender, proper 
names, anaphoric 758-02, with ad- 
jectives, resumptive, adj. alone,with 
numerals 762-4, with participles 
764 f., infinitive 765, with adverbs 
765 f., with prepositional phrases 
766, with single words or whole 
sentences 766, with genitive alone 
767, nouns in predicate 767-9, dis- 
tributive 769, nominative with = 
vocative 769, =possessive 769 f., 
with possessive 770, with αὐτός 770, 
with demonstratives 770f., with 
ὅλος, was [ἅπας] 771-4, with πολύς 
774 {., ἄκρος, ἥμισυς, ἔσχατος, μέσος 
775, with ἄλλος and ἕτερος 71 ἴ., 
with μόνος 776); position with at- 
tributives, 776-89 (with adjectives, 
normal, repetition, one with sev- 
eral, anarthrous substantives, par- 
ticiples 776-9, with genitive, 
between article and gen., after gen. 
without repetition, repetition with 
gen., absent with both, correlation 
of article 779-82, with adjuncts or 
adverbs, between article and noun, 
repeated, only with adjunct, only 
with noun, when several adjuncts 
occur, phrases of verbal origin, 
exegetical questions, anarthrous 


attributive 782-4, several attribu- 
tives with καί, same person or 
thing, when distinguished, treated 
as one, point of view, difference in 
number or gender, with disjunctive 
particle 785-9); position with pred- 
icates, 789f.; absence of, 790-6 
(with proper names 791, with geni- 
tives 791, prepositional phrases 
791 f., with both preposition and 
genitive 792 f., titles 793, words in 
pairs 793, ordinal numerals 793 f., 
in predicate 794, abstract words 
794, qualitative force 794, only ob- 
ject of kind 794-6) ; with inf., 1062— 
8; articular part., 1106-8. 

Article, indefinite: εἷς as, 674; τις 
and εἷς, 796. 

Articular infinitive: 1062-8. 

Articular participle: 1106-8. 

Artistic prose: see literary κοινή. 

Asianism: 60, 73, 87 f., passim. 

Aspirate: 191, 209; doubling of, 215; 
aspiration of consonants, 219; ori- 
gin of the aspirate, 221 f.; varia- 
tions in MSS., 223-5; transliter- 
ated Semitic words, 225; use with 
p and pp, 225f.; question of αὑτοῦ, 
226. 

Assertion, sentence of: see indirect 
discourse. 

Asseverative particles: 1150. 

Assimilation: of consonants, 215-7; 
rules for, 1210. 

Associative case: see instrumental. 


»Asyndeton: 427-44; imperative in, 


949. 

Athens: losing its primacy in culture, 
67, passim. 

Attendant circumstance, participle of: 
see participle. 

Attic: 16, 17, 20, 22, 35f., 41-4; tri- 
umph of, 51; vernacular, the base 
of the κοινή, 60-2; influence on 
N. T., 82; Attic inscriptions show 
indifference to hiatus, 207; geni- 
tive-abl., 255f.; “Attic” declension, 
260; ad libitum in the book. 

Attica: 181 f. 

Atticism: not part of the κοινή, 50; the 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS 


Atticistic reaction and its influence, 
58-60, 73; conservative influence 
of, 177 {.; pronunciation, 239, pas- 
sim. 

Attraction of relative: inverse, 488; 
to genitive, 512; to ablative, 519 f.; 
with és, 714-9; ὅσος, 732 f. 

Attributive: adjective, 655 f.; positive 
article, 776-89. See participle. 

Augment: discussion of, 365-8 (origin 
of 365, where found 365, purpose 


of 365, syllabic 365f., temporal . 


366 f., compound verbs 367, double 
367 f.); in past perfect, 1211 f. 

Authorized version: influence of, on 
English language, 92. 


B 


B: see Vaticanus. 

B-text: see Neutral text, 

Bezae, Codex: 179 f., passim. 

“Biblical”? Greek: 5; view of E. 
Hatch refuted by Deissmann, 24 f.; 
the new point of view, 30; N. T. 
not “biblical Greek,’ 77-9, 88, 
92, 112 15 passim. 

Bilingualism: in Palestine, 27-30; in 
Brittany, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, 
30, 69, 102 f. 

Blending: see cases. 

Beeotian: 16, 52; influence of, 61, 63; 
monophthongizing, 204 f.; pronun- 
ciation, 240; passim. 

βουστροφηδόν: 1211. 

Brachylogy: 1201, 1203. 

Breathings: 221-6; use with p and 
pp, 225 f.; in Ionic, 240. 

Breviloquence: see brachylogy. 

Brittany, bilingual: 29. 

Broken continuity: see perfect and 
past perfect. 

Byzantine Greek: literature on, 22-4, 
43, 155, 179, 188, 191, 210, passim. 


C 


C=Codex Ephreemi: passim. 
Cardinals: see numerals. 
Cases: number of, 247-50 (history of 


1227 


the forms 247 ff., blending of case- 
endings, syncretism of the forms 
249 f., origin of case-suffixes 250); 
concord in, 413-6 (adjectives 413, 
participles 418, the Book of Reve- 
lation 413-6, apposition 416, abso- 
lute 416); syntax of, ch. XI, 446- 
548; history of interpretation of, 
446-9 (confusion 446, Bopp’s con- 
tribution 446 f., modern usage 447, 
Green’s classification 447 f., syn- 
cretism of the cases 448, freedom 
in use of 448f.); purpose of the 
cases, 449 (Aristotle’s usage, word- 
relations); encroachment of prepo- 
sitions on, 450-3 (reason 450, no 
“‘governing’’ of cases 450, not used 
indifferently 450f., original use 
with “local” cases 451, 567, in- 
creasing use of 451 f., distinction 
preserved in N.T. 453); distinctive 
idea in each case, 453-6 (funda- 
mental idea 453 f., cases not yet 
interchangeable 454, vitality of 
case-idea 454, historical develop- 
ment of the cases 454 f., method of 
this grammar 456); nominative, 
456-66; vocative, 461-6; accusa- 
tive, 466-91; genitive, 491-514; 
ablative, 514-20; locative, 520-5; 
instrumental, 525-35; dative, 535- 
43; functions of prepositions with, 
567-71; see discussion of each prep- 
osition in ch. XIII; adjective and 
substantive, 655; with adjectives, 
658; ὅς, attraction and incorpora- 
tion, 714-9; ὅστις, 728f.; of inf., 
1058-62; with inf., 1082; participle, 
1119. 

Causal participle: see participle and 
causal clauses. 

Causal particles: see conjunctions 
and causal sentences (hypotactic). 

Causal sentences: use of és, 724 f.; 
paratactic, 962 f.; with hypotactic 
conjunctions, 963 f.; relatives, 965f. ; 
διὰ τό and the infinitive, 966; par- 
ticiple, 966, 1128; inf., 1091. 

Causative verbs: 150; active, 801 f.; 
middle, 808 f. 


1228 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Cautious assertion: see final and con- 
secutive sentences. 

Chaldee (Aramaic): 211. 
maic. 

Chiasm: 1200. 

Chinese: 250. 

Christian ‘element in N. T. Greek: 
chiefly lexical, 112-6; new conno- 
tations of familiar words, 115 f. 

Chrysostom: passim. 

Circumlocutions: 330, 648 f. 

Circumstantial participle: see parti- 
ciple. 

“Classical Greek”’: 5, 89, passim. 

Clause: paratactic, 428 f.; hypotac- 
tic, 429-31; inf. and part., 431 f.; 
clauses with the adjectives, 658 f. 

Climax: 1200. . 

Collectives: see gender and number. 

Colloquial: see vernacular. 

Colon: 243. 

Comma: origin of, 243. 

Common speech: see κοινή. 

Comparative: see adjectives. 

Comparative clauses: with relative 
ὅσος, 966 f.; relative with κατά, 967; 
καθότι, 967; ὡς and its compounds, 
967 ff. 

Comparative grammar or philology: 
8-12; the linguistic revolution, 8; 
sketch of Greek grammatical his- 
tory, 8-10; the discovery of San- 
skrit, 10; from Bopp to Brugmann, 
10 ff.; importance of, 36; the origi- 
nal Indo-Germanic speech, 38; 
Greek as a “dialect” of, 39 f.; ap- 
plied to N. T. word-formation, 144; 
system of affixes, infixes, prefixes, 
suffixes, 146-247, 250, passim. 

Comparison: of adjectives, 276-81; 
of adverbs, 297; syntax of, 661-9. 

Complementary infinitive: see infini- 
tive (with verbs). 

Complementary participle: see parti- 
ciple. 

Composition: compound words com- 
mon in the N. T., 82; compound 
verbs in —éw, 147 f.; discussion of 
composiia in the N. T., 160-71 
(kinds of, proper, copulative, de- 


See Ara- 


rivative 161, inseparable prefixes 
161-8, agglutinative or by juxta- 
position 163-71). 

Compound sentences: order of clauses 
in, 423; two kinds of sentences, 
425 f.; two kinds of compound 
or complex, 426; parataxis, 426; 
hypotaxis, 426 f. 

Conative action: 880, 885. 

Concessive: imperative as, 
clause, 1026; participle, 1128. 

Concord: and government, 397 f.; in 
person, 402 f.; in number, 403-9; 
in gender, 410-3; in case, 413-6. 

Conditional sentences: apodosis of 
second class, 921-8; two types, 
1004-7; four classes, 1007-22 (de- 
termined as fulfilled 1007-12, de- 
termined as unfulfilled 1012-6, un- 
determined, but with possibility 
of determination 1016-20, remote 
possibility of determination 1021 f.); 
mixed conditions, 1022; implied 
conditions, 1022 f.; elliptical, 1028-- 
6; concessive clauses, 1026 f.; other 
particles with εἰ and ἐάν, 1027; par- 
ticiple, 1129. 

Conjugation of verb: ch. VIII, 303-76. 

Conjunctions: adverbs, 301; in sub- 
ordinate clauses, 951f.; and all 
through the discussion of hypotac- 
tic clauses, 950-1049; paratactic, 
1177-92 (copulative: τέ 1178 f., καί 
1179-83, δὲ 1183-5, ἀλλά 1185 f.; 
adversative: δὲ 1186 f., πλήν 1187, 
μέντοι 1188, ὅμως 1188, εἰ μή 1188; 
disjunctive: ἤ 1188 ἔ,, εἴτε and 
ἐάντε 1189, οὔτε and μήτε 1189; in- 
ferential: ἄρα 1189f., yap 1190f., 
ody 1191 f.); hypotactic, 1192 f. 

Consecutive: use of ὅς, 724; clauses, 
see final and consecutive. 

Consonants: changes, 209-21 (origin 
and character of the consonants 
209f., the insertion of 210, the 
omission of 210 f., single or double 
211-5, assimilation of 215-7, inter- 
change and changing value of 217— 
9, aspiration of 219, variable final 
219-21, metathesis 221). 


949; 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS 


Constative action: see aorist. 

Constructio ad sensum: illustrated 
in, 400-424, 683 f., 1204. 

Constructio praegnans: 1204. See 
also prepositions. 

Contraction: discussion of, 203 f.; in 
second declension, 260 f.;in third de- 
clension, 268; in adjectives, 275 f.; 
in verbs, 341-3. 

Contrasts: in Greek words, 175 f.; in 
comparison, 662 f. 

Co-ordination: 443 f.; between parti- 
ciples, 1135 f. 

Coptic: 215, 250 f., passim. 

Copula: not necessary, 395 f. 

Copulative conjunctions: 1177-86. 

Coronis: 244. 

Correlation of article: see article. 

Correlative pronouns: 289 f., 
709 f., 732. 

Crasis: 208. 

Cretan dialect: passim. 

Crete: early Greek culture in, 43. 

Culture: variations in N. T. writers, 
381. 

Cynic-Stoic diatribe: 420f., 1196 f. 

Cyprus: as purveyor of Greek culture, 
43; language and N. T. Gk., 82, 
passim. 


298, 


D 


D: see (Codex) Bezae. 

§-text: see Western text. 

Dative: form, 248 ff.; syncretism, 
535; decay of dative, 535f.; idea 
of, 536; with substantives, 536 f.; 
with adjectives, 537; with adverbs 
and prepositions, 537f. and ch. 
XIII; with verbs, 5388-43 (indirect 
object 538, dativus commodi vel in- 
commodi, 538 f., direct object 539- 
41, with intransitive verbs 541, 
possession 541, infinitive in dative 
541 f., of the agent 542, because of 
preposition in composition 542 f.); 
ambiguous examples, 543. 

Declarative clauses: 915f., and see 
indirect discourse. 

De-aspiration: increasing, 222 f. 

Declensions: ch. VII, 246-302; his- 


1229 


tory of the, 246 f.; first or a declen- 
sion, 254-9 (Doric genitive-ablative 
singular 254 f., Attic genitive-abla- 
tive 255, vocative in —a 256, words 
in —pa and participles in -vta 256, 
retention of —a in gen.-abl. 256, 
double declensions 257, heterocli- 
sis and metaplasm 257-9, inde- 
clinable substantives 259); second 
or ο, 259-63 (the ‘‘Attic’’ 260, con- 
traction 260 f., vocative 261, het- 
eroclisis and metaplasm 261-3, 
mixed declension 263, proper names 
263); third decl., 263-9 (nomi- 
native as vocative 264, accus. sin- 
gular 264 f., accus. plural 265 f., 
peculiarities in the nominative 
267 f., gen.-abl. 268, contraction 
268, proper names 268 f., hetero- 
clisis and metaplasm 269); inde- 
clinable words, 269 f.; declension of 
adjectives, 270-81; numerals, 281— 
4; pronouns, 284-93; adverbs, 298-- 
302. 

Defective verbs: in voice, 799. See 
verbs. 

Deictic: see demonstrative. 

Deliberative: future, 875 f.; subjunc- 
tive, 934f.; opt., 940; questions, 
1046. 

Delphian: 266. 

Delta: 91. 

Demonstrative pronouns: inflection 
of, 289 f.; nature of, 693; shades of 
meaning, 693; ὁ, ἡ, τό, 693-5; ὅς, 
695 f.; ὅδε, 090 ἴ.; οὗτος, 697--706 
(the deictic use 697, the contemp- 
tuous use 697, the anaphoric use 
697.f., in apposition 698-700, use 
of article 700f., without article 
701 f., contrast with ἐκεῖνος 702 f., 
antecedent of relative 703 f., gen- 
der and number 704, adverbial uses 

᾿ 704f., phrase τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν 705, with 
other pronouns 705, ellipsis 705, 
shift in reference 706); ἐκεῖνος 706-9 
(the purely deictic 707, the con- 
temptuous use 707, the anaphoric 
707, the remote object 707 f., em- 
phasis 708, with apposition 708, 


1230 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


with article 708, antecedent to rela- 
tive 708, gender and number 708 f., 
independent use 709); αὐτός, 709; 
correlative demonstratives 709 f.); 
article derived from, 755; article 
with, 770 f. 

Demosthenes: in the New Attic, 52; 
pronouncing Greek, 238. See In- 
dex of Quotations. 

Denial and prohibition, with οὐ μή: 
see aorist subj. and fut. ind. 

Denominative verbs: 147. 

Deponents: 332 f., 811-3, 817 f. 

Derivation: derivative verbs, 147-50. 

Design, sentences of: see final. 

Diacritical marks: 226. 

Dieresis: 204 f.; marks of, 244. 

Dialects: fuller knowledge of the 
dialects, 16 f., 39 f., 41-4, 46, 52 f., 
71, 79, 110 f.; dialect-coloured ver- 
nacular, 61-9, 82, 178 f.; accent in, 
229-31, 238 ff.; declension in, 247; 
passim. 

Diatribe, Cynic-Stoic: 420 f., 1196 f. 

Diffuseness: see pleonasm. 

Digamma: 209, 223 f. 

Digraphs: 209. 

Digression: 437 f. 

Diminutives: frequent in the N. T., 
82; less common than in modern 
Gk., 155. 

Diodorus Siculus: see Index of Quo- 
tations. 

Diphthongs: 204 f. 

Direct discourse: exchange with in- 
direct, 442 f.; with recitative ὅτι, 
1027 f. 

Discord: see concord. 

Disjunctive particles: negative, 
1165 f., 1173; conjunctions, 1188 f. 

Dissimilation: see assimilation. 

Distributive numerals: see numerals. 

Distributive pronouns: inflection of, 
292 f.; syntax of, 743, 744-50; ἀμ: 
φότεροι, 744 ἴ.;: ἕκαστος, 745 f.; ἄλλος, 
746-8 (absolutely, for two, adjec- 
tive, with article, ἄλλος ἄλλο, ellip- 
sis, ἄλλος and ἕτερος, different, ἀλλό- 
Tpwos); ἕτερος, 748-50 (absolutely, 
with article, pair, different, three 


or more, contrast, antithetic); ar- 
ticle as, 769. 

Division of words: not in old MSS., 
248 f. 

Doric: purest Hellenic, 17; tenacity 
of, 52; Doric-Atolic, 53; influence 
on the κοινή, 63; on the N. T., 82; 
genitive-ablative, 254, passim. 

Doric: 16 f., 52-4, 62 f., 82,118, 184 f., 
193 f.,211, 224, 229; 240, 249, 254 f., 
267, passim. 

Double comparative and superlative: 
663, 670. 

Double compounds: 160, 165, 565. 

Double consonants: 211-5. 

Double declension: 257. 

Double interrogative: 737. 

Dual: origin and disappearance of, 
Z0Lf. 

Duality: in the comparative adjec- 
tive, 662 f.; with ἕτερος, 749. 

Durative (linear) action: 823 f., 879- 
92. 

Dynamic: see middle voice. 


E 


Ecbatic tva: see consecutive clauses. 

Ecbatic infinitive: see consecutive 
clauses.and infinitive. 

Editor’s prerogative: 244 f. 

Effective action: see aorist. 

Egypt: 21, 56; peculiarities of κοινή in, 
68, 91, 100 f., 111 f., 178, 186, 189, 
191, 195 f., 200, 202, 257, passim. 

Elative: 278 f., 670. 

Elean: 266. 

Elision: 72, 206-8, 223, 226, 1210. 
Ellipsis: of subject or predicate, 391; 
of οὗτος, 705 f.; in general, 1201 f. 
Emphasis: position of, 417 f.; in pro- 

nouns, 677 ff., 684 f., 686, 708. 

Enallage: 454. 

Enclitics: accent of, 233 ff.; pronouns, 
681 f.; rules for accent of, 1211. 
English: best English spoken in Edin- 

burgh and Louisville, 69. 

Epanadiplosis: 1200. 

Epexegetic infinitive: 1086 f. 

Epexegetical apposition: 399. 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS 


Epic: 185, 204, passim. 

Epicene: gender, 252. 

Epidiorthosis: 1199. 

Epimenides: see Index of Quotations. 

Epistles: distinction from letters, 
70 f., 85 ff., 197, 200, 239. 

Epistolary aorist: see aorist. 

Erasmus: on pronunciation of Greek, 
237, 240. 

Etacism: 191. 

Etymology: work of the philosophers, 
31; use of term, 143 f. 

Euphony: 419-23. 

Euripides: see Index of Quotations. 

Euthalius: 241. 

Exclamation: 461, 739, 741. 


F 


Fayfim Papyri: see Index of Quota- 
tions. 

Feminine: see gender. 

Figures of speech: ch. XXII, 1194- 
1208; rhetorical, not grammatical, 
1194; style in the N. T., 1194-7; 
figures of thought, 1198 f. (rhetor- 
ical question, oratory, irony, prodi- 
orthosis, epidiorthosis, paraleipsis, 
heterogeneous structure); figures 
of expression, 1199-1208 (parallels 
and contrasts: parallelism, synony- 
mous or antithetic, chiasm or re- 
verted parallelism, anaphora, an- 
tistrophe, poetry 1199 f.; contrasts 
in words: epanadiplosis, climax, 
zeugma, brachylogy, synonyms, 
onomatopoetic, alliteration, paro- 
nomasia, annominatio, parechesis, 
pun 1200f.; contraction and ex- 
pansion: ellipsis, aposiopesis, brevil- 
oquence or brachylogy, constructio 
praegnans, constructio ad sensum, 
hypallage, pleonasm, hyperbole, 
litotes, meiosis 1201-6; metaphors 
and similar tropes: metaphor, sim- 
ile, parable, allegory, metonymy 
1206 f.). 

Final and consecutive clauses: kin- 
ship, 980; origin in parataxis, 980 f.; 
pure final, 981-91 (iva 981-5, ὅπως 


1231 


985-7, ὡς 987, μή, μή ποτε, μή πως 
987-9, relative 989, infinitive 980-- 
91, participle 991, 1128 f.); sub- 
final, 991-7 (ἵνα 991-4, ὅπως 994 f., 
μή, μή ποτε, μή πως 995f., relative 
996, infinitive 996 f., 1087-9, εἰ and 
ὅτι 997); consecutive, 997-1003 (iva 
997-9, ὥστε. 999 [., ὡς 1000 f., ὅτι 
1001, relative 1001, infinitive 1001 
ff., 1089-91). : 

Final consonants (letters): 194, 210-- 
21, 248. 

Finnish: 250. 

First or a declension: 254-9, 267. 

Foreign words: 108-11, 235f. See 
Latinisms. 

Formation of words: in the vernacu- 
lar κοινή, 72; ch. II, pp. 143-76; 
formative suffixes, 146-60; by com- 
position, 160-71. 

Forms, rare: see declensions and con- 
jugation of verbs. 

Formulas of citation: 1027 f. 

Fourth Book of Maccabees: see Index 
of Quotations. 

Fourth Gospel and Apocalypse: see 
Index of Quotations. 

French: accent, 230; cases and prepo- 
sitions of, 252; gender, 252; pas- 
sim. 

Future: conjugation of, 353-7 (origin 
of 353f., Ionic-Attic 355,. synco- 
pated 353 f., of liquid verbs 356, 
active and middle 356, second pas- 
sive 356f., first passive 357, peri- 
phrastic 357); syntax of middle, 
813 f.; passive, 818-20; relation of 
aorist to, 846 f.; punctiliar (aoris- 
tic), 870-6 (“‘mixed”’ tense, punc- 
tiliar or durative 870-2, modal as- 
pect of, merely futuristic, volitive, 
deliberative 872-6, in the modes 
876-9: indicative 876, subjunctive 
and optative 876, infinitive 876, 
participle 877 f., periphrastic sub- 
stitutes for 878 f.); durative (linear), 
888-9 (three kinds of action 889, 
periphrastic 889); fut. ind. and aor. 
subj., 924 f.;fut. ind. as imperative, 
942 f., 1118 f. 


1232 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Future perfect: 361, 906 f. 

Futuristic: modal aspect of future, 
merely futuristic, 872-4; present, 
869 f., 881; pres. part., 992; present 
perfect, 898; subj., 928-80; opta- 
tive, 937-9. 


G 


y-text: see Alexandrian text. 

Gender: of adjectives, 156 f.; in sub- 
stantives, 252—4 (grammatical gen- 
der 252, kinds of 252, variations in 
252 f., LXX illustrations 254); no 
feminine inflection in second de- 
clension, 259, 261 f.; concord in, 
410-3 (fluctuations in 410f., neu- 
ter singular 409, 411, explanatory 
ὅ ἐστιν and τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν 411f., the 
participle 412, adjective 412 f.); of 
adjectives without substantives, 
652-4; agreement with substan- 
tives, 654; οὗτος, 704; ἐκεῖνος, 708; 
ds, 712 ff.; dors, 729. 

Genealogy in Matthew: 270. 

Genitive: form, 248, 263, 491 f.; Doric 
genitive-abl., 254 f.; Attie geni- 
tive-abl., 255 f.; name, 492; speci- 
fying case, 493 f.; local use, 494; 
temporal use, 495; with substan- 
tives, 495-503 (possessive 495 f., 
attributive 496 f., predicate 497 f., 
appositive or definitive 498 f., sub- 
jective 499, objective 499-501, of 
relationship 501 f., partitive 502, 
position of 502 f., concatenation of 
503); with adjectives, 503-5; with 
adverbs and prepositions, 505 and 
ch. XIII; with verbs, 505-12 (very 
common 506, fading distinction 
from ace. 506, verbs of sensation 
507 f., of emotion 508 f., of sharing, 
partaking, filling 509f., of ruling 
510, of buying, selling, being worthy 
of 510 f., of accusing and condemn- 
ing 511, due to prepositions in 
composition 511f., attraction of 
relative 512); of infinitive, 512; 
absolute, 512-4, 1131 f. 

German: passim. 


Gerundive: 157. See verbal adjec- 
tives. 

Gnomic: aorist, 836 f.; present, 866; 
present perfect, 897. 

Gorgian figures: 1197 ff. 

Gothic: passim. 

Grammar: the ideal grammar, 3; the 
pre-Winer period, 3; the service 
of Winer, 4; the modern period, 
the service of Deissmann, Thumb, 
Moulton, ete., 5-7; the new gram- 
matical equipment, 8-31; sketch of 
Greek grammatical history, 8-10; 
advance in general Greek grammar, 
12; critical editions of Greek au- 
thors, 13; grammatical monographs, 
13; grammatical commentaries, 29; 
new point of view, 30; comparative, 
31-48; in Alexander’s time, 58-61; 
Greek grammarians and Latin, 
822; Alexandrian grammarians and 
adjectives, 650; passim. : 

Greek authors: 13 f., 55, 57-9, 86f., 
94, 109, 121, 128 f., 147, 191, 199, 
203, 218, 227, 238, 251, 265 f., chap- 
ter on Formation of Words, and 
passim. See Index of Quotations. 

Greek language: sketch of Greek 
grammatical history, 8-13; relation 
to earlier tongues, 39; regarded as a 
whole, 40-45; unity of, 41 f.; peri- 
ods of, 48; the Greek point of view, 
46-48; passim. 

Greek culture: 14 ff., 35; subject to 
non-Greek influences, 49, 58, 67, 
75, 84f., 111 f., passim. 

Greek, later: see Byzantine or mod- 
ern Greek, 

Greek point of view: 46-8. 


H 


Headings, anarthrous: see article. 

Hebraisms: 3; the old view, 24 ff.; 
the revolt of Deissmann, 25 f.; 
number of, in N. T., 76 ff., 89; the 
traditional standpoint, 88 f.; trans- 
lation, 89f.; papyri and _ inscrip- 
tions disprove many, 90 f.; real, in 


INDEX OF 


N. T., 94-6; greater indirect influ- 
ence of the LXX, 96-102; trans- 
literated words, 225; variety in 

ΟΝ, T. writers, 106-8; on preposi- 
tions, 556 f.; φοβεῖσθαι ἀπό, 577; use 
of εἰς, 595 f.; superlative, 671; tense, 
822; passim. 

Hebraists: 76 ff., 88 f., 90 f. 

Hebrew: proper names, 214; trans- 
literated Hebrew words, 225; ac- 
cent of proper names, 236, 259, 
263, 268 ff., passim. 

Hebrews: literary quality of, 106; 
peculiarities of, 132f.; alone of 
the N. T. books avoids hiatus, 206, 
218; rhythm in, 1196 f. 

Hellenism: influence on Paul, 86. 

Hellenistic: see κοινή. 

Hendiadys: 1206. 

Herculaneum: 196, 223, passim. 

Hermas: see Index of Quotations. 

~ Herodotus: 13, 57, 59, 266, passim. 

Heteroclisis: 257-9 (the first and 
second decls., the first and third); 
between second and third, 261 f.; 
between masculine and neuter of 
second, 262 f.; third decl., 269. 

Heterogeneous structure: 441 f., 
1199. 

Hiatus: 206-8, 219. 

Historic present: see present. 

Historical method of study: ch. II, 


31-48; historical element essential, ἡ 


31; descriptive historical grammar, 
41, 71, 78, 173-5; syntax, 386. 

History of words: 173 f. 

᾿ Homer and Homeric Greek: 249, 252, 
passim. See Index of Quotations. 

Hypallage: 1204. 

Hyperbaton: 423 f. 

Hyperbole: 1205. 

Hypocoristic: 171-3. 

Hypotaxis: 426f., 429f.; hypotactic 
sentences, 950-1049 (relative 959-- 
62, causal 962-6, comparative 966— 
9, local 969f., temporal 970-9, 
final and consecutive 980-1003, 
wishes 1003 f., conditional 1004-27, 
indirect discourse 1027-48, series 
of subordinate clauses 1048 f.). 


SUBJECTS 1.585 


Hypothetical sentences: see condi- 
tional sentences. 
Hysteron proteron: 423. 


I 


Identical pronouns: see intensive pro- 
nouns. 

Illative particles: see (inferential) con- 
junctions. 

Illiteracy: in the papyri, 70 f.; diver- 
sity of culture, 85; passim. 

Imperative: origin of, 320, 327-30 
(non-thematic stem 327, thematic 
stem 327 f., suffix --θὶ 328, suffix —rw 
328, old injunctive 328 f., forms in 
—cat 329, form in --σον 329, first per- 
son 329 f., prohibitions 330, perfect 
330, periphrastic 330, circumlocu- 
tions 330); perfect, 360f.; use of 
aorist, 855 f.; present, 890; perfect, 
908; imper. and subj., 925; origin 
of, 941; meaning of, 941; disap- 
pearance of imperative forms, 
941 f.; alternatives for, 942-6 (fut. 
ind. 942 f., subj. 948, opt. 943, in- 
finitive 943f., participle 944-6); 
uses of, 946-50 (command or ex- 
hortation 946 f., prohibition 947, 
entreaty 947f., permission 948, 
concession or condition 948 f., in 
asyndeton 949, in subordinate 
clauses 949 f., tenses 950, in indi- 
rect discourse 950); negative with, 
ΠΟΤ ἘΠ 70; 

Imperfect: relation of, to aorist, 837- 
40; doubtful, 882 f.; descriptive 
tense in narrative, 883 f.; iterative or 
customary, 884; progressive, 884; 
inchoative or conative, 885; ‘‘nega- 
tive,” 885; potential, 885-7; in in- 
direct discourse, 887; periphrastic, 
887 f{.; past perfect as, 888. 


Impersonal verbs: active, 802; con- 


struction, 820. 

‘‘Improper’’ prepositions: see prepo- 
sitions, 554, 636 ff. 

Inceptive action: 150. 

Incorporation of antecedent: 718 f., 
731, 733. 


1234 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Indeclinable words: accent, 236; sub- 
stantives, 259; various foreign 
words, 269 f.; adjectives, 275 f.; τί, 
736; τι, 744. 

Indefinite article: 674 f., 796. 

Indefinite pronouns: inflection of, 
292; ris, 741-4 (accent 741, relation 
to ris 741f., as substantive 742, 
with numerals 742, with substan- 
tives 742 f., with adjectives 748, as 
predicate 743, position of 743, as 
antecedent 748, alternative 743, 
negative forms 743 f., indeclinable 
τι 744); ets, 744; πᾶς, 744; ὁ δεῖνα, 
744. 

Independent sentences: see para- 
taxis. 

Indicative: real mode, 320 f.; no mode 
sign, 322f.; use of aor. ind., 835- 
48; future, 876; meaning of, 914 f.; 
kinds of sentences using, 915-8 
(declarative or interrogative 915-7, 
positive or negative 917 f.); special 
uses of, 918-24 (past tenses, for 
courtesy 918 f., present necessity, 
obligation, etc. 919-21, apodosis 
of second class conditions 921-3, 
impossible wishes 923, present 
923 f., future 924); in indirect dis- 
course, 1032-6; negative with, 
1157-60, 1168 f. 

Indirect discourse: exchange with 
direct, 442 f.; aorist participle in, 
863 f.; imperfect ind., 887; present 
part., 992; perfect in, 897; inf. perf., 
908; recitative ὅτε in oratio recta, 
1027 f.; change of person in indirect 
discourse, 1028 f.; change of tense 
in, 1029f.; change of mode in, 
1030 f.; limits of indirect disc., 
1031 f.; declarative clauses (indi- 
rect assertions), 1032-48 (ὅτι and 
indicative 1032-6, infinitive 1036- 
40, 1082-5, participle, 1040-2, 
1122-4, καὶ ἔγένετο 1042 f.); indi- 
rect questions, 1048-6 (tense 10438, 
mode 1043 f., interrog. pronouns 
and conjunctions used 1044 f.); 
indirect command, 1046 f., 1082-5 
(deliberative questions 1046, con- 


junctions ἵνα and ὅπως 1046, in- 
finitive, 1046 ff.); mixture, 1047 f.; 
the subordinate clause, 1048. 
Individuality of N. T. writers: 116-37. 
Indo-European: see Indo-Germanic. 
Indo-Germanic: 10, 37 ff., 145 ff., 209, 
217, passim. See comparative phil- 
ology (grammar). 
Inferential conjunctions: 1189-92. 
Infinitive: ending, 246; forms of, 368— 
71 (original terminology 368, fixed 
case-forms 368 f., with voice and 
tense 369f., no personal endings 
370, article with 371, disappearance 
of inf. 371, N. T. forms 371); in ap- 
position, 399 f.; in clauses, 431 f.; 
accusative with, 489 f.; in genitive, 
512; in dative, 541f.; with adjec- 
tives, 658 f.; article with, 765; and 
voice, 802; use of aorist, 856-8; 
future, 876 f.; perfect, 908 f.; as im- 
perative, 943 f.; causal use of διὰ 
τό, 966; temporal use of, 978 f.; 
purpose, 989-91; sub-final, 996 f.; 
consecutive, 1001-3; in indirect 
discourse, 1036-40; in _ indirect 
command, 1046-8; origin of inf., 
1051 f.; development, 1052-6 (pre- 
historic period 1052, earliest his- 
toric period 1052-4, classic period 
1054-6, later period 1056-8); sub- 
stantival aspects of inf., 1058-79 
(case, subject or object 1058-62, 
articular 1062-8, prepositions with 
1068-75, with substantives 1075 f., 
with adjectives 1076 f., with verbs 
1077 f., appositional and epexe- 
getical 1078 f.); verbal aspects of, 
1079-95 (voice 1079 f., tense 1080— 
2, cases with 1082, in ind. disc. 
1082-5, personal construction with 
1085 f., epexegetical inf. 1086 f., 
purpose 1087-9, result 1089-91, 
cause 1091, time 1091 f., absolute 
1092 f., negatives with 1093-5, 
1162, 1171, ἄν with 1095); relation 
between part. and inf., 1101-3. 
Infixes: 146. 
Inflectional languages: 37. 
Ingressive action: see aorist. 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS 


Injunctive mood: 321, 328 f. 

Inscriptions: the Greek inscriptions, 
14-6, 52, 56 f., 66 ff., 76-80; more 
literary than the papyri, 84, 90f., 
96 f., 100 f., 106, 116, 130 f., 188 f., 
148, 180, 181-93, 200, 202, ad libi- 
tum through the book. See Index 
of Quotations. 

Inseparable prefixes: 161-3. 

Instrumental case: endings, 249 f.; 
term, 525f.; syncretistic, 526; 
place, 526 f.; time, 527 f.; associa- 
tive idea, 528-30; with words of 
likeness and identity, 530; manner, 
530-2; with adjectives, 523, 530; 
measure, 532; cause, 532; means, 
532-4; with prepositions, 534 f. and 
ch. XIII. 

Instrumental use of év: 589-91. 
also locative. 

Intensive particles: adverbs, 302; 
prepositions, 563f.; limitations, 
1144-7; γέ, 1147-9; δή, 1149; εἶ μήν, 
vy and ναί, 1150; μέν, 1150-3; πέρ, 
1153 f.; τοί, 1154 f. 

Intensive perfect: see perfect tense. 

Intensive pronouns: declension of, 
287; nominative use of αὐτός, 685 f.; 
varying degrees of emphasis, 686; 
αὐτός with οὗτος, 686; αὐτός almost 
demonstrative, 686; in oblique 
cases, 686 f.; side by side with re- 
flexive, 687; ὁ αὐτός, 687. 

Interjections: 302, 1193. 

Interrogative particles: single ques- 
tions, 1175-7 (direct, no particle, 


See 


negative, others, interrogative 
pronouns, conjunctions, indirect, 
pronouns, conjunctions); double 


questions, 1177 (direct, indirect). 
Interrogative pronouns: inflection of, 
291 f.; ris, 735-40 (substantival or 
adjectival 735, absence of gender 
735, -- ποῖος 735f., indeclinable τί 
736, alternative questions 736f., 
double 737, as relative 737 f., pred- 
icate ri 738, adverbial 738 f., with 
prepositions 739, with particles 
739, as exclamation 739, indirect 
questions 739, τίς or τὶς 739 f.); 


1235 


motos, 740 (qualitative, non-quali- 
tative, indirect questions); πόσος, 
741 f. (rarity, meaning, indirect, 
exclamatory); πότερος, 741 (rare, 
indirect questions) ; ποταπός, 741; in 
indirect questions, 1044 f. 

Intransitive: 330 f., 797 f., 806, 815 f. 

Inverse attraction: 488, 717 f. 

Ionic: earliest in literature, 16, 17; in- 
fluence on the κοινή, 62 f.; on the 
N.T., 82, 181-93, 200, 203-6, 210f., 
217 f., ad libitum. 

Iota adscript: 194 f., 209. 

Iota subscript: 194 f. 

Ireland, bilingualism in: 30. 

Irony: 1198 f. 

Irrational final t and v: 194, 219-21. 

‘‘Trregular’’ verbs: see list, 1212-20. 

Isolating languages: 37. 

Isolation of Greek, not true: 36-39. 

Itacism: 72, 178 ff., 182, 191 ff., 194— 
7, 198-200, 239f., 265f., ad libi- 
tum. See ch. on Orthography and 
Phonetics. 


J 


James, peculiarities of: 123 f. 
Index of Quotations. 

Jesus, language of: both Aramaic 
and Greek, 26-9. 

‘“ Jewish’? Greek: see ‘“ Biblical” 
Greek, Hebraisms, Aramaic, κοινή. 

Jews: 83, 98 f., 102, etc. 

John, peculiarities of: 133-7. 
Index of Quotations. 

Josephus: 28; an illustration of Atti- 
cistic Gk. in contrast with 1 Mac- 
cabees, 87, 236, 269, passim. See 
Index of Quotations. 

Jude: peculiarities of, 124f. See In- 
dex of Quotations. 

Justin Martyr: see Index of Quota- 
tions. 


See 


See 


K 


Kadapevovoa: 18; artificial modern 
Greek, 36, 60, passim. 
Kinship of Greek words: 174 f. 


1236 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Kow#: 17, 18, 21-4, 32, 46; chapter 
on, 49-74; term, 49; origin, 49; tri- 
umph of the Attic, 51; fate of the 
other dialects, 52f.; influence of 
the dialects on the κοινή, 53; partial 
koines, 53; effect of Alexander’s 
campaigns, 53f.; spread of the 
κοινή, 54-60; a real world-speech, 
54-56; vernacular, 56; literary, 57f.; 
the Atticistic reaction, 58-60; char- 
acteristics of the vernacular κοινή, 
60-73; vernacular Attic, the base 
of the κοινή, 60-2; the other dialects 
in the κοινή, 62-64; non-dialectical 
changes in, 64 f.; new words in, 65; 
new forms of old words, 65 f.; poet- 
ical and vernacular words, 65; new 
meanings to old words, 66; i/A.D. 
the climax of the κοινή, 66; provin- 
cial influences in, 66-9; κοινή in 
Asia Minor and in Alexandria, 67 f.; 
in Palestine, 69; κοινή a single lan- 
guage, 69; personal equation, 69- 
71; résumé of the characteristics of 
the vernacular κοινή, 71—4 (phonetics 
and orthography 71 f., vocabulary 
72, word-formation 72, accidence 
72 f., syntax 73 f.); adaptability of 
the κοινή to the Roman world, 74 f.; 
place of the Ν. T. in the κοινή, 
76-140, 152 f., 159 f.,.161-3, 171; 
accent in, 228 f.; pronunciation in, 
236-41; ad libitum in the book. 


L 


Labials: assimilation before, 216, 264, 
1210. 

Language of Jesus: 26-9, 99, 102 f., 
105. See Jesus. 

Language, study of: the fascination 
of, 3; the new point of view, 8-12; 
as history, 31; a living organism, 
origin of, evolution in, changes in 
vernacular, 33 f.; Greek not iso- 
lated, 36; common bond in, 37, pas- 
sim. 

Late Greek: see Byzantine. 

Latin: 36, 39, 46 f.; late Latin as in 
κοινή, δῦ, 74, 79, 103; Latinisms in 


the N. T., 108-11, 131, 137, 144, 
passim. 

Latin authors: 85, 108 f., 128, passim. 
See Index of Quotations. 

Latin versions: passim. 

Latinisms: 108-10, 131, ete. 

Lesbian: 17, 184, 249. See A£olic. 

Letters: as distinct from epistles, 70, 
85 ff. 

Lewis Syriac: passim. 

Lexical: new knowledge of words, 
65f.; N. T. lexicography needing 
reworking, 144, passim. 

Limitative infinitive: see infinitive. 

Linear action: see durative. 

Literary element in N. T.: 83-8. 

Literary κοινή : true part of the κοινή, 
50, 57 f.; literary elements in the 
N. T., 83-8, 106; high standard of 
culture in the Graeco-Roman world, 
85. 

Literary plural: 406 f., 677 f. 

Litotes: 1205. 

Local cases: 451. See cases. 

Local clauses: 969 f. 

Locative: form, 249f.; name, 520; 
significance, 520 f.; place, 521 f. 
time, 522 f.; with adjectives, 523; 
with verbs, 523 f.; with substan- 
tives, 524; with prepositions, 524 f. 
and ch. XIII; pregnant construc- 
tion, 525. 

Lucian: see Index of Quotations. 

Luke: literary element in, 106; pecu- 
liarities of, 120-3, 135, 179, 240, 
passim. See Index of Quotations. 

Luther’s German Bible: influence of, 
92. 

LXX: see Septuagint. 

Lycaonian: vernacular surviving in 
κοινή, 55 ἴ. 


Μ 


Macedonian: influence on the κοινή, 
63 f.; words, 111. 

Magnesia: 196, 200, 208, 223, passim. 

Manner: see adverbs, instrumental 
case, participle. 

Manuscripts of N. T.: vary in or- 
thography, 179-89, 191-231; show 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS 


changes in pronunciation, 239 ff.; 
have beginnings of chapters and 
paragraphs, 241 f.; uncials have no 
distinction between words, 242 ff.; 
ad libitum. 

Mark: Aramaic influence in, 106; 
Latin, 110; peculiarities of, 118 f. 
See Index of Quotations. 

Masculine: see gender. 

Matthew: Aramaic influence in, 106; 
peculiarities of, 119 f., 135, passim. 
See Index of Quotations. 

Means: see instrumental case, ἐν, par- 
ticiple. 

Meiosis: 1205 f. 

Metaphor: 1206. 

Metaplasm: 257-9, 261-3, 269. 

Metathesis: 221, 1210. 

Metonymy: 1207. 

Middle: displacing passive, 333 f.; 
endings, 339 f.; giving way to ac- 
tive, 356; perfect, 359; with reflex- 
ive pronoun, 690 f.; origin of, 803; 
meaning of, 803 f.; acute difference 
from active, 804; use of not obli- 
gatory, 804-6; transitive or intran- 
sitive, 806; direct, 806-8; causative 
or permissive, 808 f.; indirect, 809 f.; 
redundant, 811; dynamic (depo- 
nent), 811-3; middle future though 
active present, 813 f.; retreating in 
N. T., 814. 

Minuscules: 217, passim. 

Mixed declension: 263. See declen- 
sions. 

Mode (mood): conjugation of, 320- 
30 (number of 320 f., distinctions 
between 321f., indicative 322f., 
subjunctive 323 ff., optative 325 ff., 
imperative 327-30); syntax of, ch. 
XIX, 911-1049; introductory dis- 
cussion, 910-4; in paratactic sen- 
tences, 914-50 (indicative 914-24, 
subjunctive 924-35, optative 935- 
40, imperative 941-50); in hypo- 

* tactic sentences, 950-1049 (use of 
modes in 950, use of conjunctions 
in 951 f., logical varieties of sub- 
ordinate clauses 952-1049: relative 
953-62, causal 962-6, comparative 


1237 


966-9, local 969 f., temporal 970-9, 
final and consecutive 980-1003, 
wishes 1003 f., conditional 1004-27, 
indirect discourse 1027-48, series 
of subordinate clauses 1048 f.); 
change of mode in indirect dis- 
course, 1030 f. 

Modern Greek: literature on, 22-4; 
importance for N. T. Gk., 44-6; 
illustrating N. T. Gk., 137 f., 147, 
150, 155, 177 f., 557, ad libitum. 

Mood: see mode. 

Music: 228. 

Mycenezan age: 43 f. 


N 


Names of persons: see proper names. 

Narrative, tenses in, in Greek: see 
aorist, imperfect, present, present 
perfect. 

Negative particles: in relative clauses, 
962; with inf., 1093-5; with parti- 
ciple, 1186-9; objective οὐ and its 
compounds, 1155-66 (origin 1155, 
history 1156, meaning 1156 f., with 
the indicative, independent sen- 
tences, subordinate clauses 1157- 
60, with the subjunctive 1160f., 
with the optative 1161, with the 
imperative 1161 f., with infinitive 
1162, with the participle 1162 f., 
with nouns 1163 f., καὶ οὐ 1164, 
redundant or pleonastic οὐ 1164, 
repetition of οὐ 1164, intensify- 
ing compound 1164f., disjunctive 
1165 f.); subjective μή and its com- 
pounds, 1166-75 (history of μή 
1166 f., significance of 1167, uses 
of μή, indicative 1168 f., subjunc- 
tive 1169 f., optative 1170, impera- 
tive 1170, infinitive 1171, participle 
1172, nouns 1172, intensifying com- 
pounds 1172f., καὶ μή 1173, dis- 
junctive use 1173); combination of 
two negatives, 1173-5 (μὴ οὐ 1173f., 
οὐ μὴ 1174 f.). 

Negative pronouns: οὐδείς, οὐθείς, οὐδὲ, 
εἷς, εἷς — οὐ, 750 f.; οὔτις, μή τις, 


751 ἴ.; οὐ πᾶς, μὴ πᾶς, 752 1. 


1238 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Neuter: as substantive, 156, 267 f.; 


see gender. 

Neutral type of text: 180, 212, 219, 
passim. 

New material: ch. I, 3-80. 

New Testament, Greek of: place in 
the κοινή, 76-140; chiefly the ver- 
nacular, 76-83; not a biblical Greek, 
77-79; proof that in the vernacu- 
lar, 79-83; the lexical proof from 
the papyri and inscriptions, 80-2; 
accidence corroborated by papyri 
and inscriptions, 82; syntactical 
peculiarities, 82f.; phrases com- 
mon to N. T. and papyri, 83; liter- 
ary elements in N. T. Gk., 83-8; 
literary quality in the N. T., 84; 
controversy now whether there is 
appreciable Semitic colouring in the 
N. T., 88 f.; view of Deissmann and 
Moulton, 89-93; some real Hebra- 
isms in the N. T., 92 f.; little direct 
Hebrew influence, list of probable 
Hebraisms, 94-6; deeper impress 
of the LXX in vocabulary, acci- 
dence and syntax, though great 
variety in the LXX, 96-102; Ara- 
maisms in the N. T., in vocabulary 
and in syntax, 102-5; variation in 
Aramaic and Hebrew colouring in 
different parts of the N. T., 106-8; 
Latinisms in the N. T., names of 
persons and places, military terms, 
words and phrases, syntax, 108-11; 
sporadic foreign words in the N. T., 
111; the Christian addition, 112-6; 
transfiguration of the vocabulary, 
116; individual peculiarities of N. 
T. writers, 116-37; see separate 
writers by name; N. T. Gk. illus- 
trated by modern Gk., 137 ff.; syn- 
tax of, 381-3. 

N. T. authors: 28 f., 76-139. See In- 
dex of Quotations. 

Nominative: nominativus pendens in 
the vernacular κοινή, 73; form as 
vocative, 264, 461; N. T. forms in, 
267 f.; not the oldest case, 456; 
reason for, 457; predicate, 457 f.; 
sometimes unaltered, 458 f.; abso- 


lute, 459 f.; parenthetic, 460; in 
exclamations, 461; absolute, 1130. 

Non-thematic present stems: see 
present tense. 

Northwest Greek: remains of, in the 
κοινή, 53; influence of, 61, 63; on the 
N. T., 82, 266, passim. 

Nouns: root-nouns, 145; substantive 
and adjective, 246; verbal, ch. XX; 
negatives with, 1163 f., 1172. 

Number: in substantives, 251 f.; 
concord in, 403-9 (subject and pre- 
dicate 403-7, substantive and adjec- 
tive 407 f., representative singular 
408, idiomatic plural in nouns 408, 
idiomatic singular in nouns 409, 
special instances 409); adjective 
and substantive, 654 f.; οὗτος, 704; 
ἐκεῖνος, 708; ὅς, 714; ὅστις, 729; οἷος, 
1511 

Numerals: declension of, 281--4 (ori- 
gin of 281, different functions of 
281, cardinals 281-3, ordinals 283 f., 
distributives 284, proportionals 
284, adverbs 284); syntax of, 671-5 
(εἷς and πρῶτος 671 f., simplification 
of the ’teens 672, inclusive ordinal 
672, distributives 673, cardinal 
ἑπτά 673 f., substantive not ex- 
pressed 674, adverbs with 674, εἷς 
as indefinite article 674 f., εἷς --τις 
675, distributive use of εἷς 675); 
τις With, 742; article with ordinals, 
793 f. 


O 


Object of verb: see cases. 
Object-clauses: see hypotaxis. 
Oblique cases: 247. See cases. 

Old Testament: 99. See Septuagint 
and Index of Quotations. 

Onomatopoetic: 1201. 

Optative: origin of form, 320, 325-7; 
perfect, 360 f., 907 f.; use of aorist, 
854 f.; future, 876; present, 889 f.; 
opt. and subj., 925 f.; history of, 
935 f.; significance, 936f.; three 
uses, 937-40 (futuristic or potential 
937-9, volitive 939 f., deliberative 
940); as imper., 943; in indirect dis- 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS 


course, 1030f., 1043f.; negative 
with, 1161, 1170. 

Oratio obliqua: see indirect discourse. 

Oratio recta: see direct discourse. 

Oratio variata: 440-3 (distinctive 
from anacoluthon 441 f., heteroge- 
neous structure 441 f., participle in 
442, exchange of direct and indirect 
discourse 442 f.). 

Oratory: in Hebrews, 1198. 

Ordinals: see number. 

Orthography: in the vernacular κοινή, 
71f.; ch. VI, 176-245; the ancient 
literary spelling, 177 f. 

Ostraca: 17-21; texts of, 22, 91, 191, 
266, passim. 

Oxyrhynchus papyri: see Index of 
Quotations. 


Pp 


Palatals: 216 f., 1210. 

Papyri: literature on, 17—22, 52, 56f., 
66 ff.; illustrate the vernacular κοινή, 
69; illiteracy in, 70f.; and the N. 
T. Gk., 80-3; agreeing with the un- 
cials in orthography, 181; accidence 
and syntax of, 381; ad libitum 
through the book. 

Parable: 1206 f. 

Paragraph: discussion of, 241 f.; con- 
nection between, 444. 

Paraleipsis: 1199. 

Parallelism: 1199 f. 

Parataxis: 426, 428; modes in para- 
tactic sentences, 914—50, 953, 980f.; 
paratactic conjunctions, 1177-92. 

Parechesis: 1201. 

Parenthesis: 433-5; parenthetic nom- 
inative, 460. 

Paronomasia: 1201. 

Participle: in —via, 256; forms of, 371— 
6 (name 371 f., verbal adjectives 
372 f., with tense and voice 373 f., 
in periphrastic use 374-6); gender 
in, 412; case, 413; in clauses, 431 f.; 
in anacoluthon, 4389 f.; in oratio 
variata, 442; acc. absolute, 490 f.; 
gen. absolute, 512-4; adverbs with, 
546; as adverbs, 551; article with, 
764 f., 777-9; use of aorist, 858-64; 


1239 


future, 877 f.; present, 891 f.; per- 
fect, 909 f.; participle as imperative 
944-6; causal, 966; temporal use, 
979; purpose, 991; in indirect dis- 
course, 1040-2; history of part., 
1098-1100 (Sanskrit 1098, Homer’s 
time 1098, Attic period 1098 f., 
xown 1099, modern Gk. 1099 f.); 
significance, 1100-4 (originally an 
adjective 1100 f., addition of verbal 
functions 1101, double aspect of 
1101, relation between part. and 
inf. 1101-8, method of treating 
1103 f.); adjectival aspects of, 
1104-10 (declension 1104, attribu- 
tive, anarthrous, articular 1105-8, 
predicate 1108, as a substantive 
1108 f., as an adverb 1109 f.); ver- 
bal aspects of, 1110-41 (voice 
1110f., tense 1111-9, timelessness 
1111, aorist 1112-4, present 1115 f., 
perfect 1116-8, future 1118 f., cases 
1119, supplementary 1119-24, peri- 
phrastic construction 1119f., di- 
minution of complementary 1120f., 
with verbs of emotion 1121 f., in- 
direct discourse 1122-4; circum- 
stantial, participial clauses 1124-- 
32 (general theory 1124, varieties 
of, time, manner, means, cause, 
purpose, condition, concession 
1125-30, absolute nominative, ac- 
cusative, genitive 1130-2); inde- 
pendent, 1132-5; co-ordination 
between, 1135 f.; οὐ and μή with, 
1136-9, 1162 f., 1172; other par- 
ticles with, 1139-41). 

Particles: elision with, 207; with sub- 
ordinate clauses, 950-1049; with 
participle, 1036-41; scope, 1142-- 
4; intensive or emphatic, 1144—- 
55; negative, 1155-75; interroga- 
tive, 1175-7; conjunctions, 1177-93 
(paratactic, 1177-92, hypotactic 
1192 f.); interjections, 1193. 

Partitive: apposition, 399, 746; geni- 
tive, 502, 519; ablative, 519; use 
of ἐκ, 599; with ἕκαστος, 746. 

Passive: giving way to middle, 333 f.; 
endings, 340 f.; future, second and 


1240 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


first, 356f.; perfect, 359; o in 
aorist, 362; with accusative, 484-6; 
origin of, 814f.; significance of, 
815; intransitive or transitive, 
815f.; syntax of aorist, 816 ff.; 
passive ‘‘deponents,’’ 817 f.; future, 
818-20; agent with, 820; impersonal 
construction, 820. 

Past perfect: relation of aorist to, 
837-40; double idea, 903; a luxury 
in Greek, 903 f.; intensive, 904; ex- 
tensive, 904 f.; of broken continu- 
ity, 905 f.; in conditional sentences, 
906; periphrastic, 906; ἐκείμην, 906; 
augment in, 1211 f. 

Patronymics: 155. 

Paul: 54 ff.; and Hellenism, 84-8, 106; 
peculiarities of, 127-31, 135, 179, 
195, 218, ad libitum. See Index of 
Quotations. 

Perfect, future: see future perfect. 

Perfect, past: see past perfect. 

Perfect, present: of — verbs, 319 f.; 
imperative, 330; conjugation of, 
359-62 (name 359, original perfect 
359f., x perfect 358 f., aspirated 
359, middle and passive 359, decay 
of perfect forms 359 f., in subjunc- 
tive, optative, imperative 360, in- 
dicative 360-2, σ in middle and 
passive 362); reduplication in, 363- 
5; completed state, 823 f.; relation 
of aorist to, 848-5; present as per- 
fect, 881; perfect as present, 881; 
idea of, 892-4 (present, intensive, 
extensive, time); present perfect in- 
dicative, 894-908 (intensive 894 f., 
extensive 895f., of broken con- 
tinuity 896, dramatic historical 
896 f., gnomiec 897, in indirect dis- 
course 897 f., futuristic 898, “aoris- 
tic’? present perfect 898-902, peri- 
phrastic 902f.); subj. and opt., 
907 f.; infinitive, 908 f. (indirect 
discourse 908 f., not indirect disc., 
subject or object, preposition 909) ; 
participle, 909 f. and 1116-8 (mean- 
ing, time, various uses, periphras- 
tic). 

‘Perfective”’: use of prepositions, 


563 f.; ἀπό, 576 f.; διὰ 581f.; &, 
596 f.; ἐπί, 600; κατά, 606; παρά, 613; 
περί, 617; πρός, 623; σύν, 627 ἴ.; ὑπέρ, 
629; ‘‘perfective”’ and “imperfec- 
tive,’ 826-8. 

Pergamum: a centre of culture, 56 ff., 
61, 63, 66, 75, 111, 208, 223, passim. 

Period: use of, 242 f. 

Periodic structure: 432 f., 1200. 

Periods of N. T. grammatical study: 
3-7. ; 

Periods of the Greek language: 
45. 

Periphrasis: with participle, 330, 357, 
374-6, 826, 878, 887 f., 889, 906, 
1119 f. 

Persian: words in N. T., 111. 

Person: concord in, 402 f., 
change in ind. dise., 1028 f. 

Person-endings: 329, 335; active, 
335-9. 

Personal construction: with adjec- 
tive, 657 f.; with inf., 1088 f. 

Personal equation: in the κοινή, 69 ff., 
179. 

Personal pronouns: question of αὑτοῦ, 
226; inflection of, 286 f.; nomina- 
tive, 676-80 (emphasis in 676, first 
677 f., second 678, third 679 f.); 
oblique cases, 680-2 (originally 
reflexive 680 f., αὐτοῦ 681, genitive 
for possessive 681, enclitic forms 
681f.); frequency of, 682 f.; re- 
dundant, 683; according to sense, 
683 f.; repetition of substantive, 
684. 

Peter: peculiarities of, 125-7. See 
Index of Quotations. 

Philo: see Index of Quotations. 

Philology: see comparative grammar. 

Phocian: 266. 

Pheenician: words in N. T., 111, 182, 
209, passim. 

Phonetics: in the vernacular κοινή, 
71f.; ch. VI, 177-245. 

Phrygia: old dialect of, 67. 

Pindar: see Index of Quotations. 

Pindaric construction: 405. 

Plato: see Index of Quotations. 

Play on words: 1201. 


112; 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS 


Pleonasm: in pronouns, 683; οὐ, 1164, 
1205. 

Pluperfect: see past perfect. 

Plural: 251. See number. 

Plutarch: see Index of Quotations. 

Poetry: see rhythm. 

Point-action: see punctiliar. 

Polybius: see Index of Quotations. 

Polysyndeton: 1194. 

Pompeian: 186, passim. 

Pontic infinitive: see infinitive. 

Position: of words, 417-25 (freedom 
417, predicate 417, emphasis 417 f., 
minor words in 418f., euphony 
and rhythm 419-238, prolepsis 423, 
hysteron proteron 423, hyperbaton 
423 f., postpositives 424 f., fluc- 
tuating words 424f., order of 
clauses in compound sentences 
425); of genitive, 502 f.; of article 
with attributive, 776-89; with pred- 
icate, 789 f. 

Positive: adjective, 276, 659-61. 

Possessive pronouns: inflection of, 
288 f.; article as, 684; only first 
and second in N.T., 684; emphasis, 
684 f.; with article, 685; possessive 
and genitive, 685; objective use, 
685; instead of reflexive, 685; ar- 
ticle as, 769 f.; article with, 770. 

Postpositive: 424; some prepositions, 
553. 

Potential: 
937-9. 

Predicate: essential part of sentence, 
390 f.; only predicate, 390 f.; verb 
not the only, 394 f.; copula not es- 
sential, 395 f.; one of the radiating 
foci, 396f.; expansion of, 400 f. 
(predicate in wider sense 400, inf. 
and part. 400, relation between 
predicate and substantive 400, pro- 
noun 400, adjective 401, adverb 
401, prepositions 401, negative par- 
ticles 401, subordinate clauses 401, 
apposition and looser amplifica- 
tions 401); agreeing with subject, 
403-6; position, 417; pred. nomina- 


imperfect, 885-7; opt., 


tive, 457 f.; vocative in, 464 f.; ad- - 


jective, 655 f.; nouns with article, 


1241 


767-9; article with, 789f., 794; 
participle, 1108. 
Prefixes: 146; inseparable, 161-3. 


Pregnant construction: 525, 548, 
584 f., 591-3. 

Prepositional adverbs: new ones, 
169 f. 


Prepositions: double in composition, 
160, 165; adverbs, 301; encroach- 
ment on cases, 450-3; accusative 
with, 491; genitive with, 505; effect 
of compound preps. on case, 511 f., 
542 f.; with ablative, 516 f.; with 
locative, 524 f.; with instrumental, 
534 f.; with dative, 537 f.; phrases, 
550 f.; ch. XIII, 553-649; name, 
553 f. (some postpositive 553, orig- 
inal use not with verbs 553, expla- 
nation 553f.); origin of, 554f. 
(originally adverbs 554, reason for 
use of 554, varying history 555); 
growth in use of, 555-7 (once none 
555, still adverbs in Homer 555, 
decreasing use as adverbs 555f., 
Semitic influence in N. T. 556f., 
modern Greek 557); in composition 
with verbs, 557-65 (not the main 
function 557 f., prep. alone 558, in- 
creasing use 558, repetition after 
verb 559f., different preposition 
after verb 560 ff., second preposi- 
tion not necessary 562 f., dropped 
with second verb 563, intensive or 
perfective 563f., double compounds 
565); repetition and variation of, 
565-7 (same prep. with different 
case 565, repetition with several 
nouns 566, repetition with the rela- 
tive 566 f., 721, condensation by 
variation 567); functions of, with 
cases, 567-71 (case before prep. 567, 
notion of dimension 567, original 
force of the case 567 f., ground- 
meaning of the prep. 568, oblique 
cases alone with 568, original free- 
dom 568 f., no adequate division 
by cases 569, situation in Ν. T. 
569 f.: with one case, with two, 
with three, one with four, each 
prep. in a case 570f.); “proper” 


1242 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


prepositions in N. T., 571-636; ἀνά, 
571 f.; ἀντί, 572-4; ἀπό, 574-80 
(original significance 575 f., mean- 
ing “back” 576f., ‘‘translation- 
Hebraism” in φοβεῖσθαι ἀπό 577, 
comparison with ἐκ 577f., com- 
parison with παρά 578 f., compared 
with ὑπό 579 f.); διά, 580-4 (root- 
idea 580, by twos or between 580 f., 
passing between or through 581 ff., 
because of 583 f.); ἐν, 584-91 (old 
use with accusative or locative 
584 f., older than eis 585f., place 
586, time 586 f., among 587, in the 
case of 587f., as a dative 588, 
accompanying circumstance 588, 
amounting to 589, instrumental 
use of 589-91); eis, 591-6 (original 
static use 591-3, with verbs of mo- 
tion 593 f., time 594, like a dative 
594, aim or purpose 594 f., predica- 
tive use 595 f., compared with ἐπί, 
mapa and πρός 596); ἐκ, 596-600 
(meaning 596, in composition 596 f., 
place 597, time 597, separation 
597 f., origin or source 598 f., par- 
titive use of 599, ἐκ and ἐν 599 f.); 
ἐπί, 600-5 (ground-meaning 600, in 
composition 600, frequency in N. 


T. 600f., with the accus. 601 f., ᾿ 


with the gen. 602-4, with the loc. 
604 f., the true dative 605); xara, 
605-9 (root-meaning 605f., dis- 
tributive sense 606, in composition 
606, with ablative 606 f., with geni- 
tive 607, with accusative 607-9); 
μετά, 609-12 (root-meaning 609, in 
composition 609 f., loss of locative 
use 610, with genitive 610-2, with 
accusative 612); παρά, 612-6 (sig- 
nificance 612, compared with πρός 
613, in composition 613, with the 
locative 614, with the ablative 
614 f., with the accusative 615 f.); 
περί, 616-20 (root-meaning 617, in 
composition 617, originally with 
four cases 617, with the ablative 
617 f., with the genitive 618 f., with 
the accusative 619 f.); πρό, 620-2 
(original meaning 620, in composi- 


tion 620f., cases used with 621, 
place 621, time 621 f., superiority 
622); πρός, 622-6 (meaning 622 f., 
in composition 623, originally with 
five cases 623, with ablative 623 f., 
with the locative 624, with the ac- 
cusative 624-6); civ, 626-8 (mean- 
ing 626 f., history 627, in composi- 
tion 627 f., N. T. usage 628); ὑπέρ, 
628-33 (meaning 629, in composi- 
tion 629, with genitive 629 f., with 
ablative 630-2, with accusative 
632 f.); ὑπό, 633-6 (meaning 633, 
in composition 633, cases once used 
with 634f., with the accusative 
635, with the ablative 635 f.); the 
“adverbial”’ or “improper’”’ prepo- 
sitions, 636-48 (ἅμα 638, ἄνευ 638, 
ἄντικρυς 638, ἀντίπερα 638 f., ἀπέναντι 
639, ἄτερ 639, axpu(s) 639, ἐγγύς 
639 f., ἐκτός 640, ἔμπροσθεν 640, ἔναν- 
τι 640, ἐναντίον 640, ἕνεκα 641, ἐντός 
641, ἐνώπιον 041] f., ἔξω 642, ἐπάνω 
642, ἐπέκεινα 642, ἔσω 642 f., ἕως 643, 
κατέναντι 643, κατενώπιον 644, κυκλό- 
θεν 644, κύκλῳ 644, μέσον 644, μετα- 
ξύ 645, μέχρι 645, ὄπισθεν 645, ὀπίσω 
645, ὀψέ 645f., παραπλήσιον 646, 
mapextos 646, πέραν 646, πλήν 646, 
πλησίον 646, ὑπεράνω 646f., ὑπερέ- 
κεινα 647, ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ 647, ὑπο- 
κάτω 647, χάριν 647, χωρίς 647 f.); 
compound prepositions, 648; prep- 
ositional circumlocutions, 648 f. 
(μέσον, ὄνομα, πρόσωπον, χείρ); ad- 
jectives of comparison with, 661, 
667; article with, 766; effect on ac- 
tive voice, 800; with infinitive, 
1068-75. 


Present tense: 73, 119f., 123, 145, 


150, 203; of -ye verbs, 311-9; 
classes of present stems, 350-3 
(non-thematic reduplicated 350, 
non-thematic with —va and --νυ 351, 
simple thematic 351, reduplicated 
thematic 351, thematic with suffix 
351, 351-8, with o dropped 353); 
relation of aorist to, 841-3; punc- 
tiliar (aoristic), 864-70 (specific 
865 f., gnomic 866, historical pres- 


INDEX OF 


ent 866-9, futuristic 869f.); du- 
rative (linear) indicative, 879-82 
(descriptive 879, progressive 879 f., 
iterative or customary 880, inchoa- 
tive or conative 880, historical 880, 
deliberative 880 f., as perfect 881, 
perfect as present 881, futuristic 
881 f.); durative subj. and opt., 
889 f.; durative imperative, 890; 
durative infinitive, 890 f.; durative 
participle, 891 f. and 1115-6 (rela- 
tive time 891, futuristic 891, de- 
scriptive 891, conative 892, ante- 
cedent time 892, indirect discourse 
892, with the article 892, past ac- 
tion still in progress 892, ‘‘subse- 
quent’”’ 892, durative future 892). 

Principal parts of important verbs in 
N. T.: 1212-20. 

Proclitics: accent of, 235; rules for 
accent of, 1211. 

Prodiorthosis: 1199. 

“Profane Greek”: 5, 89. 

Prohibition: see imperative, aorist 
subj., future indicative, infinitive. 

Prolepsis: 423. 

Pronouns: 226, 234; declension of, 
284-98 (idea of 284 f., antiquity of 
285, pronominal roots 285 f., classi- 
fication of 286-93); syntax of, ch. 
XV, 676-753; personal, 676-84; 
possessive, 684f.; intensive and 
identical, 685-7; reflexive, 687-92; 
reciprocal, 692 f.; demonstrative, 
693-710; relative, 710-35; inter- 
rogative, 735-41; indefinite, 741-4; 
alternative or distributive, 744-50; 
negative, 750-3. 

Pronunciation: 71 f., 290-41. 

Proper names: abbreviated, 171-3, 
184, 205; doubling of consonants 
in Hebrew and Aramaic, 214 f.; ac- 
cent of, 235; foreign names, 235 f.; 
mixed declension of, 263; in third 
decl., 269f.; article with, 759 ff., 
791, passim. 

‘““Proper’’ prepositions: 554, 636 f. 

TIporwdla: 228. 

Protasis: see conditional clauses, 
1007-27. 


SUBJECTS 1243 


Prothetic vowels: 205 f., 1209. 

Psilosis: 191, 222-5. 

Psychological treatment of grammar: 
32. 

Ptolemaic: 210, 220, 256, passim. 

Pun: 1201. 

Punctiliar action: 823f., 830-79 
(aorist 831-64, present 864-70, fu- 
ture 870-9). 

Punctuation: discussion of, 241-5 (the 
paragraphs 241 f., sentences 242 f., 
words 243f., editor’s prerogative 
245). 

Purists: 3, 76 ff., 88, 90f., 160, pas- 
sim. 

Purpose: see final clauses. 


Q 


Qualitative use of anarthrous nouns: 
see article. 

Questions: ὅς in direct, 725; és in in- 
direct, 725 f.; ὅστις, direct 729 f., 
indirect 730 f.; οἷος, 731; ὅσος, 733; 
see direct discourse, indirect dis- 
course, interrogative pronouns, in- 
terrogative particles, mode; indi- 
rect, 1043-6; deliberative, 1046; 
single, 1175-7; double, 1177; par- 
ticles in direct, 1175 f.; indirect, 
1176 f. 

Quotations in O. T.: 206, 242 f. 


R 


Reciprocal pronouns: inflection of, 
292 f.; reflexive as, 690; syntax of, 
692 f. 

Recitative ὅτι: 1027 f.; see direct dis- 
course. 

Redundance: see pleonasm. 

Reduplication: discussion of, 362-5 
(primitive 362, both nouns and 
verbs 362, in three tenses in verbs 
362 f., three methods in 3638, in the 
perfect 363-5). 

Reflexive pronouns: inflection of, 
287 f.; personal originally so, 680 f., 
685; distinetive use, 687 f.; no 
nominative, 688; indirect, 688; in 


1244 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


singular, 688f.; in plural, 689 f.; 
article with, 690; in reciprocal 
sense, 690; with middle voice, 690 f., 
811; use of ἴδιος, 691 f.; with active 
voice, 802. 

Relative pronouns: inflection of, 290f.; 
inverse attraction, 488; attraction 
to genitive, 512; attraction to ab- 
lative, 519 f.; repetition of preposi- 
tions with, 566 f.; list in the N. T., 
710f.; name, 711; bond between 
clauses, 711; ὅς, 711-26 (in Homer 
711, comparison with other rela- 
tives 711 f., with any person 712, 
gender 712 ff., number 714, case 
714-9, absence of antecedent 719 ff., 
prepositions with antecedent and 
relative 721, phrases 721 f., pleo- 
nastic antecedent 722 f., repetition 
of ὅς 723f., consecutive idea 724, 
causal 724 f., direct questions 725, 
indirect questions 725f., idiom 
οὐδείς ἐστιν ὅς 726); ὅστις, 726-31 
(varied uses 726, distinction be- 
tween ὅς and ὅστις 726 f., indefinite 
use 727, definite exx. 727 f., =value 
of ὅς 728, case 728 f., number 729, 
direct questions 729f., indirect 
730 {.); οἷος, 7381 f. (relation to ὅς 
731, incorporation 731, indirect 
question 731, number 731, οἷόν τέ 
ἐστιν 732); ὁποῖος, 732 (qualitative, 
double office, correlative); 
732 f. (quantitative, antecedent, at- 
traction, incorporation, repetition, 
with ἄν, indirect question, compari- 
son, adverbial); ἡλίκος, 733 f.; ὁ, 
734 f.; ris as, 737 f. 

Relative sentences: originally para- 
tactic, 953; most subordinate 
clauses relative in origin, 953 f.; 
usually adjectival, 955f.; modes 
in, 955f.; definite and indefinite, 
956 f.; use of ἄν in, 957-9; special 
uses of, 960-2; negatives in, 962; 
causal, 965 f.; purpose, 989; sub- 
final, 996; consecutive, 1001. 

Relative time: see tense. 

Repetition: of substantive, 684; of és, 
723 f.; of ὅσος, 733. 


Ψ 
ὅσος, 


Result: see consecutive clauses. 

Reuchlinian pronunciation: 240. 

Revelation: see Apocalypse. , 

Rhetoric: figures of speech, 1194— 
1208. 

Rhetorical questions: with the ind., 
924; with the subj., 930; in Paul, 
1198. 

Rhythm: metrical passages so printed 
in W. H., 242; position as showing, 
417-23; poetry, 421 f. 

Roman Empire and the κοινή: 74 f. 

Romans: passim. See Index of Quo- 
tations. 

Roots: in Sanskrit, 38; discussion of, 
144-6; verb-root, 344 f. 

Running style: 432 f. 


5 


Sahidic: 202, passim. 

Sanskrit: the discovery of Sanskrit, 
10, 36 f., 39 f., 47, 148, 145 f., 246- 
8; voice in, 798 f., ad libitum. 

Second Epistle of Peter: passim. See 
Index of Quotations. 

Second or o declension: 257, 259-63. 

Semitic: 37, 88-108, 198, 205, 212, 
225, 236, passim. See Aramaic and 
Hebrew. 

Sentence, the: punctuation of, 242 f.; 
discussion of, ch. X, 390-445; the 
sentence and syntax, 390; sentence 
defined, 390-7 (complex conception 
390, two essential parts 390 f., one- 
membered sentence 391, elliptical 
391, only predicate 391-3, only 
subject 393 f., verb not the only 
predicate 394 f., copula not neces- 
sary 395 f., two radiating foci 396 f., 
varieties of the simple sentence 
397) ; expansion of the subject, 397— 
400; expansion of the predicate, 
400 f.; subordinate centres in the 
sentence, 402; concord in person, 
402 f.; concord in number, 403-9; 
concord in gender, 410-3; concord 
in case, 413-6; position of words in, 
417-25; compound sentences, 425— 
7; connection in sentences, 427-44 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS 


(single words 427, clauses 428-32, 
two kinds of style 4382 f., paren- 
thesis 433-5, anacoluthon 435-40, 
oratio variata 440-3, connection 
between sentences 443, between 
paragraphs 444, forecasts 444 f.); 
independent or paratactic, 914-50; 
subordinate or hypotactic, 950- 
1049. 

Septuagint: influence of Jews in Al- 
exandria, 84; in the vernacular 
κοινή Of Alexandria, 91; Hebraisms 
in the LXX, 91; influence of the 
LXX on the N. T., nature of this 
influence and character of the LX X 
itself, 96-102; ‘‘septuagint-Gre- 
cisms”’ in Luke, 108, 118-26, 183- 
92, 198-204, 208-11, 213-27, ad li- 
bitum. 

Sequence, rules of: see indirect dis- 
course. 

Simile: 1206. 

Sinaiticus, Codex: spelling of, 179, 

- passim. 

Singular: 251. 

Socrates: 75 f. 

Solecisms: in the Apocalypse, 413-6. 

Sophocles: see Index of Quota- 
tions. 

Sources for study of κοινή: see ch. I 
and κοινή. 

Southeast dialects: 211, passim. 

Spoken Greek: see vernacular. 

Stoic: grammarians, 148; dialectic, 
1197. 

Style: in Scripture, 87; two kinds of, 
432 f.;in the N. T., 116-39, 1194-7. 
See individual peculiarities. 

Sub-final: see final and consecutive. 

Subject: essential part of sentence, 
390 f.; ellipsis of, 391; only sub- 
ject used, 393 f.; one of the radiat- 
ing foci, 396 f.; expansion of the 
subject, 397-400 (idea-words and 
form-words 397, concord and gov- 
ernment 397 f., group around 998-- 
400, subordinate clause 398, with 
the article 398, the adverb 398, the 
adjective 398, the substantive in 
an oblique case 398, or inapposition 


See number. 


1245 


398-400); subject and predicate as 
to concord, 403-7 (two conflicting 
principles 403, neuter plural and 
singular verb 403 f., collective sub- 
stantives 404 f., singular verb with 
first subject 405 f., literary plural 
406 f.); suspended, 4386 f. 

Subjective: see genitive case, posses- 
sive pronoun and middle voice. 

Subjunctive: origin of form, 320, 323- 
5; perfect, 360f., 907f.; use of 
aorist, 848-54; future, 876; present, 
889 f.; relation to other modes, 
924 ff. (aor. subj. and fut. ind., 
subj. and imper., subj. and opt.); 
original significance of, 926-8; 
threefold usage, 928-35 (futuristic 
928 ff., volitive 980-4, deliberative 
934 f.); as imper., 943; negative 
with, 1160 f., 1169 f. 

Subordinate sentences: see hypo- 
taxis. 

Subsequent action in participle: see 
participle. 

Substantives: root-substantives, 145; 
with suffixes, 150-7 (primitive 150f., 
derivative 151-7: from verbs 151- 
4, from substantives 154-6, from ad- 
jectives 156 f.); compound, 161-8 
(inseparable prefixes, 161 f.; agglu- 
tinative 165-8); declension of, 240-- 
70; number in, 251f.; gender in 
substantives, 252-4; with genitive, 
495-503; with ablative, 514 f.; with 
locative, 524; with dative, 536 f.; 
appositional use of, 651 f.; adjec- 
tive as, 652-4; agreement of adjec- 
tive with, 654f.; substantival as- 
pects of infinitive, 1058-79; with 
inf., 1075 f.; participle as, 1108 f.; 
negatives with, 1163 f. 

Suffixes: 146; comparative without, 
663. 

Superlative: forms, 278-81; positive 
as, 660f.; displaced by compara- 
tive 667-9; syntax of, 669-71. 

Supplementary: see participle. 

Syncope: 203 f. 

Synonyms: in Greek words, 175 f.; 
phrases, 1200 f. 


1246 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Syntax: in the vernacular κοινή, 73 f.; 
in the N. T., 82f.; of LXX, 100; 
part ITI, 379-1208; meaning of syn- 
tax, ch. IX, 379-89 (backwardness 
in study of 379-81, N. T. limita- 
tions 381-3, advance by Delbriick 
383 f., province of 384—7, the word 
384 f., construction of words and 
clauses 385 f., historical 386, ir- 
regularities 386 f., method of this 
grammar 387-9, principles 387, 
original significance 387, form and 
function 387 f., development 388, 
context 388f., translation 389, 
limits 389); the sentence and syn- 
tax, 390. 

Syriac versions: passim. 

Syrian text (a-text): 179f., 189, 210f., 
214 f., 219, 260, passim. 


Ay 


Tarsus: new centre of culture, 67; 
Paul learning Greek in, 239. 

Temporal clauses: kin to_ rela- 
tive, 970f.; conjunctions meaning 
“when,” 971-4; group meaning 
“until,” 974-7; some nominal and 
prepositional phrases, 977 f.; use of 
inf., 978 f., 1091 f.; participle, 979, 
1125 f. 

Tenses: of —w verbs in the N. T., 
307-20; conjugation of, 343-68 
(term tense 3438f., confusion in 
names 344, verb-root 344 f., aorist 
345-50, present 350-3, future 353- 
7, perfect 359-62, reduplication 
362-5, augment 365-8); infinitive, 
369 f., 1080-2; participle, 378 ff., 
1111-9; periphrastic tenses in N. 
T., 374-6; syntax of, ch. XVIII, 
821-910; complexity of subject, 
821-30 (Greek and Germanic 
tenses 821, influence of Latin on 
Greek grammarians 822, Hebrew 
influence 822, gradual growth of 
Greek tenses 822, ‘‘Aktionsart”’ of 
the verb-stem 823, three kinds 
of action 824, time-element 824 f., 
faulty nomenclature 825, analytic 


tendency (periphrasis) 826, “per- 
fective’ use of prepositions 826-8, 
Aktionsart with each tense 828f., 
interchange of tenses 829 f.); punc- 
tiliar action, 830-79 (aorist 830-64, 
present 864-70, future 870-9); du- 
rative (linear), 879-92 (indicative, 
present, imperfect, future 879-89, 
subj. and opt. 889 f., imperative 
890, infinitive 890f., participle 
891 f.); perfected state, 892-910 
(idea of perfect 892-4, indicative, 
present perfect, past perfect, future 
perfect 892-907, subj. and opt. 
907 f., imperative 908, infinitive 
908, participle 909 f.); tenses of im- 
perative, 950; change in ind. dis- 
course, 1029 f. 

Textual criticism: passim. 

Textus receptus: 199, 213, 217, pas- 
sim. 

Thematic vowel: see present tense. 

Thessalian: 192, 202, passim. 

Third declension: 258, 263-9. 

Thucydides: 265, passim. See Index 
of Quotations. 

Time: cases used, 460-527 f., (nom. 
460, acc. 469-71, gen. 495, locative 
522 f., instrumental 527 f.); διά, 
580 ff.; ἐν, 586 f.; eis, 594; ἐκ, 597; 
πρό, 621 f.; element in tense, 824 f., 
894; temporal clauses, 970-9; time- 
lessness of participle, 1111. 

Transitive verbs: 330f.; with accu- 
sative, 471-7; with genitive, etc., 
506 ff.; transitiveness and voice, 
797 ἴ., 799 f., 806, 815 f. 

Translation Greek: in the LXX and 
portions of Gospels and Acts, 89 f., 
91 f., 93, 100 ff. 

Transliteration of Semitic words: 225. 


U 


Uncials: 179-81, 186, 189, 192 f., 195, 
200, 202, ad libitum. 

Uncontracted vowels: 
tion. 

Unfulfilled condition: see conditional 
sentences. 


see contrac- 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS 


Unification of Greek dialects in the 
κοινή: 53-4; finally complete, 67. 
Universal language: the Greek, 49 f.; 
Panhellenic, 49; origin of, 53 f.; 
march towards universalism, 54; a 
real world-speech, 54-56; limita- 

tions in, 64. 


V 


Vase-inscriptions: see inscriptions. 

Vaticanus, Codex: 179, passim. 

Verbal adjectives: in —réos and --τος, 
157 f.;relation to participles, 372 f.; 
syntax of verbals in —ros and —réos, 
1095-7. 

Verbal nouns: ch. XX, 1050-1141; 
kinship between infinitive and par- 
ticiple, 1050 f.; the infinitive, 1051— 
95; the participle, 1098-1141. 

Verbs: root-verbs, 145; with formative 
suffixes, 146-50 (primitive verbs 
146 f., secondary verbs 147-50); 
compound verbs, 161-5 (with insep- 
arable prefixes 161 f., agglutination 
or juxtaposition 163-5); conjuga- 
tion of, 303-76 (difficulty of the 
subject 303, nature of the verb, 
relation to noun 303 f., meaning of 
304, pure and hybrid 304, survival 
of —y verbs, cross division 306, 
oldest verbs 306, gradual disappear- 
ance 306, second aorists 307-11, 
presents 311-9, perfects 319 f., 
modes 320-30, voices 990-43, 
tenses 343-68, infinitive 368-71, 
participle 371-6); accusative with, 
471-86; genitive with, 505-11; 
ablative with, 517-20; with lo- 
cative, 523 f.; instrumental with, 
528-32; dative with, 538-43; ad- 
verbial use, 551 f.; compounded 
with prepositions, 557-65; syntax 
of voice, ch. XVII, 797-820; syn- 
tax of tense, 821-910; syntax of 
mode, 911-1049: inf. with, 1077 f.; 
verbal aspects of inf., 1079-95; ver- 
bal aspects of participle, 1110-41; 
list of important verbs in N. T., 
1212-20. 


1247 


Vernacular: 17f., 22f., 34ff., 44; 
“vulgar”? Greek, 50; vernacular 
κοινή, 60-73; vernacular Attic, 60-2; 
N. T. chiefly in the vernacular κοινή, 
76-83; vernacular writers in the 
N. T., 76; dialect-coloured, 178 f.; 
indifferent to hiatus, 207; ad l- 
bitum. 

Verner’s law: 11, footnote. 

Verses: see rhythm. , 

Vocabulary: 65f.; in the vernacular 
κοινή, 72, 80-3, 87, passim. 

Vocative: 247; in first declension, 256; 
in second declension, 261; in third 
decl., 264; nominative form, 264, 
461; nature of, 461; various devices 
462 f.; use of ὦ, 463 f.; adjectives 
with, 464; apposition to, 464; in 
predicate, 464 f.; article with, 465 f. 

Voice: conjugation of, 330—43 (transi- 
tive and intransitive 330 f., names 
of -voices 331, relative age of 332, 
“deponent”’ 332 f., passive sup- 
planting middle 333 f., personal 
endings 335, cross divisions 335, 
active endings 335-9, middle end- 
ings 339 f., passive endings 340f., 
contract verbs 341-3); with infini- 
tive, 369 f., 1079 f.; with participle, 
373 f., 1110 f.; syntax of, ch. XVII, 
797-820; point of view, 797-9 (dis- 
tinction between voice and transi- 
tiveness 797 f., meaning of voice 
798, names of the voices 798, his- 
tory of 798, help from Sanskrit 
798 f., defective verbs 799); syntax 
of active, 799-803; middle, 803-14; ’ 
passive, 814-20. 

Volitive: future, 874 f.; subj., 9380-4; 
opt., 939 f. 

Vowels: original of vowel symbols, 
178; the original Greek vowels, 
181 f.; vowel changes, 181-203 
(changes with a 182-6, with ε 186- 
91, with 7 191-5, with ε 195-9, with 
o 199-201, with v 201f.; with w 
202 f.); contraction and syncope, 
203 f.; diphthongs and dizresis, 
204f.; apheresis and_ prothetic 
vowels, 205 f.; elision, 206-8; cra- 


1248 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


sis, 208 f.; shortening stem--vowels, 
230 f. 
Vulgate: passim. 


WwW 


Wales, bilingualism in: 30. 
Weltsprache: 44 f., 49-56, 64, 66, 79, 
passim. See universal or κοινή. 
Western text (§-text): 180, 214, 216, 

218 f., 253, 260, ad libitum. 

Wish: mode and tense in impossible 
wishes, 923; ways of expressing, 
1003 f. 

Word-formation: 
words. 

Words: number in the N. T., 81, 87, 
115; relation of words in origin, 


see formation of 


145; with formative suffixes, 146- 
60; composita, 160-71; history of, 
173 f.; kinship of Greek, 174 f.; 
contrasts in, 175 f.; punctuation of, 
243 f.; idea-words and form-words, 
397; position of, in sentence, 417-- 
25; connection between, 427; word- 
relations, 449; glory of the words 
of the N. T., 1207 f. 
World-language: see κοινή. 


Χ 


Xenophon, forerunner of the κοινή: 
55. | 


Z 
Zeugma: 1200 f. 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 


Only words are here given which are discussed, not the words in the lists of examples, 


many thousands of which are given in the text. 


A 


πα: voc. ending, 151, 256; prefix, 
ΠΟΙ 168;170, "273, 016. 1155; 
vowel-changes with, 182-6, 191, 
274, 341f., 326; Dor. gen. abl., 
254 f.; stems in, 258, 267; acc. end- 
ing, 264 f.; aor. ending, 305, 337-9, 
348 f.; 2d perf. in, 358, 801; ad- 
verbs in, 526; prothetic, 1209. 

—q: dat. ending, 249, 256. 

᾿Αββά: case, 461. 

ἀγαθός: meaning, 176, 276, 653, 661; 
reading, 201; forms, 273. 

ἀγαθωσύνη: reading, 201. 

ἀγαλλιάω: constr., 509; forms, 1212. 

ἀγανακτέω: c. part., 1122. 

ἀγαπάω: use, 1078. 

ἀγάπη: in κοινή, 152; gen. use, 499; 
and art., 758; meaning, 768. 

ἀγαπητός: discussed, 1096. 

ἀγαπάω: use, 1201. 

“Ayap: 254, 411, 759, 766. 

ἀγγελία: ὅτι with, 1033. 

ἀγγέλλω: compounds and forms of, 
338, 1212. 

ἁγιάζω: constr., 855, 1003; part., 891. 

ἅγιος: use, 777. 

ἁγιωσύνη: form, 201. 

ayvitw: voice of, 816. 

ἄγνυμι: compounds and forms of, 
1212. 

ἀγοράζω: constr., 485, 510. 

"Ayovoros: spelling, 185. 

ἄγω: compounds ‘and forms, 299, 
302, 328,. 330, 346, 348, 363, 368, 
391, 428, 480, 1212; constr., 477; 
voice of, 799 f.; meaning, 865; use, 


See Index of Quotations. 


871, 931; part., 891; use of aye, 
941, 949. 

ἀδιαλείπτως: form, 295. 

ἀδικέω: voice of, 472, 808, 816; use, 
878, 881, 889. 

‘ASpapuvrnvds: spelling, 210. 

-άζω: verb ending, 147, 151. 

ἀεί: form, 185, 295; use, 300. 

᾿Αθήνησι: case of, 249. 

αι: vowel-changes, 186, 204, 327, 367; 
dat. ending, 249, 542; inf. ending, 
249, 370, 542, 1051 ff., 1067; opt. 
ending, 335. 

aidv: form, 190. 

ἀΐδιος: form, 272. 

-αίνω: verb ending, 147, 150, 349, 
352. 

aipéw: voice of, 806, 809 f.; compounds 
and forms of, 1212. 

αἰρόμενος : use, 1097. 

atpwa: voice of, 799; constr., 855 f., 
1097; compounds and forms of, 
1212. 

—alpw: verbs in, 349, 352. 

—ats: dat. ending, 249. 

αἰσθάνομαι: constr., 509; in or. obl., 
1040; form of, 1212. 

αἰσχύνομαι: use, 1102; and part., 
1122. 

airéw: constr., 480, 482, 850, 857; 
voice of, 805, 814, 820. 

αἰτιατική: name of acc., 466. 

ἀκαταπάστους: spelling, 185. 

-άκι-ς: Suffix, 296. 

ἀκμήν: 488, 546. 

ἀκολουθέω: constr., 528; use, 880. 

ἀκούω: c. cases, 449, 506 f., 511, 519, 
717; voice of, 803; in or. obl., 864, 


1249 


1250 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


1035, 1042; use, 881, 901, 1103, 
1116; compounds and forms of, 
1212. 

ἀκριβέστατος: form, 280. 

ἀκριβέστερος: meaning, 665. 

ἄκρος: and art., 775. 

ἀλείφω: constr., 483. 

πάληθρον: suffix, 174. 

ἀλλά: elision, 207; accent, 232-4; 
form, 244, 294; c. negative, 424, 
752, 1166; use, 427 ff., 443; and 
asyndeton, 440; in mod. Gk., 1146; 
discussed, 1185 ff. 

ἄλλα: form, 249, 294. 

ἀλλάσσω: constr., 511; compounds 
and forms of, 1212. 

ἁλληλούϊα: spelling, 205, 225. 

ἀλλήλων: form, 292; use, 690; dis- 
cussed, 692 f. 

ἅλλομαι: compounds and forms of, 
1212. 

ἄλλος: use, 292, 692; in comparison, 
662; with εἷς, 671; with art., 695, 
775 ἴ.; discussed, 746 ff.; and ére- 
pos, 749; antithetic, 750. 

ἀλλότριος: and ἄλλος, 748. 

ἄλογος: form, 273. 

ἅμα: origin, 249; num. adv., 284, 
295, 301; case with, 534, 638; and 
μετά, 609; and σύν, 627; ὁ. inf., 
1069; use, 1126, 1139. 

ἁμαρτάνω: compounds and forms of, 
348, 1212; constative aor. of, 833; 
use, 850, 854. 

ἁμαρτία: use, 780. 

ἀμείνων: form, 277; use, 662. 

—dpevos: ending, 374. 

ἀμήν: and art., 759. 

ἀμφί: in comp., 451, 553, 555 f., 558; 
use in Homer, 524; case form, 524; 
origin, 555; original use, 569; dis- 
use, 569; and περί, 620; non-use 
with inf., 1069. 

ἀμφιάζω: reading, 184; compounds 
and forms, 1212. 

ἀμφιέννυμι: constr., 483; 
1212, 

ἀμφότεροι: use, 251 f., 282, 292; dis- 
cussed, 744 f.; and art., 769. 

ἄμφω: use, 282, 292, 744. 


form of, 


ἄν: form, 181, 190; crasis, 208, 984; 
use, 424, 841, 855, 887, 920, 922 f., 
935, 937 ff., 956-9, 967-71; and 
ὅσος, 733; meaning, 921; c. ws, 974; 
c. ἵνα, 984; ο. ὅπως, 985 f.; In condi- 
tions, 1007, 1010 f., 1013-8, 1021 f., 
1025 1. c. inf., 1129, 1141; in or. 
obl., 1030, 1040, 1044. 

παν: ending, 155, 257; verb ending, 
336, 338; verb-stem in, 352. 

-qv: inf. ending, 194, 343. 

ἀνά: cases with, 451, 491, 524, 569 f.; 
in comp., 163, 476, 561, 571; use, 
556; in mod. Gk., 557 f.; case-form, 
570; discussed, 571 f.; with ἀπό, 
575; with εἷς, 673; in prepositional 
phrases, 791. 

—ava: in verbs, 349, 352. 

ἀναβαίνω: forms, 328. 

ἀναβάλλω: use, 863. 

ἀναγινώσκω: ὅτι with, 1032. 

ἀναγκάζω: constr., 857. 

ἀναθάλλω: forms of, 348, 1212; constr., 
476. 

ἀνάθεμα: spelling, 153, 187. 

ἀνακεφαλαιόω: voice of, 809. 

ἀνακλίνω: voice of, 819. 

ἀναλίσκω: compounds and forms, 
1212. 

ἀναμιμνήσκω: constr., 482, 509. 

ἀνα-μίξ: fixed case, 294, 460. 

ἀνάξιος: constr., 504. 

ἀναπαύω: voice of, 807; use, 873. 

ἀναπίπτω: forms, 338. 

ἀναφαίνω: constr., 486; voice of, 817. 

ἀνεκλάλητος: use, 1096. 

ἀνενέγκαι: form, 338. 

ἄνεσις: use, 900 f. 

ἄνευ: use, 553, 638. 

ἀνέχομαι: constr., 508; voice of, 807; 
c. part., 1121. 

ἀνήκω: use, 886. 

ἀνίστημι: forms, 310, 328. 

ἀνοίγω: compounds and forms of, 
364, 368, 371, 1212; voice of, 800. 

ἀντάω: compounds and forms, 1213. 

ἀντί: elision, 208, 223; cases with, 
451, 569 f.; case-form, 524, 570; in 
comp., 163, 165, 542, 563, 572; use, 
556; in mod. Gk., 557; in conden- 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 


sation, 567; ἀντίς in mod. Gk., 570; 
discussed, 572-4; with πρό, 620; 
and ὑπέρ, 630; and ἀντίπερα, 639; 
base of compound prepositions, 
639; c. ὧν causal, 963; with inf., 
1060, 1069 f. 

-avtt: ending, 336. 

ἄντικρυς: use, 638. 

ἀντιλέγοντες: reading, 1171. 

ἀντίπερα: use, 638. 

ἄνω: in adj., 160; use, 296; adv., 298. 

πάνω: verbs in, 316. 

ἄξιος: constr., 504, 1077, 1079. 

ἀξιόω: constr., 511. 

ἀξίως: constr., 505. 

—aos: equal to —ws, 267. 

ἀπαγγέλλω: in or. obl., 1032, 1036. 

ἀπάγχομαι: voice of, 807. 

ἄπαις: form, 272. 

ἀπαντάω: use, 873. 

ἀπάνωθεν: use, 637. 

ἅπαξ: use, 284, 296. 

ἀπαρνέομαι: voice of, 819; use, 873; in 
or. obl., 1036. 

ἅπας: and art., 771 ff. 

ἀπειπάμεθα: spelling, 338. 

ἀπελπίζω: constr., 476. 

ἀπέναντι: use, 639, 644. 

ἀπέρχομαι: use, 905. 

ἀπέχω: meaning, 828; use, 866. 

ἁπλοῦς: use, 284. 

ἀπό: anticipatory position, 110; cases 
with, 111, 469, 482, 534, 554, 568, 

570; in adv. phrases, 297, 300, 

548, 550; with ὁ ὦν, 135, 414, 459, 
574 f.; ‘translation -Hebraism,” 
472; with verbs, 511, 517f., 559, 
562, 566; for “partitive gen.,” 515, 
519; in comp., 164f., 542, 563, 
827 f.; frequency, 556; in mod. Gk., 
557; use, 561, 977 f.; in condensa- 
tion, 567; with ἀντί, 574; discussed, 
574-80; and “ἐκ, 596; and παρά, 
613 f.; and πρός, 624; and ὑπό, 634; 
in prepositional phrases, 791; for 
agent, 820. 

ἀπογράφω: voice of, 807, 809. 

ἀποδείκνυμι: constr., 480. 

ἀποδίδωμι: voice of, 810. 

ἀποθνήσκω: meaning, 345, 827, 838, 


1251 


845; use, 635, 869; voice of, 802, 
815. 

ἀποκατιστάνει: reading, 316. 

ἀποκόπτω: voice of, 809, 819. 

ἀποκρίνομαι: ‘‘deponent,’”’ 334; constr., 
473, 484, 626; voice, 818; in or. obl., 
1036. 

ἀποκτείνω: use, 635; voice of, 802, 
815; meaning, 827; forms, 1213. 

ἀπόλλυμι: voice of, 800; meaning of, 
827 f. 

᾿Απολλώς: reading, 260. 

ἀπολούω: voice of, 807, 809. 

ἀπονίπτομαι: voice of, 810. 

ἀποπλέω: contract verb, 342. 

ἀπορέομαι: intransitive, 472. 

ἀποστέλλω: forms, 336; use, 893, 896, 
905. 

ἀποστερέω: constr., 483; voice of 808, 
816. 

ἀποστρέφομαι: and case, 472. 

ἀποτίθημι: voice of, 810. 

ἀποφεύγω: constr., 476. 

ἅπτω: constr., 508, 853; voice of, 
806 f.; compounds and forms, 1213. 

ἀπωθέομαι: voice of, 810. 

dpa: reading, 244; in interrogation, 
916 f.; use, 1176. 

ἄρα: use, 425, 429, 916 f., 1146, 1157, 
1176; discussed, 1189 f. 

—apa: in verbs, 349, 352. 

ἀραβών: spelling, 211 footn. 

dpaye: use, 425. 

ἀρέσκω: constr., 487. 

apkéw: forms, 210, 324; constr., 541; 
use, 889. 

ἀρνέομαι: in or. obl., 1035 f.; com- 
pounds and forms, 1213. 

ἁρπάζω: compounds and forms, 1213. 

ἅρπαξ: use, 272. 

ἄρρητα: breathing, 225. 

ἄρτι: use, 548, 1146. 

ἀρχή: acc. form adv., 546. 

πάρχης: in comp., 231, 257 f. 

ἀρχι-: prefix, 161 f. 

—apxos: In comp., 257. 

ἄρχω: ἀρξάμενοι reading, 49; use, 904, 
1102, 1121, 1126; ο. inf.; 1077; ὅπα 
ellipsis, 12038. 

ἄς: in mod. Gk., 430, 923, 931. 


1252 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


-ας: ending, 172, 254, 256, 265, 267, 
Gots 

-ἅσι: ending, 336. 

᾿Ασία: with art., 788. 

ἀσπάζομαι: constr., 853, 862 f. 

ἄσσον: meaning, 665. 

ἀσύνετος: Voice, 372; use, 1097. 

ἀσύνθετος: Voice, 372; use, 1097. 

—are: per. end., 308. 

ἄτερ: use, 639. 

ἀτός: in mod. Gk., 185. 

—aros: ending, 277, 279 f. 

—Grw: per. end., 308. 

πάτωσαν: per. end., 308. 

αὐξάνω: voice of, 799. 

αὔριον: form, 294. 

αὐτόθι: use, 296. 

αὐτομάτη: form, 273. 

αὐτός: in problem of ἑαυτοῦ, 226, 232; 
intensive, 287, 399, 416; semi-de- 
monstrative, 290; gen. form ad- 
verbial, 298; position of gen., 503; 
3d per. pro., 679, 683f.; use of 
αὐτοῦ, 681, 683; discussed, 685-7, 
709 f.; use, 688-90; ὁ. οὗτος, 705; 
and ἐκεῖνος, 707 f.; pleonastic, 722; 
Gud Os, 412037 Cok Altes. (70,09; ἢ 
sense-figure, 1204. 

αὑτοῦ: question of, 226; use, 232, 287, 
289; feminine, 254. 

ἀφαιρέομαι: constr., 480, 483; voice of, 
819. 

ἄφες: use, 329, 855 f., 931 f., 935. 

ἀφίημι: forms of, 315, 329, 337, 342, 
347; constr., 855 f.; use, 873; aor., 
900. ~ 

ἀφίω: forms of, 315, 335. 

ἄφρων: voc. of, 463. 

—axod: suffix, 296. 

ἄχρι: with final s, 221, 296; use, 639, 
954, 974; in prepositional phrases, 
791; c. inf., 1074. 

πάω: verbs in, 147 ff., 184, 203, 316, 
341 ff., 351. 


B 
B: 209 f., 217, 240, 353. 
Badd: 254, 411. 
, Βαβυλών: 494. 


βαίνω: forms and compounds, 305-8, 
800, 1213. 

βάλλω: aor. of, 307, 338, 836, 847; 
voice, 799f., 815; meaning, 834, 
838; use, 905; compounds and 
forms, 1212 f. 

βαπτίζω: βάπτισαι form, 329, 944; 
constr., 389, 520, 525, 533, 590, 
592; voice of, 807f.; use, 1073, 
1111, 1128. 

βάρβαρος: form, 272. 

Bapéw: compounds and forms, 1213. 

βαρύνω: forms, 1213. 

βασιλεύς: voc. of, 465; and art., 760, 
769. 

βασιλεύω: causative, 801; constative, 
833; use, 902. 

βασκαίνω: and cases, 473. 

βαστάζω: constr., 853. 

-ββ-: 213 f. 

βεελζεβούλ: spelling, 210. 

βέλτερος: form, 662. 

βέλτιον: form, 277 f., 294, 299; mean- 
ing, 665. 

βήρυλλος: reading, 199. 

βιβάω: meaning, 865. 

βίβλος: spelling, 199. 

βλάπτω: constr., 472, 484. 

βλαστάνω: voice of, 799; forms, 1213. 

βλασφημέω: and case, 473. 

βλέπω: constr., 330, 996; and asyn- 
deton, 430; and case, 471; c. ἀπό, 
577; use of βλέπετε, 932 f., 955, 
1110; in or. obl., 1035, 1041; com- 
pounds and forms, 1213. 

Bode: in or. obl., 1036. 

βοηθέω: case with, 472, 541. 

βούλομαι: forms, 339; use, 876, 878, 
886, 919; in or. obl., 1036 f.; with 
inf., 1055 f., 1060. 

βραδύνω: forms, 230. 

Bpéxw: voice of, 799. 


BE 
y: 209, 216, 359. 
Ταλατική: with art., 788. 
γαμέω: constr., 1204; forms, 1213. 
yap: use, 424, 433, 443, 962, 1189; in 
interrogation, 916; c. ei, 886, 1003 f., 
1020; ο. τέ, 1179; discussed, 1190 f. 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 


yé: use, 302, 424, 1144; discussed, 
1147 ff.; enclitic, 1211. 

γεμίζω: constr., 510. 

γένημα: reading, 211, 213. 

yevvaw: use, 866 f. 

γεύομαι: and case, 473, 507 f. 

γῆ: and ellipsis, 272, 652, 1202. 

—yu: In verbs, 351. 

γιά: pref. in mod. Gk., 570, 982. 

γίνομαι: ἐγένετο with καί, 95, 107, 393, 
426, 1042f.; frequency in Mt., 
122; followed by asyndeton, 429; 
in periphrastic forms, 330, 902; 
γίνεσθαι cases with, 449, 497; with 
advs., 545 f.; ἐγένετο, 658, 829; voice 
of, 801, 818, 820; γένοιτο with μή, 
854, 935, 939f., 1003; imper. of, 
855; use, 869, 871, 896f., 905, 
951, 1085, 1202; subj. forms, 890; 
perf., 900; γέγονεν ὅτι, 1034; com- 
pounds and forms, 1212 f. 

γινώσκω: compounds and forms, 210, 
308, 324, 328, 330, 346, 1214; use 
of, γνωστόν, 656; meaning, 827, 
834, 904; aor. of, 848, 856; use, 871; 
in ΟἹ. ΟΝ] 1035.f.; 1041 Ὁ. inf., 
1062, 1103; ο. part., 1103. 

γλῶσσα: and ellipsis, 652, 1202. 

γλωσσόκομον: various readings, 204. 

γογγύζω: constr., 853. 

Todyo@a: spelling, 211; form, 259. 

yovu-: in comp., 164. 

“yovutraréw:.and case, 474. 

γραφή: and πᾶς, 772. 

γράφω: compounds and forms, 346, 
362, 406, 1214; constr., 845f., 
853; in mod. Gk., 851; use, 875, 
895; in or. obl., 1035 f. 

γυνή: and ellipsis, 652. 


A 


δ: 210, 240, 248. 

—$a: adv. end., 295. 

δαιμόνια: constr., 404. 

δανείζω: voice of, 809. 

δέ: elision, 207; c. art., 290, 694 f.; 
conj., 301, 428 f., 440, 443 f.; post- 
positive, 424; ὁ. ds, 695 f.; 6. οὗτος, 
705; c. ἐκεῖνος, 707; antithetic, 750, 


1253 


1145, 1153; 6. εἰ μή, 1025; c. nega- 
tive, 1164; discussed, 1183-5; ad- 
versative, 1186. 

-δε: suffix, 296, 1211. 

Set: form, 319; use, 880, 919 ff.; ἔδει, 
886, 919; c. inf., 1078. 

δείκνυμι: compounds and forms, 174f., 
806 ἴ., 811, 827, 1214. 

δεικνύω: compounds and forms, 307, 
311; in or. obl., 1035 f. 

δεῖνα: use, 292, 744. 

δέκα: use, 282; in comp., 283. 

δέν: in mod. Gk., 206, 928, 1011, 
1156 ff., 1168. 

δεξιός: in comparison, 662. 

δέομαι: forms, 342; constr., 519, 1059. 

δέον: use with ἐστί, 881, 1130. 

Sépw: forms of, 1214. 

δεῦρο: form, 299, 302, 328; use, 430, 
931, 949, 1193. 

δεῦτε: form, 299; use, 330, 430, 931, 
949; in conditions, 1023. 

Sevrepatot: use, 298. 

δεύτερος: ordinal, 283 f.; and εἷς, 671. 

δέχομαι: voice of, 813; compounds 
and forms of, 1214. 

δέω: compounds and forms, 1214. 

δή: use, 302, 443; discussed, 1149. 

δῆλον: with ὅτι, 1034. 

SyAdw: in or. obl., 1036. 

δημόσιος: loc. form, 295; use, 691. 

δήπου: use, 302. 

διά: c. enclitic, 244; in comp., 164, 
476, 529, 558, 561, 563, 800, 827 f.; 
cases with, 491, 534, 565, 569 f.; 
frequency, 556; in mod. Gk., 557; 
c. verbs, 560; in condensation, 
567; case-form, 570; discussed, 
580-4; and κατά, 606; and ὑπέρ, 629; 
and ὑπό, 636; 6. μέσον, 648; c. τί, 
730; in prepositional phrases, 791; 
for agent, 820; c. inf., 858, 891, 
909, 966, 1060, 1069f., 1091; ec. 
τοῦτο, 965. 

Statdvvupe: voice of, 810. 

διαλείπω: c. part., 1121. 

διαμαρτύρομαι: constr., 484; in or. obl., 
1035 f. 

Stavolyw: in or. obl., 1035 f. 

διασπάω: Meaning, 564, 828. 


1254 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


διατελέω: c. part., 1121. 

Starnpéw: meaning, 828. 

διαφέρω: cases with, 455. 

διαφεύγω: meaning, 828; constr., 987. 

διδάσκω: form, 331; constr., 474, 482, 
1083; voice of, 816; in or. obl., 
1035 f. 

δίδωμι: compounds and forms, 307 ff., 
311, 324, 326 f., 335, 337, 347, 409, 
876, 1044, 1214; constr., 855, 940, 
983 f., 1032; use, 905, 1062, 1080, 
1135; in indirect command, 1047; 
δοῦναι, 1052, 1058, 1132. 

διέρχομαι: constr., 477, 869. 

διηγέομαι: ὅτι with, 1032. 

διισχυρίζομαι: in or. obl., 1036. 

δίκαιος: meaning, 176. 

δικαιοσύνη: With subjective gen., 499; 
use, 781. 

Sud: use, 950. 

Διόνυσος: reading, 200. 

διόπερ: use, 1154. 

Διόσκορος: 199. 

διότι: use, 962, 964. 

διπλότερον: form, 299. 

διπλοῦς: use, 284. 

Sis: adv., 284; spelling, 296. 

δισχίλιοι: use, 283. 

δίχα: adv., 284. 

Supa: aor. forms, 342; and case, 474, 
508. 

δογματίζω: voice of, 807. 

δοκέω: constr., 541, 853, 1085. 

δοκιμάζω: in or. obl., 1041. 

δολιόω: form, 336, 348. 

δόμα: spelling, 153, 200. 

—Soy: adv. suffix, 295 f. 

δοξάζω: aor. of, 837, 843, 847, 853. 

δουλ--: In comp., 164. 

SovAdw: constr., 540. 

δράσσομαι: use, 474. 

δύναμαι: compounds and forms of, 
312, 340, 351, 368, 1214; voice of, 
820; constr., 857; use, 879 f., 886, 
920; c. inf., 1055, 1060, 1077 f. 

δύναμις: use, 176. 

δυνατός: c. inf., 1077, 1079. 

Svvopat: reading, 312. 

δύνω: voice of, 800; compounds and 
forms, 1214. 


δύο: forms, 251, 282; δύο δύο Hebra- 
ism (?), 673; and art., 769. 

δύρομαι: spelling, 206. 

Svo—: in comp., 161 ff. 

δύω: compounds and forms, 1214. 

δώδεκα: use, 282. 

δῶμα: spelling, 200. 

δωρεάν: 488. 


EK 


e: vowel-changes with, 178, 183-91, 
324; instead of ο, 308; inserted by 
analogy, 349; with Doric fut., 354; 
reduplication and augment, 363-7; 
voc. ending, 462 f.; prothetic, 1209. 

ἔα: use, 391, 1193. 

ἐάν: form, 181, 190f.; crasis, 208; 
constr., 220, 325, 850, 928, 967, 
969, 1129; and ὅστις, 727; and ὅσος, 
733; use, 948, 968, 971, 1129; c. ὅς, 
957, 959; c. ἐπεί, 965; in conditions, 
1005-27. 

ἐάνπερ: use, 1154. 

ἐάντε --- ἐάντε: use, 1189. 

ἑαυτοῦ: form, 185, 226; use, 287, 289, 
687-90; and ἴδιος, 691 f.; and art., 
779; with mid. voice, 810. 

ἐάω: ὁ. ὀυκ, 1156; compounds and 
forms, 1214. 

ἜΙβραϊστί: form, 296, 298; use, 524. 

ἐγγίζω: constr., 623 f.; compounds 
and forms, 1214. 

ἐγγύς: form, 294, 298; in comparison, 
298; constr., 538, 638; adjectival, 
547; use, 549, 568, 639 f. 

ἐγείρω: voice of, 799, 817; use, 866, 
896; compounds and forms, 1215. 

ἐγκακέω: Cc. part., 1121. 

ἐγκαλέω: constr., 511. 

ἐγκομβόομαι: voice of, 808. 

ἐγώ: crasis, 208; accent with enclitic, 
230, 234f., 286, 420; interchange 
with ἡμεῖς, 406; ἐγών old form of, 
466; discussed, 677f.;  enclitic 
forms of, 682; use, 685, 689, 693; 
and ἐκεῖνος, 707; and ἄλλος, 746; 
position of μου, 779; use of ἡμῶν, 
785; c. particles, 1148; enclitic 
forms of, 1211. 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 


ἐδαφίζω: forms of, 1215. 

ee: in contraction, 342. 

ἐθέλω: form, 205 f.; use, 878, 886, 919. 

ἔθω: forms of, 1215. 

εἰ: vowel-change, 187, 191-4, 195f., 
198, 204, 324, 367. 

ei: accent, 233 f., 244, 1211; and ὅτι, 
430, 965; and οὗτος, 699 f.; and γάρ, 
886, 1003 f.; use, 916, 928, 997, 
1176; ὁ. τις, 956; c. od, 962, 1160; 
c. μήν, 1004; in conditions, 1005- 
27, 1129; in or. obl., 1030, 1045; c. 
μή, 1160, 1187; proclitic, 1211. 

—ea: ending, 152, 196 f., 326. 

εἰδέω: compounds and forms, 1215. 

εἶδον: forms, 223 f., 325, 344, 360, 
366; use, 413f., 437, 441, 892, 
1135; in or. obl., 1041. 

εἴδω: compounds and forms, 361, 
906 f., 1215. 

—ee: opt. end., 327, 335. 

εἴθε: in wish constr., 1003 f., 1013. 

—eixa: perf. end., 310. 

Kixévov: spelling, 197. 

εἴκοσι: form, 221, 283. 

εἰ μή: use, see εἰ and μή, 192 f., 747, 
1188. 

el μήν: discussed, 1150. 

εἰμί: compounds and forms, 188, 194, 
220, 232 ff., 312 f., 325, 327 f., 330, 
337, 340, 350, 395, 908, 1215; in 
periphrastic forms, 330, 822, 860, 
877 f., 887-90, 906 ff., 950; constr., 
394 ff., 481, 497, 545; ἔστιν Ο. τοῦτο, 
705; meaning, 865; use, 874, 945 f., 
1030, 1202; καὶ ἔσται in or. obl., 
1042; ὁ ὦν, 1107; enclitic forms of, 
1211" 

εἶμι: accent, 292 f.; compounds and 
forms, 313, 350, 396, 1215; use, 
869, 881. 

—eiv: ending, 342. 

--εἰν: ending, 339, 361, 370 f. 

—ewos: ending, 197. 

—-eov: ending, 197. 

πειος: ending, 197. 

εἴπερ: use, 1154. 

εἰπόν: form, 329. 

εἶπον: accent, 229, 231; forms of, 327, 
329, 338, 345 f., 363, 368; constr., 


1255 


480, 484, 626, 902; and λέγω, 838, 
883; use, 930; in or. obl., 1048. 

εἰρηνο--: in comp., 164. 

eis: spelling, 187; meaning, 389, 449, 
561; in idiom, 401; case with, 451, 
481, 484, 491, 524, 535, 569 f.; in 
mod. Gk., 453, 535, 557; Semitic 
influence, 457 f:; ὁ. verbs, 469, 481, 
540, 542, 559 ff., 562, 566; in “ preg- 
nant construction,’ 525, 1204; in 
adv. phrases, 550; frequency, 556; 
rather than διά, 582; and ἐν, 584 ff.; 
discussed, 591-6; and παρά, 613; 
and πρός, 624, 626; in prepositional 
phrases, 792; c. inf., 658, 858, 862, 
891, 909, 990 f., 997, 1001 ff., 1060, 
1069 ff., 1088, 1090; reading, 862; 
anarthrous, 1070; proclitic, 1211. 

eis: and οὐ, 232, 751; indeclinable use, 
282 f.; supplanting ris, 292; case, 
460; and πρῶτος, 671; as indef. art., 
674, 796; equal to τις, 675, 744; dis- 
tributive, 675; and ἄλλος, 747; anti- 
thetic, 750. 

—es: ending, 265. 

εἰσέρχομαι: constr., 855. 

εἰσπορεύομαι: Voice of, 806; use, 880. 

εἶτα: use, 300, 429. 

εἴτε: εἴτε — εἴτε, 1025, 1045, 1179, 
1189. 

etrev: form, 160, 183. 

εἴ τις θέλει: 901. 

ἐκ: in comp., 163 f., 215, 828; 6. τούτου, 
444; c. verbs, 510, 517 f.; for “par- 
titive gen.,’’ 515, 519; case with, 
534, 570; in adv. phrases, 548, 550; 
frequency, 556; in mod. Gk., 558; 
use, 561; ὁ. ἀπό, 575, 577; discussed, 
596-600; and παρά, 614; and ὑπό, 
636; for agent, 820; c. inf., 1061, 
1073; proclitic, 1211. 

ἕκαστος: use, 292; discussed, 745 f.; 
with εἷς, 746; and art., 769; and 
πᾶς, 771. 

ἑκάτερος: use, 292, 745. 

éxarév: use, 283. 

ἐκβάλλω: voice of, 803; use, 880. 

ἐκεῖ: and apheresis, 206; loc. form, 
295; meaning, 299; constr., 443, 
548; as root, 706; use, 969. 


1256 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ἐκεῖνος: Tonic κεῖνος, 206; use, 290, 
693; ἐκείνης in Lu., 494; and ὑμεῖς, 
707 f.; and οὗτος, 702 f., 707; dis- 
cussed, 706-9; and art., 770. 

ἐκεῖσε: form, 296; meaning, 

~ constr., 548; and ὅπου, 722. 

ἐκκλησία: origin, 174. 

ἐκκρέμαμαι: form, 340. 

ἐκλανθάνω: constr., 509. 

ἐκλέγομαι: constr., 480; voice of, 808, 
810 f. 

ἐκλεκτός: forms, 273. 

ἐκπίπτω: voice of, 802. 

ἐκπλέω: form, 342. 

ἐκτινάσσω: voice of, 810. 

ἐκτός: use, 640. 

ἐκφεύγω: constr., 476; meaning, 828. 

ἐκφύω: forms, 341. 

éxxéw: forms, 213, 542, 352. 

ἑκών: use, 298. 

᾿Ελαιών: case of, 232, 267, 458 f. 

ἐλάσσων: form, 218, 277 f. 

ἐλαύνω: compounds and forms, 1215. 

ἐλάχιστος: form, 278, 669; double su- 
perlative, 670. 

ἐλεάω: forms of, 342. 

ἐλεέω: forms of, 342; transitive, 474. 

ἐλεύθερος: Meaning, 662. 

ἕλιγμα: accent, 230. 

ἕλκω: compounds and forms, 1215. 

“Ἑλληνιστί: form, 296, 298. 

ἐλλογέω: forms, 342. 

ἐλπίζω: aspiration of, 223 f.; forms, 
338; constr., 476; use, 877, 884, 
1080, 1082. 

—ena: ending, 188. 

ἐμαυτοῦ: use, 687-90. 

ἐμβαίνω: forms, 328. 

ἐμβριμάομαι: forms, 341. 

éupéow: assimilation of, 1210. 

ἐμός: ἐμοῦ compared with pov, 286; 
use, 288, 496, 684; ἐμοί with ἐν, 
588; ἐμοῦ, 682; with αὐτός, 687; and 
BI hed tue 

ἐμπορεύομαι: transitive, 474. 

ἔμπροσθεν: use, 621, 640. 

ἐν: c. inf., 107, 122, 431, 490, 858, 
891, 978 f., 1042, 1062, 1069, 1072, 
1092; assimilation, 216 f.; accent, 
229, 1211; meaning, 449; and case, 


299; 


451, 484f., 520, 522-5, 527, 531, 
533 ff., 554, 569f., 721; frequent 
use, 452 f., 556; c. μέσῳ, 505, 521, 
1210; c. verbs, 510, 540, 559 f., 
562; case-form, 524, 570; in ‘‘preg- 
nant construction,” 525, 548, 592; 
in comp., 164, 542; in adv. phrases, 
550; origin, 555; discussed, 584-90; 
and eis, 591-3; and ἐκ, 599; and ἐπί, 
600; and ὑπό, 636; in prepositional 
phrases, 792, 978; ὁ. @, 963; pro- 
clitic, 1211. 

év: accent, 232. : 

éva: in mod. Gk., 282. 

—évat: ending, 370. 

ἔναντι: use, 639 f. 

ἐναντίον: use, 639 f. 

ἐνδείκνυμι: reading, 946. 

ἕνδεκα: use, 282. 

ἐνδιδύσκω: voice of, 810. 

ἐνδύω: voice of, 809. 

ἐνδώμησις: spelling, 201. 

ἐνεδρεύω: and case, 474. 

ἕνεκα: Origin, 249; position, 301; use, 
641; with inf., 1060. 

ἕνεκεν: spelling of, 183, 187; aspiration, 
225; position, 425; use, 641; ¢. inf., 
1073, 1091. 

évepyéw: constr., 476; meaning, 564. 

ἐνθάδε: meaning, 299; use, 548. 

ἔνι: in mod. Gk., 313. 

ἐνκακέω: use, 1102. 

ἐννέα: use, 282. 

ἐνορκίζω: constr., 484. 

évoxos: constr., 504, 537. 

ἐνταῦθα: use, 299. 


ἐντέλλομαι: with inf., 1068. 


—evro: in LXX, 340. 

ἐντός: use, 641. 

ἐντρέπω: cases with, 455. 

ἐνώπιον: constr., 540, 641. 

ἐξ: form, 215; in mod. Gk., 557; c. 
verbs, 558; cases with, 568; in 
prepositional phrases, 792; pro- 
clitic, 1211. | 

ἐξαγοράζω: voice of, 810. 

ἔξειμι: forms, 314, 339. 

ἔξεστι: constr., 491, 1084 f. 

ἐξηγέομαι: Meaning, 829. 

ἐξῆς: constr., 547. 





INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 1257 


ἐξιστάνω: voice of, 806. 

ἐξομολογέω: forms, 188. 

ἐξόν: use, 1130. 

ἐξορκίζω: constr., 475. 

ἐξουθενέω: forms of, 342; constr., 853. 

ἔξω: adj. stem, 160; form, 296, 301; 
use, 642. 

ἔξωθεν: use, 548, 642. 

ἐξώτερος: Meaning, 662. 

ἑορτή: with ἐν, 523. 

—eos: in contraction, 274. 

ἐπαισχύνομαι: and case, 472; intran- 
sitive, 473. 

érakxovw: constr., 507. 

ἐπάν: use, 971. 

ἐπαναπαύομαι: voice of, 819. 

ἐπάνω: use, 642, 666. 

ἐπάνωθεν: use, 637. - 

ἐπεί: use, 954, 963, 965; 971, 1025 f. 

ἐπειδή: use, 965, 971. 

ἐπειδήπερ: use, 965, 1154. 

ἐπείπερ: use, 1154. 

ἔπειτα: use, 300, 549. 

ἐπέκεινα: use, 642. 

ἐπεκτείνω: Voice of, 807. 

ἐπέχω: meaning, 828; ὅτι with, 1032. 

ἐπηρεάζω: and case, 473. 

ἐπί: in comp., 164f., 204; elision, 
223; cases with, 451, 491, 524, 565, 
568 ff.; case-form, 524, 570; in 
“»yregnant construction,” 525; with 
verbs, 540, 542, 559 ff., 562, 566; 
in adv. phrases, 550; frequency, 
556; meaning, 561; and eis, 596; dis- 
cussed, 600-5; and κατά, 607; and 
πρός, 625; c. ὅσον, 733, 963; in prep- 
ositional phrases, 792, 963, 978; c. 
inf., 1069, 1071. 

ἔπιασε: in mod. Gk., 230. 

ἐπιγινώσκω: meaning of, 827; use, 
909; in or. obl., 1035, 1042. 

ἐπιγράφω: use, 1135. 

ἐπιδείκνυμι: voice of, 810. 

ἐπιδεικνύω: in or. obl., 1036. 

ἐπίθεμα: spelling, 188. 

ἐπιθυμέω: and cases, 474, 508. 

ἐπικαλέω: voice of, 809. 

ἐπιλανθάνομαι: constr., 509; with inf., 
1060. 

ἐπίλυσις: abl. use, 514. 


ἐπιμαρτύρομαι: in or. obl., 1036. 

ἐπιμελέομαι: constr., 509; voice of, 
820. 

ἐπιμένω: use, 850; ὁ. part., 1121, 

ἔπιούσιος: Origin, 159. 

ἐπίσταμαι: forms, 314, 328, 340; in or. 
obl., 1035, 1041. 

ἐπιστέλλω: epistolary aor. of, 845; 
with inf., 1068. 

ἐπιστρέφω: constr., 856; use, 948. 

ἔπιτάσσω: constr., 542, 1084. 

ἐπιτιμάω: constr., 542. 

ἐπιτυγχάνω: constr., 509. 

ἐπιφαίνω: form, 371. 

ἑπτά: use, 282; cardinal, 673. 

ἑπτάκίς: use, 281, 298. 

ἔπω: compounds and forms, 1215. 

ἐραυνάω: compounds and forms, 329. 

épyatopar: constr., 474, 484; meaning, 
564; compounds and forms, 1215. 

ἔργον: breathing, 223. 

ἔρημος: form, 272. 

ἔρις: form, 267. 

ἑρμηνεύω: use of part., 1135. 

ἔρχομαι: constr., 313, 538; compounds 
and forms of, 327f., 800f., 1215; 
constative aor. of, 833; use, 869, 
905, 948; ἐλθοῦσα, 1105; use of 
part., 1118. 

ἐρωτάω: compounds and forms, 341, 
1215; constr., 482; in indirect eom- 
mand, 1046. 

πες: ending, 266, 337. 

ἐσθίω: compounds and forms, 204, 
1215; meaning, 564; stems οἵ, 
823. 

ἔσθω: compounds and forms of, 1215. 

ἔσχατος: form, 279 f., 669; and art., 
769, 775. 

ἐσχάτως: use, 299. 

ἔσω: use, 642. 

ἔσωθεν: use, 548, 643. 

ἑταῖρος: use, 725. 

érepo—: In comp., 164. 

ἑτεροζυγέω: form, 330. 

ἕτερος: use, 292; and ἄλλος, 746 f.; dis- 
cussed, 748-50; and art., 775 f. 

—erys: suffix, 231. 

ἕτοιμος: with inf., 1068, 1077. 

ἐτοῦτος: in mod. Gk., 290. 


1258 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ἔτος: form, 268; with ἐν, 523. 

ev: vowel-changes, 198, 201 f. 

εὖ: in comp., 164, 367; c. πράσσω, 
1121. 

εὐαγγελίζω: constr., 474, 483; voice 
of, 799; in or. obl., 1035 f.; com- 
pounds and forms of, 1215. 

εὖγε: use, 299. . 

εὐγενής: form, 272. 

Hvdta: case of, 460. 

evSoxéw: trans., 474; compounds and 
forms of, 837, 842, 1215. 

εὐθέως: use, 549. 

εὐθυ--- In comp., 164, 296. 

εὐθύ(ς): form, 294; use, 549. 

εὐλογέω: and case, 473. 

εὐνοέω: forms, 330. 

εὐοδόω: form, 949. 

εὑρίσκω: compounds and forms, 327, 
338, 1215; aspiration, 225; voice 
of, 809; use, 873, 883, 893, 1103, 
1122, 1135; in or. obl., 1035, 1041. 

—evs: ending, 272. 

εὐσεβής: form, 272. 

εὐχαριστέω: voice of, 474. 

εὔχομαι: use, 886, 919. 

—evw: in comp., 147 ff., 152. 

Ἔφεσος: form, 295. 

ἐφίστημι: form, 328. 

ἐ(αϊ )φνίδιος: form, 272. 

ἔχω: compounds and forms, 200f., 
206, 319, 338, 346, 367, 870, 897, 
900 f., 1215; aspiration, 223; peri- 
phrastic forms, 330, 360; etxocar, 
336, 887, 921; in Rev., 414, 441; in 
anacolutha, 439; ἔχει impersonal, 
457; constr., 480, 487, 508, 789, 
838, 848, 850; c. adv., 546, 799; 
voice of, 799 f., 809, 815; ὁ. κακῶς, 
802; stems of, 823; meaning, 828; 
use, 879, 902, 906, 930, 946, 1122; 
ἔχων, 881, 1106, 1122, 1126f., 
1134f., 1202; ‘‘Latinism,” 1034. 

—éw: verbs in, 147 ff., 184, 209, 341 ff., 
351. 

ἕως: use, 297, 550, 643, 674, 953, 975; 
in phrases, 550, 792; and ὅστις, 
729; c. inf., 979, 1060, 1070, 1074, 
1092. 

ἑωντοῦ: Ionic, 203. 


F 
F: 365. 
FiStos: 289. 


Z 

{: 218, 240. 

{aw: compounds and forms, 194, 
341 f., 1215; voice of, 807; mean- 
ing of, 833 f.; fut., 889; ζῶν, 1105. 

ἵεστός: use, 1097. 

ζεύγνυμι: compounds and forms, 314. 

ζηλόω: forms, 203, 342. 

{yréw: c. inf., 1078. 

—{w: verbs in, 348, 352. 

ζωή: spelling, 200 ἢ. 

{wo-: in comp., 164. 

ζώννυμι: compounds and forms, 314, 
1215. 

ζωννύω: compounds and forms, 1215. 

ζωοποιηθείς: use, 1114. 


H 


H: breathing, 222. 

ἡ: origin, 178; vowel-changes with, 
184, 187, 191-6, 324, 341, 361; 
nom. end., 267; after ε, ι, p, 274; 
augment, 286, 368; in fut. pas., 
356. 

ἤ: use, 412, 427, 661, 663, 666, 789, 
1158; and gapa, 616; in interroga- 
tion, 917; in mod. Gk., 1146; in 
comp., 1150; in double questions, 
1177; discussed, 1188 f. 

7H: use, 1150. 

πῇ: ending, 194, 232, 249, 256, 274. 

q: vowel-changes, 194f., 198, 324, 
326. 

ἡγέομαι: constr., 480; in or. obl., 1036, 
1041. 

ἤδη: position, 423; constr., 546; use, 
1146. 

ἥδιστα: form, 294; meaning, 670. 

mu: vowel-changes, 193 f. 

πηκα: in mod. Gk., 898. 

ἥκω: compounds and forms, 337, 358, 
907, 1215. 

ἡλίκος: use, 291 f., 710, 741; discussed, 
733 f. 


ἥλιος: gender of, 252. 


a ~~ Κορ ΝΝ 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 


ἦμαι: compounds and forms, 314, 329, 
340, 350. 

ἡμέρα: gen. use, 295, 497; loc. use, 
522; and ellipsis, 652, 1202. 

ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός: 495. 

ἡμέτερος: use, 286, 288, 684. 

ἢ μήν: form, 192, 1024; use, 1150. 

ἡμι-: prefix, 161, 163. 

ἥμισυς: form, 274 f.; c. art., 775. 

—yv: noun end., 256; verb end., 347, 
349. 

—qv: inf. end., 343. 

—yva: adverbs, 349. 

πήνη suffix, 151. 

ἡνίκα: use, 300, 971. 

ἤπερ: disputed reading, 633; use, 
“1154. 

Ἡρῴδης: and art., 760. 

της: proper names, 172, 214, 255; gen.- 
abl. end., 256, 295; adj. in, 272; 
suffix, 296. 

ἥ on: accent, 230. 

ἡσσόομαι: forms, 1216. 

ἧσσον: form, 218, 277. 

ἥσυχος: form, 272. 

ἤτοι: use, 1154. 

ἡττάομαι: form, 341, 1216; meaning, 
865. 

nu: vowel-changes, 205. 


0 

@: 222, 353. 

θά: in mod. Gk., 353, 870, 889, 907, 
926. 

-θα: ending, 337. 

θάνατος: use, 784. 

θανατωθείς: use, 1114. 

θάπτω: compounds and forms, 1216. 

θαρρέω: in anacolutha, 440, 1135; 
constr., 474. 

θάρσος: spelling, 217. 

θαυμάζω: various readings, 188; constr., 
474, 532; use, 879; compounds and 
forms, 1216. 

θεάομαι: meaning, 829, 893 f. 

θέλω: form, 205f.; constr., 353, 391, 
431, 551, 857, 878; use, 919, 923 f., 
933; in or. obl., 1036; in indirect, 
command, 1046; c. inf., 1055f., 
1060, 1078, 1093; inf. of, 1058 f. 


1259 


θέμα: spelling, 153, 200. 

θεμελιόω: form, 1212. 

-θεν: suffix, 296, 300. 

θεός: gender of, 253; double decl., 
257; vocative of, 2601, 463, 465; 
reading, 477; use of gen., 499 f. 
516; abl. of, 514; meaning, 768; 
and art., 758, 761, 780, 786, 795; 
omitted, 1202. 

θεόφιν: form, 269. 

θεωρέω: durative meaning, 838; impf. 
of, 843; in or. obl., 1032, 1035, 1041. 

—@n-: aor. suffix, 357. 

πσθηκα: in mod. Gk., 898. 

πθην: aor. end., 340, 347. 

θηριο--: in comp., 164. 

—Ons: aor. end., 340, 356 f. 

θησαυρίζω: constr., 853. 

πθήσομαι: verb end., 818. 

—§6—:. 215. 

-θι: suffix, 328. 

θιγγάω: constr., 508. 

θλίβω: use of part., 1135. 

θλίψις: accent, 230. 

θνήσκω: compounds and forms of, 
319, 1216; meaning, 345, 827, 845; 
use of inf., 1030. 

θνητός: use, 1097. 

θορυβέω: aor. of, 851. 

θριαμβεύω: constr., 474; voice of, 800. 

—§6: subj. end., 310. 

—0w: verbs in, 149. 


I 


ι: vowel-changes with, 187 f., 191 f., 
195-9, 204f., 207, 230, 237; loc. 
ending, 249, 452, 520, 1067; class 
of verbs, 351; in reduplication, 363; 
in augment, 366f.; dat. ending, 
520; prothetic, 1209. 

-ἰἝα: suffix, 156, 196 f., 273. 

--ιανός: suffix, 155. 

idopat: voice of, 819; compounds and 
forms, 1216. 

—(as: gen. end., 259. 

—tdw: verbs in, 150, 351. 

We: accent, 231; adv., 302; interj., 
328, 391. 

ἴδιος: compared with αὐτός, 287; ἰδίαν 


1260 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


with κατά, 609; discussed, 691 f.; 
and art., 770. 

ἰδού: adv. and interj., 302; in elliptical 

_ sentences, 391, 396; case with, 413, 
441, 460; use, 1193. 

ἴδω: forms, 1216. 

Ἵερᾷ Πόλει: declension, 257. 

ἱερός: Spelling, 223, 225. 

᾿Ιεροσόλυμα: spelling of, 225; gender 
of, 253; and art., 760. 

iepoupyéw: constr., 474. 

ἱερωσύνη: spelling, 201. 

—véw: fut. end., 355. 

—({w: verbs in, 147, 149 ff., 351, 355. 

un: In opt., 326. 

ἵημι: compounds and forms, 309, 314, 
1216. 

᾿Ιησοῦς: form, 263; and art., 760. 

ἱκανός: c. inf., 1077. 

ἱκανόω: constr., 480. 

ἱκνέομαι: compounds and forms, 1216. 

Ἰκόνιον: spelling, 197. 

-πικός: words in, 158 f.; three termina- 
tions, 273; constr. of words in, 504. 

ἱλάσκομαι: constr., 474. 

ἵλεως: form, 272. 

ἱμάτιον: meaning, 408; and ellipsis, 
1202. 

—w: in mod. Gk., 261. 

ἵνα: rather than inf., 111, 371, 996, 
1054 f., 1071, 1077; use, 120, 244, 
393 f., 400, 480 f., 584, 907 f., 928 f., 
933, 935, 940, 943, 950, 960 f., 980, 
1054 f., 1087 f.; c. fut. ind., 194; 
constr., 201, 208, 292, 325, 330, 
850; origin, 249, 301; c. οὗτος, 699; 
6. μή, 981, 987, 995, 1169; in final 
clauses, 981-5, 991-4; and ὅπως, 
987; in consecutive clauses, 997-9, 
1002; and ὅτι, 1032, 1049; in in- 
direct command, 1046 f.; and ἀλλά, 
1187; and ellipsis, 1202. 

—wos: suffix, 158, 197. 

πιον: ending, 154-6, 197, 278. 

᾿Ιόππη: spelling, 214. 

—vos: ending, 159, 197, 273, 276. 

-πιοῦσι: fut. end., 355. 

-ις: ending, 261, 296. 

-ισέω: fut. end., 355. 

-ἰσκω: verb suffix, 869. 


*IopafAd: and art., 760. 

-πισσα: suffix, 155. 

iordw: compounds and forms, 316. 

ἵστημι: compounds and forms, 225, 
231, 305, 310, 315f., 319f., 346, 
359, 366, 1212, 1216; voice of, 800, 
817. 

πιστος: ending, 276 ff. 

-ίσω: fut. end., 355. 

᾿Ιτουραία: with art., 788. 

᾿Ιωάνης: forms, 194, 214. 

—(wy: ending, 276 f. 

᾿Ιωσῆς: form, 268. 

᾿Ιωσήφ: and art., 761. 


K 


x: 216, 223, 346 f., 358 f., 1210. 

—xa: suffix, 296, 308 ff., 319, 358f., 801. 

καθ᾽: in phrases, 195, 209, 223 f., 963, 
967, 1210. 

καθαίρω: compounds and forms, 1216. 

καθάπερ: use, 967, 1154. : 

καθαρίζω: augment of, 1209; com- 
pounds and forms, 1216. 

καθέξομαι: forms and other com- 
pounds, 1216. 

καθείς: in mod. Gk., 292. 

καθήκω: use, 886. 

κάθημαι: compounds and forms, 314, 
329, 340, 350, 1216. 

καθίζω: use, 866; compounds and 
forms, 1216. 

καθίστημι: constr., 480. 

καθό: use, 967. 

καθότι: use, 722, 963, 967. 

καθώς: use, 433, 963, 968; in or. obl., 
1045. 

καθώσπερ: use, 968, 1154. 

καί: crasis, 208, 984; use, 393, 426-9, 
432, 443 f., 680, 947f., 951, 1041, 
1136, 1188; ὁ. αὐτοῦ, 441; c. τοῦτο, 
460, 487, 1140; c. καί, 427, 566; ο. 
numerals, 672; c. art., 694 f., 724; 
and οὗτος, 705; with several attribu- 
tives, 785-9; and ὡς, 968; correla- 
tive, 969; in concessive clauses, 1026; 
in or. obl., 1047; c. ye, 1129; in mod. 
Gk., 1146; c. negatives, 1164, 1173; 
discussed, 1179-83. 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 


καινός: meaning, 176. 

καίπερ: use, 431, 1129. 

καιρός: form and meaning, 522 f. 

καίτοι: use, 1129, 1154. 

καίτοιγε: use, 1129, 1154. 

καίω: meaning, 828; compounds and 
forms, 1216. 

κακ--: in comp., 164. 

κἀκεῖνος: crasis, 208. 

KakoAoyéw: and case, 473. 

κακόω: With inf., 1068. 

καλέω: constr., 480; use, 885; com- 
pounds and forms, 907 f., 1216. 

κάλλιον: form, 277 f.; meaning, 665. 

καλο--: In compounds, 164. 

καλός: meaning, 661; καλόν c. εἰμί, 
886, 1084. 

καλῶς: form, 248, 295; use, 299. 

κάμνω: c. part., 1121; forms of, 1216. 

κανείς: In mod. Gk., 292. 

καρτερέω: forms of, 833; ὁ. part., 1121. 

κατά: form, 204, 223; in comp., 163, 
165, 476, 511, 558, 561, 827f.; 
cases with, 491, 531, 569 f.; in adv. 
phrases, 550; frequency, 556; in 
mod. Gk., 557, 570; with verbs, 
560; case-form, 570; contrasted 
with ἀνά, 571; contrasted with ἀντί, 
523; discussed, 605-9; and παρά, 
616; and ὑπέρ, 630; with εἷς, 673; 
with ὅσον, 733, 967; in preposi- 
tional phrases, 792; with ὅς, 967; 
with inf., 1069. 

karaBalyw: forms, 328, 330; constr., 
856; use, 895. 

καταγελάω: meaning of, 838. 

καταδουλόω: voice of, 802. 

καταί: case-form, 296, 605. 

κατακαίω: Meaning, 828. 

κατακρίνω: constr., 784; meaning, 828; 
in or. obl., 1036. 

καταλαμβάνω: voice of, 812; in or. obl., 
1036. 

καταλέγω: form, 341. 

καταλύω: meaning, 828; constr., 857. 

κατανεύω: with inf., 1068. 

καταντάω: use, 863. 

καταπαύω: voice, 800. 

καταράομαι: and case, 473. 

κατάρατος: use, 1096. 


1261 


karapyéw: aor. of, 851. 

κατασκηνόω: form, 343. 

καταφεύγω: meaning of, 827 f. 

καταχέω: form, 342. 

κατέναντι: use, 639, 643 f. 

κατενώπιον: use, 644, 

κατεργάζομαι: meaning, 564, 

κατεσθίω: meaning, 564. 

karnyopéw: constr., 511. 

κατόπισθεν: use, 647. 

κατοπτρίζω: voice of, 810. 

κάτω: adj. stem, 160; case, 296; use, 
298. 

καῦδα: spelling, 211. 

καυχάομαι: forms of, 341, 876; constr., 
475. 

κέ: use, 354. 

κεῖ: in mod. Gk., 206. 

κεῖμαι: compounds and forms of, 316, 
350, 375; voice of, 813; special use 
of, ἐκείμην, 906. 

κεῖνος: Ionic, 206. 

κειρία: form, 197. 

κείρω: voice of, 809. 

κελεύω: constr., 541, 1084; in or. obl., 
1036 f. 

κέλλω: spelling, 206. 

κέν: in rel. clauses, 958. 

κεν--: in verbs, 164. 

κεράννυμι: compounds and forms, 317, 
1216.᾿ 

κεραννύω: 
1216. 

κερδαίνω: forms of, 1216. 

κερδάω: forms of, 1217. 

κεφαλή: use, 781. 

κῆρνξ: accent, 230. 

κηρύσσω: use of part., 1106. 

-πκι-: 742. 

κινδυνεύω: use, 884. 

κίς (k(): Thessalian Gk., 291. 

πκκ-: 214. 

κλαίω: constr., 475, 853; meaning, 
834; forms, 1217. 

κλαῦδα: form, 211. 

κλάω: compounds and forms, 1217. 

κλείω: compounds and forms, 340, 
1217. 

κληρονομέω: constr., 475. 

κλίμα: spelling, 230. 


compounds and _§ forms, 


1262 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


κλίνω: voice of, 800; compounds and 
forms, 1217. 

κοιμάω: voice of, 817, 819; aor. of, 
848. 

κοινός: readings, 202; use, 691. 

κοινωνός: constr., 504. 

κολλάω: voice of, 817, 819. 

ΚΚολοσσαί: form, 184 f. 

κολλούριον: readings, 202. 

κομίζω: use, 878; compounds and 
forms, 1217. 

κόπτω: constr., 475; voice of, 809; 
compounds and forms, 1217. 

κοπιάω: forms, 341. 

κορέννυμι: forms, 1217. 

κοσμίκός: use, 777. 

κόσμος: and art., 796. 

KpaBaros: spelling, 213. 

κράζω: compounds and forms, 325, 
348, 361, 907, 1217; use, 895 f. 

Kpatéw: constr., 455, 475, 511; mean- 
ing, 865. 

κρείσσων: form, 277 f., 299, 669; su- 
perlative of, 670; κρεῖσσον with ἦν, 
886. 

κρέμαμαι: compounds and forms, 316f., 
350, 1217. 

κρεμαννύω, κρεμάζω and κρεμάω: com- 
pounds and forms, 1217. 

κρι: root, 175. 

κρῖμα: form, 186, 230. 

- κρίνω: constr., 511; meaning, 828; 
use, 905; compounds and forms, 
1217. 

κρίσις: ὅτι with, 1033. 

κρυπτός: and art., 764. 

κρύπτω: constr., 483; voice of, 807, 
817; compounds and forms, 1217. 

κρυφᾶ: Doric, 249. 

κτάομαι: voice of, 810; forms of, 871. 

κτίζω: use, 896. 

κτίσις: and πᾶς, 772. 

κυκλόθεν: use, 644. 

κυλίω: compounds and forms, 1217. 

κωλύω: use, 838, 863. 

κύκλῳ: case-form, 295 f.; constr., 521, 
644. 

κύριος: voc. of, 466; gen. or abl., 503; 
and art., 761, 785 f., 795. 

κωλύω: constr., 1089, 1171. 


A 


A: 211, 216, 352, 356. 

Aa-: in comp., 164. 

Aakéw Or λάσκω: form, 1217. 

λαλέω: use, 873; in or. obl., 1048; a 
Hellenism, 1077. 

λαμβάνω: compounds and forms of, 
210, 231, 327 f., 939, 1217; use of 
aor. part., 859, 1127, 1135; perf. 
use, 897, 899 ff.; meaning, ‘829. 

AavOavw: constr., 551, 1102, 1120; com- 
pounds and forms, 1217. 

λατρεύω: constr., 540. 

λέγω: compounds and forms, 329, 
339, 1217; constr., 480, 484, 626, 
1084; and εἶπον, 838, 883; use, 866; 
in or. obl., 1035 ff., 1039, 1048 f. 

πλειπ--: root, 197. 

λείπω: compounds and forms, 348, 
1217; constr., 541. 

λῃστής: forms, 409. 

ABeprivos: constr., 788. 

λιθο--: in comp., 164. 

λίθος: gender of, 253; reading, 718. 

λιμός: gender of, 253. . 

πλιπ--: root, 197. 

-dA-: 214. 

λογίζομαι: voice of, 816, 819; ὅτι with. 
1035; compounds and forms, 1217, 

λόγος: forms, 327; ὅτι with, 1033. 

AovSopéw: and case, 473. 

Aovw: compounds and forms, 340, 
1217. 

λυμαίνομαι: and case, 473. 

λυπέω: use, 871; c. part., 1122. 

λύπη: gen., 515. 

λύτρον: discussed, 175. 


λύω: accent, 230; reading, 202; form, 


328, 333, 347; constr., 856; in mod. 
Gk., 870; meaning, 828. | 


M 


p: 210, 216, 362. 

—pa: suffix, 151, 153, 230. 

μαθητεύω: constr., 475; voice of, 800. 
Ma@aios: spelling, 215. 

—par: per. end., 340. 

μάκαρ: adj., 272. 

μακράν: adv., 294; adjectival, 547. 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 


μακρο--: in comp., 164. 

μάλιστα: use, 279, 298, 663, 670. 

μᾶλλον: constr., 276, 278 f., 298, 663. 

Μανασσῆς: form, 268. 

μανθάνω: in or. obl., 1040; ο. inf., 1103; 
compounds and forms, 1217. 

paptupéw: aor. of, 850; use, 894; in 
or. obl., 1036. 

μαρτυρία: ὅτι with, 1033. 

μάρτυς: with art., 136, 414; ὅτι with, 
1033. 

μέ: prep. in mod. Gk., 535, 570. 

μεγαλωσύνη: spelling, 201. 

μέγας: forms, 294; use, 661; superla- 
tive of, 670. . 

μεθύσκω: constr., 854. 

μείζων: forms, 272, 274, 277; in com- 
parison, 663. 

μείρομαι: spelling, 206. 

μελαντώτερον: use, 277. 

μέλλω: forms of, 368f., 1217; and 
tense, 824; constr., 857, 870, 877 ff.; 
in periphrastic forms, 889, 891; 
use, 882, 921, 1082, 1126; c. inf,, 
1056, 1078; use of part., 1118. 

μέλω: compounds and forms, 1217. 

μέμνημαι: in or, obl., 1040. 

μέμφομαι: constr., 473, 475. 

μέν: particle, 302; postpositive, 424; c. 
δέ, 428, 432, 747, 749, 1145, 1186; 
and asyndeton, 440; and art., 694; 
c. ὅς, 695 f.; 6. οὗτος, 705; ο. ἄλλος, 
747; c. ἕτερος, 749; antithetic, 750, 
1145; discussed, 1150-3; ὁ. καί, 
1183; ο. οὖν, 1191. 

—pev: per. end., 370. 

—pevae: inf. end., 370. 

—pevo—: suffix, 373. 

μενοῦνγε: use, 425. 

μέντοι: use, 424, 1154, 1188. 

μένω: constr., 475; compounds and 
forms, 475, 1218; aor. of, 850, 856. 

μεριμνάω: constr., 853. 

μέρος: use, 487. 

μέσον: use, 644, 648. 

Μεσοποταμία: with art., 788. 

μέσος: use, 550; with διά, 581; and 
art., 775; μέσῳ, Ὁ: ev, 1210. 

Meooias: spelling, 214f.; use, 416, 
433. 


1263 


pera: In comp., 164, 561; elision, 223; 
in phrases, 226; origin, 249; cases 
with, 491, 524, 531, 533, 569f.; 
and σύν, 526, 626 f.; frequency, 556; 
in mod. Gk., 557; c. verbs, 560, 
562; case-form, 570; and ἐν, 588; 
and κατά, 607; discussed, 609-12; 
and πρός, 625; with ταῦτα, 704; ο. 
inf., 858, 909, 979, 1060, 1069, 1074, 
1092. 

μεταβαίνω: forms, 328. 

μεταδίδωμι: constr., 510. 

μεταλαμβάνω: constr., 510, 519. 

μεταμέλομαι: voice of, 819. 

peravogw: reading, 1010. 

μεταξύ: with verbs, 562; origin, 626; 
use, 645. 

μετατίθημι: use, 879. 

μετέχω: constr., 509. 

péroxos: constr., 505. 

perpto—: in comp., 164. 

μέχρι: and final s, 221, 296; and ἄχρι, 
639; use, 645, 954, 975; in prepo- 
sitional phrases, 792; ο. inf., 979, 
1074. 

μή: form, 244; ο. πᾶς, 292, 752 f.; 6. 
γένοιτο, 325, 854, 939 f., 1003; use, 
330, 401, 423, 430, 436f., 751, 
850-4, 890, 916, 925, 931, 933 f., 
937, 941 f., 962f., 981; 6. οὐ, see 
ov, 874f., 929, 934, 962, 1004, 
1156-66; in interrogation, 917 f.; 
meaning, 930; in prohibitions, 947; 
c. tls, 951; c. ἵνα, 983; 6. πως, 985, 
987 ff., 995f.; c. ὅπως, 985f.; in 
final clauses, 987 ff., 995 f.; ὁ. ποτε, 
987 ff., 995 f.; in conditions, 1011 f., 
1016 ff.; ὁ. εἰ, 1024f.; in or. obl., 
1045; in indirect command, 1046; 
ce. inf., 1061, 1066, 1098 ff.; c. part., 
1136 ff.; discussed, 1166-77. 

μηδέ: use, 428, 1173, 1185. 

μηδείς: form, 219; use, 282, 292, 750f., 
1094, 1156 ff. 

μηδέν: use, 1156 ff. 

μηθείς: form, 219, 282; use, 282, 750 f., 
1094, 1156 ff. 

μήν: form, 929, 1151; c. εἰ, 1004, 1024; 
c. ob, 1161. 

μήποτε: use, 203, 1173. 


1264 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


μήπως: use, 1173. 

μήτε: use, 427, 1179; discussed, 1189. 

μήτηρ: constr., 501. 

μήτι: use, 1172. 

μήτις: form, 292; use, 743, 751. 

—p verbs: use, 147, 335 f.; discussed, 
306-20; forms of, 345ff., 350 ff., 
358. 

—pu: suffix, 306. 

pratve: forms, 1218. 

μίγμα: spelling, 230. 

μίγνυμι: compounds and forms, 317, 
1218. 

μιμνήσκω: constr., 487, 509; com- 
pounds and forms, 1218. 

μίσγω: compounds and forms, 1218. 

μισθόω: voice of, 809. 

Μιτυληναῖος: use, 199. 

Μιτυλήνη: readings, 199. 

—pp-: 214. 

μνημονεύω: constr., 509; in or. obl., 
1035, 1041. 

μνηστεύω: forms, 1218. 

μόλις: use, 296. 

—povy: suffix, 151. 

μόνος: use, 429, 549, 657, 659; μόνον 
adv., 657, 659; and art., 776; μόνον 
6. dv, 1161 f.; μόνον c. μή, 1162. 

—pés: suffix, 151 f. 

μοσχο--: in comp., 164. 

μύριοι: Use, 283. 

Μωσῆς: spelling, 203, 205; forms, 268. 


N 


v: medial, 214 f., 340, 352, 356, 362, 
1210; final, 216, 219-21, 258f., 
264 f., 274, 296. 

νά: in mod. Gk., 923, 933, 940, 982, 
994. 

—ya-: in verbs, 351. 

vat: discussed, 1150. 

—vat: inf. end., 370 f. 

—ye-: In verbs, 352. 

veavias: type, 256. 

νέος: meaning, 176; comparative of, 
664. 

vy: discussed, 1150. 

γη-: prefix, 161, 163. 

νῆστις: form, 275. 


νικάω: νικῶν with art., 136, 243, 414; 
forms, 203; constr., 475; meaning, 
865. 

virrw: voice of, 806. 

—vv—-: 213 ff. 

πννω: in verbs, 352. 

νοέω: in or. obl., 1036. 

νομίζω: constr., 480; in or. obl., 1036 f. 

νόμος: use, 780; and art., 796. 

νοσφίζω: voice of, 810. 

νουνεχῶς: use, 297. 

—ys: acc. end., 265. 

—yt-: part. end., 373. 

—yu-: in verbs, 147, 351. 

νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν: 470, 495. 

πνυμι: verbs in, 911. 

νῦν: constr., 546f.; use, 548, 1117, 
1147; c. δέ, 1013. 

γυνί: use, 290, 1147; loc. form, 523. 

νύξ: dat. form, 249; gen. merging into 
adverb, 295; with ἐν, 523. 

νύσσω: compounds and forms, 1218. 

—yw: verbs in, 147. 


ἘΞ 


ἕ: 209, 216, 230. 

ξενίζομαιυ: constr., 475. 

ξηραίνω: compounds and forms, 836, 
847, 1218. 

ξύν: form, 626 f. 

ξυράω: forms of, 342, 1218; voice of, 
809. 

—fa: aor. in, 349. 


O 


o: vowel-changes, 189 f., 196, 198-201, 
308, 324, 367; prothetic, 1209. 

6, ἡ, τό: C. νικῶν, 136, 243, 414; crasis 
of rod, 208; as demonstrative, 290; 
c. ἐστίν, 411; constr., 502; c. inf., 
122, 287, 512, 584, 587; 599, 659, 
858, 990, 996, 1001 ff., 1039 f., 
1042, 1054-69, 1078, 1080; reading, 
599; discussed, 693-5, 754-96; c. 
οὗτος, 700; ὁ. ἐκεῖνος and ὅλος, 708; 
in Homer, 711; as relative, 734 f.; 
6. τίς, 739; with ἄλλος, 747; and 
aor. part., 859 f.; in relative clauses, 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 


956; in or. obl., 1045; c. ὦν, 1107; 
proclitic forms of, 1211. 

ὄγδοος: uncontracted, 275. 

ὅδε: use, 289 f., 693 f., 709; discussed, 
696 f.; and οὗτος, 702 f.; and art., 
770. 

ὁδηγέω: reading, 1010. 

ὁδός: and ellipsis, 652, 1202. 

ὀδυνάω: forms, 341. 

oe: contraction of, 325, 342. 

o/e: thematic vowel, 147, 323, 356. 

on: contraction of, 325, 342. 

oy: contraction of, 308. 

ὅθεν: constr., 548, 969. 

ou: vowel-change, 195, 198, 204, 326; 
and augment, 367; old dat. end., 
520. 

οἴγνυμι: compounds and forms, 317, 
1212. 

οἶδα: forms, 239, 319, 329, 337, 357, 
363, 406; voice, 801; use, 838, 
1128; meaning, 904; in or. obl., 
1035 f., 1045; c. inf., 1062, 1103. 

οἴκαδε: form, 296. 

οἰκοδομέω: compounds and forms of, 

. 365, 1218; constative aor., 833; fut., 
889. 

οἴκοι: adv., 295. 

οἶμαι: use, 406, 1082; ὁ. od, 1162. 

--οῖν: inf. end., 194, 343, 371. 

—ovo: archaic gen. end., 494. 

οἷος: use, 291; and τοιοῦτος, 710; dis- 
cussed, 731 f.; and ὅτι, 1034; in or. 
obl., 1045. 

ποις: dat. ending, 249, 266; loc. ending, 
452. 

οἱ τὴν παραλίαν: disputed reading, 
409. Ὶ 

οἴχομαι: use, 1120. 

ὀκ: for οὐκ, 199. 

ὀκτώ: use, 282. 

ὀλεθρεύω: compounds and forms, 
189 f. 

ὀλίγος: use, 660. 

ὄλλυμι: compounds and forms, 317, 
1218; use, 893. 

ὀλλύω: compounds and forms, 1218. 

ὅλος : with κατά, 607; with οὗτος, 705; 
with art., 708, 768, 771 ff.; with 
πολύς, 774. 


1265 


ὀμείρομαι: form, 206. 

—opev: per. end., 200. 

ὄμνυμι: compounds and forms, 317, 
371; constr., 475, 1032; with &, 
588; use of aor. part., 859. 

ὀμνύω: constr., 484. 

ὁμοθυμαδόν: form, 295, 296. 

ὅμοιος: constr., 530, 1206. 

ὁμοιόω: compounds and forms, 1218. 

ὁμολογέω: forms from, 295, 298; 
constr., 475, 480, 541, 1103; ο. ἐν, 
524, 588; in or. obl., 1035, 1041. 

ὅμως: use, 423, 1140, 1154, 1188; in 
mod. Gk., 1146. 

—ov: per. end., 335, 348. 

ὀνειδίζω: constr., 473, 475, 480. 

ὀνίνημι: forms, 310. 

ὄνομα: in “pregnant construction,” 
525; in circumlocution, 649; ὅτι 
in apposition with, 1033. 

ὅνπερ: reading, 291, 710, 1154. 

ποντο: per. end., 340. 

ὄντως: form, 295, 298. 

oo: use, 202. 

ὅπερ: use in LXX, 710. 

ὄπισθεν: use, 645. 

ὀπίσω: With verbs, 562; use, 645. 

ὁποῖος: use, 291, 1176 f.; and τοιοῦτος, 
710; discussed, 732; and ποῖος, 740; 
in or. obl., 1045. 

ὁπόταν: use, 971. 

ὁπότε: use, 300, 971. 

ὅπου: adv., 298 f., 548; use, 712, 722, 
969; in or. obl., 1045. 

ὀπτάνω: voice of, 820. 

ὅπως: use, 430, 731, 9338, 953, 980, 
982; with μή, 980, 987; discussed, 
985-7; and iva, 992 f., 994; in final 
clauses, 994 f.; in or. obl., 1045; in 
indirect command, 1046; with inf., 
1056. 

ὅρα: use, 330, 430, 874, 932, 935. 

épdw: compounds and forms, 188, 
324, 339, 344, 348, 364, 368, 876, 
1211, 1218; voice, 819f.; stems, 
823; in or. obl., 864, 1035, 1038, - 
1041; use, 871, 893, 901; use of dpa 
and ὁρᾶτε, 932 f., 949; use of parts., 
1118; perf. of, 1211. 

ὀργίζομαι: meaning, 834. 


1266 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ὀρέγομαι: constr., 508. 

ὀρθο--: in comp., 164. 

ὀρθός: use, 549, 659. 

ὀρθῶς: use, 549, 659. 

ὁρίζω: constr., 863. 

δρκίζω: constr., 475, 483. 

ὄρνιξ: spelling, 219. 

ὅρος: and art., 760. 

—opos: ending, 199. 

ὀρύσσω: compounds and forms, 1218. 

és: with ἄν and ἐάν, 72, 191; with ye, 
244; with τε, 290; ὅν not expressed, 
425; reading, 438; ὧν with verbs, 
511; ᾧ with ἐν, 587; use, 693, 706, 
928, 953f., 956, 959; discussed, 
695 f., 711-26; and οὗτος, 698, 703; 
and τοιοῦτος, 710; in Homer, 711; 
ὅ with ἐστιν, 713; and ὅστις, 726; 
value of, 728; and οἷος, 731; and 
pev antithetic, 750; and attraction, 
820; with ἐάν, 959; and ἄν, 961; 
with κατά, 967; in consec. clauses, 
1001; in or. obl., 1044 f. 

πος: ending, 157, 260 f., 263, 268, 274. 

ὁσάκις: use, 973. 

-ποσαν: per. end., 63, 335, 343. 

ὃς ἂν θέλῃ: use, 961. 

ὁσδϑήπερ: reading, 710. 

ὁσδήποτε: use, 291. 

ὅσος: form, 291; and οὗτος, 698; and 
τοιοῦτος, 710; discussed, 732 f., 
966 f.; in rel. clauses, 956 ff.; in or. 
obl., 1045; use, 1177. 

ὅσπερ: use, 291. 

ὅστις: form, 290 f.; use, 693, 928; and 
τοιοῦτος, 710; discussed, 726-31; 
and ris, 737; in rel. clauses, 956 f., 
959-61; in or. obl., 1044 f. 

ὀστράκινος: form, 158. 

ὅταν: use, 300, 325, 968; and οὗτος, 
700; in rel. clauses, 957 f.; in temp. 
clauses, 970 ff. 

ὅτε: adv., 300 f.; use, 953, 970 ff. 

ὅ re: in Attic, 290. 

πότερος: compar. end., 278. 

ὅτι: and inf., 111, 120, 371, 437, 442, 
489 f., 584, 966, 1054 ff.; and hia- 
tus, 206; c. ἐστίν, 233; and 6 τι, 248, 
291; drc-clauses, 393, 400, 426, 430, 
1001; and οὗτος, 699; and ἐκεῖνος, 


708; use, 724, 951-3, 962-5, 967, 
997, 1054 f., 1085f., 1122, 1176, 
1192 f.; and ὅστις, 730; in interro- 
gation, 916; in or. obl., 1027-49; 
c. negatives, 1173; c. καί, 1182; c. 
πλήν, 1187. 

ὅ τι: See ὅστις. 

ov: vowel-changes, 199, 202 ff. 

που: in gen., 255, 295; in acc., 265. 

ov, οὐκ, οὐχ: use, 401, 418, 423 f., 
928 f., 937, 962 f., 965, 995; c. εἷς, 
751; c. τις, 751; ὁ. μή, 850, 854, 
873 ff., 889, 929, 933, 942, 962, 
987, 1004; in interrogation, 917 f.; 
meaning, 930; ὁ. μόνον --- ἀλλὰ καί, 
947; in conditions, 1011 f., 1016 ff.; 
c. inf., 1093 ff.; c. part., 1136 ff.; 
discussed, 1154-77; ὁ. καί, 1183; 
proclitic, 1211. 

ov: accent, 229; use, 286, 298 f., 301, 
717, 722, 969; discussed, 679. 

ova: use, 1193. 

ovat: gender, 270, 410; interjection, 
302; in ellipsis, 391; case with, 487; 
use, 1193. 

οὐδέ: elision, 207, 1210; and εἷς, 751; 
use, 1156 ff., 1185. 

οὐδείς: form, 219; use, 282, 292, 1094; 
ὁ. ἐστιν ὅς, 726; discussed, 750. 

οὐδέν: use, 1156 ff. 

οὐθείς: form, 219; use, 282, 750, 1094. 

οὐκοῦν: accent, 233, 1165, 1175; use, 
917, 1165, 1175. 

—otpevos: part. end., 374. 

οὖν: use, 424, 434, 443 f., 841; in in- 
terrogation, 916; discussed, 1191 f. 

—-ovv: verb end., 341, 343. 

οὔπω: form, 296. 

οὐρανός: use, 408. 

—ovpos: ending, 199. 

πους: adj. end., 274. 

οὔτε: use, 428, 1156 ff., 1179; discussed, 
1189. 

οὔτις: form, 292; use, 743, 751. 

οὗτος: Ο. ἔστι, 207, 223 f., 244, 411, 416; 
use, 290, 401, 411, 419, 487, 693, 
720, 843; 6. αὐτός, 686; and ὅδε, 696; 
discussed, 697-706; and ἐκεῖνος, 708; 
pleonastic, 722 f.; and ὅσος, 732; 
τοῦτο with ri, 736; and art., 770; c. 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 


ἅπας, 771; and ὅς, 723; 6. πολύς, 
774; ὅτι with prep. and, 1033 f.; 
c. inf., 1059; in idioms, 1111; 6. καί, 
1181. 

otrw(s): form, 221, 295 f.; adv., 286, 
298, 710; and οὗτος, 705; use, 965, 
968, 1140, 1146. 

οὐχί: form, 290; use, 391, 917. 

οφείλω: use, 841, 886; constr., 1003. 

ὄφελον: use, 923, 940, 1003 f. 

ὀχλο--: in comp., 165. 

ὄχλος: With πολύς, 774. 

ὀψέ: constr., 517, 645f.; 
oli. 

—dw: verbs in, 147, 149, 342 f., 351. 


meaning, 


II 


a: 210, 223, 353, 1210. 

παγαίνω: meaning, 865. 

πάγω: Meaning, 865. 

παθητός: use, 1097. 

πάλαι: form, 296. 

πάλιν: use, 300, 551. 

παμπληθεί: spelling, 197. 

πανοικεί: Spelling, 197. 

πανταχῇ: form, 526. 

πανταχοῦ: form, 296, 300; use, 299. 

πάντοτε: use, 300. 

πάντως: 423. 

παρά: in comp., 165; origin, 249; case- 
form, 301, 482, 570; cases with, 
451, 491, 524, 534, 554, 565, 567, 
569 f.; constr. in comp., 477, 542; 
with verbs, 517f., 560, 562; in 
“pregnant construction,” 525; in 
adv. phrases, 550; frequency, 556; 
in mod. Gk., 558, 570; use, 561; 
and ἀπό, 578 f.; and eis, 596; and 
ἐκ, 596; discussed, 612-6; and πρός, 
625; and ὑπό, 636; with compara- 
tives, 667; in prepositional phrases, 
792; for agent, 820; with inf., 1069. 

παραδίδωμι: forms, 309, 347. 

παραθαλασσία: form, 273. 

mapat: form, 260, 296, 301, 537. 

παραινέω: constr., 475. 

παραιτέομαι: voice of, 810. 

παρακαλέω: form, 943; c. inf., 1068. 

παραλαμβάνω: readings, 336. 


1267 


παράλιος: form, 273. 

παραπλήσιον: use, 646. 

παραχρῆμα: use, 550. 

παρεισδύω: forms, 341. 

παρεκτός: use, 646. 

παρέχω: voice of, 810; constr., 

παριστάνω: meaning, 950. 

παρίστημι: constr., 542, 855. 

mapés: gen. form, 301. 

παρρησία: ὅτι with, 
1210. 

πᾶς: indeclinable πᾶν, 274; c. μή, 292, 
752 f.; use, 419, 436, 744; c. nega- 
tives, 437, 751-3, 1163; 6. οὗτος, 
705; cart. 708, 771 Η., 1107; c: 
ὅστις, 727; Cc. ὅσος, 732; Cc. πολύς, 
774; c. ὅς, 957. 

πάσχω: compounds and forms of, 
327, 1218; with κακῶς, 802; constr., 
858. 

TIdrepa: use, 183. 

πατήρ: voc., 461 f., 464; art. with voc. 
of, 465. 

Παῦλος: and art., 788; use, 1038. 

παύω: C. part., 1102, 1121; Need et 
and forms, 1218. 

meda: case of, 249; for μετά, 609. 

πεζῇ: form, 295. 

πείθω: constr., 540, 1084; voice of, 
801, 810; compounds and forms 
of, 871, 1218. 

πεινάω: aor. form, 342, 371; and case, 
474, 508. 

meipatw: voice of, 802. 

πέμπω: epistolary aor. of, 845 f. 

πένης: use, 272. 

πενθέω: constr., 475. 

πέρ: intensive, 302, 617, 1144; dis- 
cussed, 1153 f.; enclitic, 1211. 

πέραν and ἀντίπερα: use, 646. 

περί: in comp., 165, 477, 487, 542, 
562, 564; form, 301f., 524, 570; 
with cases, 471, 491, 509, 524, 
569 f.; with verbs, 511, 560, 566; 
frequency, 556; in condensation, 
567; and κατά, 608; discussed, 616- 
20; and πρός, 626; and ὑπέρ, 629, 
632; in prepositional phrases, 792; 
with inf., 1069; use, 616. 

περιάγω: constr., 480. 


853. 


1033; spelling, 


1268 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


περιβάλλομαι: constr., 485 f., 855; 
voice of, 807, 809, 819. 

περιβλέπω: voice of, 809, 813; mean- 
ing, 838. 

περιέρχομαι: use, 1103. 

περιζώννυμι: form, 330. 

περίκειμαι: constr., 485; voice of, 815. 

περιλαμβάνω: constr., 483. 

περιούσιος: etymology of, 159. 

περιπατέω: constr., 855. 

περιποιέω: Voice of, 810. 

περιρραίνω: reading, 211. 

περισσεύσαι: form, 940. 

περισσός: use, 279; constr., 516; in 
comparison, 664. 

περιτίθημι: constr., 483, 485; voice of, 
815. 

πέρυσι: form, 295. 

πέτρα: use, 1201. 

πήγνυμι: and compounds, 317. 

πηλίκος: use, 292; discussed, 741; in 
or. obl., 1045. 

πήχυς: forms, 268. 

πιάζω: constr., 508; forms, 1218. 

πιέζω: forms, 1218. 

πιθός: use, 1206. 

πίμπλημι: compounds and forms, 317, 
1218. 

πίμπρημι: compounds and forms, 318. 

πίνω: compounds and forms of, 204, 

_ 340, 348, 371, 1218; use, 838, 883. 

πιπράσκω: forms, 1218. 

πίπτω: compounds and forms, 998, 
843, 1218; parts., 864, 1116. 

πιστεύω: constr., 115, 120, 453, 475, 
485, 487, 540, 601; πιστεύετε, mood 
of, 329; aor. of, 850, 856; in or. obl., 
1036. 

πιστικός: origin, 159 f. 

πίστις: gen. use, 499, 515, 704; πίστει 
in Heb. 11, 533. 

ππλασίων: proportional, 284, 673. 

πλεῖον: constr., 516. 

πλείων: use, 665; superlative of, 670, 
775; in idiom, 775. 

πλέκω: compounds and forms, 1218. 

πλέω: Compounds and forms, 1218. 

πληθύνω: use, 871. 

πλήν: use, 646; in mod. Gk., 1146; 
discussed, 1187. 


πλήρης: Indecl., 188, 274 ff., 413, 464; 
voc., 463 f.; constr., 1204. 

πληρο--: in comp., 165. 

πληρόω: forms of, 325, 343; constr., 

_ 483, 510, 857; meaning, 834; aor. 
of, 851; use, 948. 

πλησίον: form, 294; use, 646. 

πλήσσω: Compounds and forms, 1218. 

mAordptov:.constr., 521. 

--πλοῦς: adj. end., 284. 

πνεῦμα: use, 436, 590, 709; and art., 
761, 795. 

πνευματικῶς: 1.56, 299. 

πνέω: form, 342. 

πνίγω: compounds and forms, 1218. 

πόθεν: constr., 548; in or. obl., 1045. 

ποῖ: form, 295. 

ποιέω: forms, 325, 327; with εὖ and 
κακῶς, 473; constr., 480, 850, 852, 
854, 856; voice, 802, 812; use, 884, 
923, 934; with inf., 1068. 

motos: interrogative, 291 f.; ποίας in 
Lu., 494; and ὁποῖος, 732; equal to 
tis, 735; discussed, 740; in or. obl., 
1045. 

πόλις: dat. form, 204; with Ovarepa, 
498; with ἐκ, 578. 

πολλάκις: form, 296. 

πολύς: acc. form, 294; constr., 532, 
660; in comparison, 664; with art., 
714. 

πόμα: spelling, 230. 

Πόντος: and art., 788. 

πορεύομαι: voice of, 816, 820; constr., 
856; use, 869, 874. 

πόσος: use, 292; discussed, 740 f.; in 
or. obl., 1045. 

ποταπός: origin, 160; use, 292; dis- 
cussed, 741; in or. obl., 1045. 

ποτέ: adv., 298, 300; with μή, 987 ff., 
995 f., 1173; meaning, 1147; en- 
clitic, 1211. 

πότε: adv., 300; in or. obl., 1045. 

πότερον: in double questions, 1177. 

πότερος: use, 292; and ris, 736; dis- 
cussed, 741; πότερον an adv., 741, 
117. 

ποτίζω: constr., 484. 

ποῦ: accent, 234; use, 291, 298 f.; in 
mod. Gk., 723; in or. obl., 1045. 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 


mov: use, 298 f., 1146; enclitic, 1211. 

—tovAos: suffix, 146. f 

πούς: accent, 231. 

πρᾶος: readings, 200; form, 274. 

πρασιαί: distributive, 673. 

πράσσω: use of inf. of; 1058; ο. εὖ, 
1121; compounds and forms, 1218. 

πρέπω: constr., 541. 

πρεσβύτερος: in comparison, 277, 664. 

πρεσβύτης: spelling, 201. 

πρίν: use, 431, 954, 976 f., 1053; c. 4, 

— 970, 1049; c. inf., 1074 f., 1091. 

πρό: position, 110; elision, 206; cases 
with, 451, 569 f.; constr. in comp., 
165, 477; separation implied, 517; 
frequency, 556; c. verbs, 560; dis- 
cussed, 620-2; and πρός, 622 f.; 
and ὑπέρ, 630; in prepositional 
phrases, 792; c. inf., 858, 891, 977, 
978, 1061, 1074 f., 1091. 

προάγω: constr., 857, 871. 

προαιτιάομαι: in or. obl., 1036. 

προγράφω: epistolary aor. of, 845. 

πρόδηλον: With ὅτι, 1034. 

πρόϑομα: spelling, 200. 

προεῖπον: spelling, 338. 

προέρχομαι: constr., 477. 

προκαταγγέλλω: in or. obl., 1036. 

προορίζω: constr., 480. 

πρός: in comp., 165; accent, 234; final 
letter of, 248; frequency of use, 
451, 491, 556; cases with, 491, 524, 
569f.; separation implied, 517; 
case-form, 524, 570; with verbs, 
542, 560 ff., 566; in mod. Gk., 570; 
and ἀπό, 575; and εἰς, 596; and 
παρά, 613; discussed, 622-6; with 
με, 682; in prepositional phrases, 
792; c. inf., 858, 990 f., 1003, 1060, 
1069, 1075, 1088. 

προσαναβαίνω: form, 328. 

προσδοκάω: in or. obl., 1036. 

προσεύχομαι: form, 328; use, 874. 

πρόσθεμα: spelling, 188. 

προσκαλέω: voice of, 809. 

προσκυλίω: constr., 543. 

προσκυνέω: constr., 455, 476£., 540, 990. 

προσλαμβάνω: constr., 510, 519; voice 
of, 809. 

προσφέρω: form, 338. 


1269 


προσφωνέω: constr., 477. 

προσωπο--: In comp., 165. 

“πρόσωπον: use, 649. 

πρότερος: form, 280, 283; meaning, 
662; use, 669. 

προτίθημι: constr., 480; voice of, 810; 
in periphrastic forms, 822. 

προὐπάρχω: ὁ. part., 1103, 1121. 

προφθάνω: use, 1120. 

προχειρίσασθαι: constr., 700. 

πρωί: use, 295; and ἅμα, 638. 

tmpwivds: readings, 201. 

πρῶτος: comparison, 280; ordinal, 
283 f.; πρῶτον adverb, 294, 297, 
460, 657, 659, 1152; πρώτως nu- 
meral, 298; meaning, 516; use, 549, 
657, 659, 662, 669 f.; and eis, 671. 

—rr—: in verbs, 351, 353. 

πτωχεύω: Meaning, 834. 

πυκνότερος: Meaning, 665. 

πυνθάνομαι: forms, 1218. 

πυρρός: spelling, 212 f. 

aw: enclitic, 1211. 

—rw: origin, 296. 

πώποτε: form, 249; use, 896. 

πως: use, 298; with μή, 987 ff., 995 f.; 
enclitic, 1211. 

πῶς: use, 302, 741, 985, 10382 f.; in 
mod. Gk., 1028; in or. obl., 1045. 


Ρ 


p: 211-4, 216 [., 225 ἴ., 352, 356, 364. 

—pa: words in, 256. 

ῥαββεί: 416, 433. 

ῥαντίζω: forms of, 211 f., 225, 1218; 
voice, 807. 

péw: compounds and forms, 1219. 

ῥῆμα: breathing, 225. 

πρης: ending, 256, 275. 

ῥήσσω: compounds and forms, 212, 
318, 1219. 

ῥίπτω: forms, 211, 230. 

“Ῥώμη: initial 6, 212. 

ῥώννυμι: forms, 318, 330, 908. 


x 


o, ς: 210, 214 f., 218, 220 f., 228, 248, 
267, 296, 346, 354-6, 362, 1210. 
-oa: per. end., 305. 


1270 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


σάββατον: with ἐν, 523. 

-σαι: verb end., 329, 340 f., 369 f. 

σαλπίζω: constr., 853. 

Σαμσών: form, 210. 

σάν: in mod. Gk., 974. 

σαρκικός: etymology, 158 f. 

σάρκινος: etymology, 158. 

capt: use, 784. 

σατόν: in papyri, 287. 

σβέννυμιυ: forms, 318, 1219. 

σβεννύω: forms, 1219. 

—oe: suffix, 296. 

σεαυτοῦ: form, 226; use, 288, 687-90. 

-σει: itacism in, 928. 

--σείω: verbs in, 150, 351. 

σείω: compounds and forms, 1219. 

σελήνη: gender of, 252. 

oeo/e: fut. suffix, 354 f. 

—oy: itacism in, 928. 

σημαίνω: in or. obl., 1036. 

σημεῖον: use, 176. 

σήμερον: form, 294. 

σήπω: voice of, 801. 

—o Sat: verb end., 186, 370. 

—o Oe: per. end., 186. 

πσθω: per. end., 328. 

πσθωσαν: per. end., 328. 

-σι: dat. ending, 249; pronominal suf- 
fix, 306. 

—o.idw: verbs in, 150. 

σιγάω: meaning, 834; constr., 857. 

σίναπι: forms, 268. 

—oi-s: denoting action, 151 ff. 

σιωπάω: use, 883, 908; reading, 1010. 

ox: verbs, 352. 

σκάνδαλον: history of, 174. 

σκάπτω: compounds and forms, 1219. 

πσκε: verb suffix, 352. 

σκέπτομαι: compounds and forms, 
1219. 

σκηνόω: meaning, 829. 

πσκο: verb suffix, 352. 

σκύλλω: voice of, 807. 

πσκω: verbs in, 150. 

πσο: per. end., 340. 

—oo/e: fut. suffix, 355. 

Σολομών: spelling, 268. 

—cov: per. end., 329. 

σός: form, 286, 288; use, 682, 684, 
689; with αὐτός, 687. 


σπάω: meaning, 564, 828; voice of, 
805, 810; compounds and forms, 
1219. 

σπείρω: compounds and forms, 1219. 

σπλάχνα: form, 410. 

σπουδαίως: use, 299. 

σπουδῇ: form, 296. 

στείβω: form, 198. 

στείρω: form, 275. 

στέλλω: compounds and forms, 346, 
1219; use of part., 1134. 

στήκω: forms, 188, 224, 315, 320, 
1219; reading, 1010. 

στηρίζω: compounds and forms, 230, 
1219; with inf., 1068. 

στοιχέω: use, 329. 

στόμα: use, 649. 

στρατο--: in comp., 165. 

στρέφω: voice of, 800; compounds 
and forms, 1219. 


στρώννυμι: compounds and forms, 
318, 1219. 

στρωννύω: compounds and _ forms, 
1219. 


στῦλος: accent, 186. 

ov: position of, 418; voc., 461; dis- 
cussed, 678 f.; use, 693; and ἐκεῖνος, 
707; cod, position of, 779; enclitic 
forms of, 1211. 

συζεύγνυμι: 314. 

συμβαίνω: συνέβη in or. obl., 1043. 

συμβουλεύω: voice of, 811; in or. obl., 
1036 f. 

σύμμορφος: constr., 528. 

συμπόσια: form, 460; distributive, 
673. 

συμφέρω: constr., 1084. 

σύμφντος: constr., 528. 

συμφύω: form, 341. 

συμφωνέω: reading, 1010. 

σύν: in comp., 165, 216 f., 528 f., 558, 
562, 827f.; LXX use, 451; case 
with, 534, 569 f.; use in Attic, 553; 
frequency, 556; with verbs, 560; 
and ἐν, 588; and κατά, 606; and 
μετά, 526, 610; and πρός, 625; dis- 
cussed, 626-8; and ἅμα, 627. 

συνάγω: use, 871. 

συναντάω: use of part., 1135. 

συνεργός: Substantival, 504. 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 


συνετός: use, 1097. 

συνέχω: voice of, 808; meaning, 828. 

-σύνη: ending, 156. 

συνίημι: in or. obl., 1040. 

συνιστάνω: constr., 480. 

συνίστημι: use, 896. 

συνπαραλαμβάνω: constr., 857, 862. 

συντηρέω: Meaning, 828. 

συντίθεμαι: with inf., 1068. 

σφάζω: compounds and forms, 1219. 

σχεδόν: form, 295. 

σώζω: constr., 598; part., 891; com- 
pounds and forms, 1219. 

σῶμα: use, 1206. 

σωτήρ: and art., 786. 

σωτήριος: form, 272. 


dk 


τ 218, 223, 248, 352, 1210. 

τάδε: use, 289 f., 696. 

—rau: per. end., 340. 

Tadgc0a: voc. of, 465. 

—rapos: early end., 279. 

τάσσω: constr., 1084; compounds and 
forms, 1219. 

πτατος: form, 277, 279 f., 670; in mod. 
Gk., 668. 

ταὐτά: crasis, 208. 

τάχειον: use, 664. 

τάχιον: form, 278 f., 297. 

τάχιστος: form, 294, 669. 

ταχύ: form, 294, 298. 

τέ: ὁ. rel., 290; conj., 301, 1178 f.; 
position, 424; c. τέ, 427; c. καί, 
427 f., 432, 566, 789; use, 434; in 
Homer, 711; enclitic, 1211. 

—re: ending, 296. 

τεκνο--: in comp., 165. 

τέκνον: With gen., 497, 651. 

Texto—: in comp., 165. 

τελειόω: reading, 987. 

τελέω: Meaning, 834; use, 901; c. 
part., 1121; compounds and forms, 
1219. 

τέλλω: compounds and forms, 1219. 

τέμνω: compounds and forms, 1219. 


—réos: verbal form, 157, 304, 320, 


372 f., 486; discussed, 1095 ff. 
τέρας: use, 176. 


1271 


—repos: compar. end., 277 f., 298, 660. 

τέσσαρες: reading, 266, 282. 

τεσσαρεσκαιδέκατος: form, 284. 

τέσσερα, τεσσεράκοντα: form, 183. 

τέταρτος: form, 284. 

τετρα-: in comp., 165. 

τετράκις: form, 296. 

τηλικόσδε: use, 709. 

τηλικοῦτος: form, 290; use, 709, 731; 
and art., 771. 

τηρέω: constr., 598, 850; meaning, 
828. 

-τήριον: suffix, 154. 

—rys: suffix, 151, 153 f., 156, 256, 272. 

τί ἂν θέλοι: in or. obl., 1044. 

τίθημι: compounds and forms, 310, 
318, 347, 1219; constr., 480; use, 
900. 

τίκτω: forms, 1219. 

τιμάω: forms, 305, 334. 

τίς: τί and hiatus, 206; interrogative, 
291 f., 916, 933, 940; τί in idioms, 
395, 539, 730; with gen., 515; dis- 
cussed, 795-40, 1176; ¢. ποῖος, 740; 
and τις, 739, 741; τί in interroga- 
tion, 916 f., 1176; in subj., 934 f.; 
tic. ὅτι, 1034; accent of τίνα, 1040; 
in or. obl., 1044. 

τὶς: τι and hiatus, 206; enclitic, 234 f., 
1211; position in sentence, 425; 
twa constr., 490; with gen., 515; 
τι adverb, 547; τι c. διά, 584; and 
οὗτος, 698; in Homer, 711; and τίς, 
739; discussed, 741-4; antithetic, 
750; with negative, 751, 987 f., 
1164; and art., 778, 796. 

τό: substantivized neut. adj., 156 f.; 
not the art., 185; denoting quota- 
tion, 2438; with “Ayap, 254, 411; 
forming adv. phrase, 294f., 487; 
with λοιπόν, 470, 487; with inf., 966. 

τοί: use, 302; discussed, 1154 f. 


᾿ τοιγαροῦν: use, 425, 1154. 


τοίνυν: use, 425, 1154. 

τοιόσϑε: form, 290; use, 709; and art., 
411. 

τοιοῦτος: use, 290, 710, 731; 
ὁποῖος, 732; and art., 771. 


and 


-τολμάω: stems of, 823. 


πτος: verbal form, 157 f., 304, 320, 


1272 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


372 f.; comparison of verbals in, 
276; superlative ending, 283; adv. 
end., 296; constr., 504; discussed, 
1095 ff. 

τοσόσδε: use, 709. 

τοσοῦτος: use, 290, 710; and art., 771. 

τότε: pronominal, 298; use, 300; 
constr., 429; in Mt., 443, 549. 

—rov: gen., 262. 

Tpaxevirts: with art., 788. 

τρεῖς: forms, 282. 

tpérw: compounds and forms, 359, 
1219. 

τρέφω: use, 203; compounds and forms, 
359, 1220. 

τρέχω: compounds and forms, 870, 
1220. 

τριάκοντα: form, 283. 

τρίβω: compounds and forms, 1220. 

τρίς: form, 284, 296. 

τρισχίλιοι: use, 283. 

τρίτος: in mod. Gk., 284. 

—rpov: nominal suffix, 174. 

Tpotro—: in comp., 165. 

τυγχάνω: constr., 509, 1120; com- 
pounds and forms, 1220. 

τυχόν: adv. acc., 488, 490, 1130. 

—rw: per. end., 328. 

—rwoay: per. end., 328, 336. 


Ve 


v: vowel-changes, 185, 195, 198-202, 
205, 230, 265; stems in, 247, 249. 

ὑβρίζω: and case, 473. 

ὑγιής: 275. 

ὕδωρ: gen. use, 495; loc. use, 521, 533, 
590. 

—via: participles in, 256, 274 f. 

—v(ys: forms in, 275. | 

vids: voc. of, 463; with gen., 497 f., 
501, 651, 781. 

ὑμεῖς: form, see σύ, 195 f.; discussed, 
678. 

ipérepos: use, 288, 684. 

—vypu: verbs in, 311. 

πύνω: in comps., 147, 150, 213. 

ὑπάγω: constr., 855f.; use of ὕπαγε, 
949, 

ὑπακούω: constr., 507; meaning, 634. 


ὑπαντάω: Meaning, 634. 

ὑπάρχω: c. part., 1102, 1120. 

ὑπείκω: Meaning, 634. 

ὑπέρ: in comp., 165, 477; adverb, 293, 
450; constr., 784; cases with, 491, 
569 f.; separation implied, 517; 
frequency, 556; with verbs, 560; 
in condensation, 567; with ἀντί, 
573 f.; and ἐπί, 600; and xara, 607; 
and περί, 616, 618; and πρός, 623; 
discussed, 628-33; with compara- 
tives, 667; with inf., 1069. 

ὑπεράνω: use, 550, 646. 

ὑπεράνωθεν: use, 647. 

ὑπερβαλλόντως: origin, 297 f. 

ὑπερκάτωθεν: use, 647. 

ὑπερέκεινα: use, 647. 

ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ: use, 647. 

ὑπερβίαν: use, 550. 

ὑπό: form, 223, 226; constr. in comp., 
165, 477, 542; cases with, 491, 517, 
524, 532, 534, 536, 569f.; case- 
form, 524, 570; frequency, 556; 
with verbs, 560, 562; in condensa- 
tion, 567; with ἀπό, 575, 579; and 
διά, 582; and ἐπί, 600; and παρά, 
615; and ὑπέρ, 630; discussed, 633-6; 
in prepositional phrases, 792; for 
agent, 820; with inf., 1069. 

ὑποβάλλω: meaning, 634. 

ὑποδείκνυμι: aor. of, 848. 

ὑποδέχομαι: meaning, 633. 

ὑποζώννυμι: meaning, 633. 

ὑποκάτω: use, 647. 

ὑποκάτωθεν: use, 637. 

ὑποκρίνομαι: in or. obl., 1036. 

ὑπόκρισις: Meaning, 633. 

ὑποκριτής: Meaning, 633. 

ὑπολαμβάνω: constr., 480; meaning, 
633. 

ὑπολείπω: meaning, 634. 

ὑπομιμνήσκω: constr., 483, 509; mean- 
ing, 634. 

trovoéw: in or. obl., 1036. 

ὑποπλέω: Meaning, 634. 

ὑποπνέω: Meaning, 634. 

ὑποστολή: gen., 515. 

ὑποταγή: use, 819. 

ὑποτάσσω: voice of, 807, 809, 817; 
use, 946. 





INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 


ὑποτίθημι : meaning, 633. - 

ὑποτρέχω: meaning, 634. 

πύριον: ending, 202. 

torepéw: constr., 476, 519, 541; voice 
of, 814. 

ὕστερος: form, 294; meaning, 662. 

ὕψιστος: form, 279, 669. 

ὑψόω: constr., 480. 


Φ 


φ: 215, 222, 353, 359. 

φάγω: form, 340; use, 883, 1063. 

φαίνω: compounds and forms, 328, 
341, 349, 871, 1220; use, 868; in 
or. obl., 1040; c. part., 1102, 1120. 

φανερός: and art., 764. 

φάσις: ὅτι with, 1033. 

φείδομαι: origin, 295, 298; compounds 
and forms, 295, 298, 1220. 

φέρω: compounds and forms, 338, 
363, 490, 1220; stems, 823; constr., 
855;.use, 882, 1097; use of φέρε, 949. 

φεύγω: compounds and forms, 346, 
828, 1220; constr., 476. 

φημί: compounds and forms, 305, 310, 
319, 337, 342, 346, 484, 899, 902; 
use, 905; in or. obl., 1036, 1039; 
constr., 1083; ¢. οὐ, 1156, 1162; en- 
clitic forms of, 1211. 

φθάνω: constr., 551; use, $42, 1102, 
1120; compounds and forms, 1220. 

φθείρω: compounds and forms, 1220. 

πφι: suffix, 249. 

φιλέω: use, 1063, 1201. 

φιλο--: in comp., 165. 

φιμόω: reading, 330; use, 908. 

φοβέω: accent, 232; and case, 472 f.; 
with ἀπό, 577; aor. of, 852 f.; use, 
871, 995, 997; in indirect command, 
1046. 

φόβος: and art., 758. 

φοῖνιξ: accent, 230. 

dopa: in mod. Gk., 284. 

dopéw: spelling, 201. 

φορτίζω: constr., 484. 

φράσσω: forms, 1220. 

Φρυγία: with art., 788. 

φυγάς: use, 272. 

φυλακή: with ἐν, 523. 


1273 


φυλάσσω: constr., 477, 483; voice of, 
807. 

φυσιόω: spelling, 203, 342. 

vw: voice of, 800; compounds and 
forms, 1220. 

φωνή: in or. obl., 1033, 1042. 

φῶς: gen. use, 496 f. 


x 


x: 215 f., 222, 359. 

-xa: adv. suffix, 296. 

χαίρω: inf. with imp. sense, 329; 
constr., 509, 855; voice of, 817; 
use, 871; use of χαίρειν, 944, 1093; 
ce. part., 1122; compounds and 
forms, 1220. 

χαμαί: case-form, 296, 521, 537. 

χαρά: gen., 515. 

χαρίζομαι: forms, 341, 1220. 

χάριν: position, 425; prep., 488; use, 
647; with inf., 1069. 

χείμαρρος: forms, 275. 

xelp: use, 649; and ellipsis, 652, 1202. 

χείρων: form, 278, 669. 

xéw: compounds and forms, 1220. 

χθές: form, 206. 

χίλιοι: use, 281 f. 

xis’: 283. 

xés’: 283. 

χοῖνιξ: accent, 230. 

Xopatlyv: spelling, 205. 

χράομαι: compounds and forms, 319, 
341, 1220; constr., 476, 530, 532, 
920. 

χρηματίζω: in or. obl., 1036. 

χρίσμα: accent, 230. 

Χριστός: spelling, 192, 230; accent, 
235; with ἐν, 587, 784; with εἰς, 
592; and art., 760f., 795; and 
Ἰησοῦς, 795 f. 

xptw: constr., 483; compounds and 
forms, 1220. 

χρόνος: With ἐν, 523; case, 527 f., 543. 

Xpovo-: in comp., 165. 

χρυσός: form, 202; reading, 274. 

χώρα: form, 248; and ellipsis, 272, 1202. 

χωρέω: form, 369; use of inf., 1030; 
reading, 1082. 

χωρίς: position of, 425; use, 647 f. 


1274 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Ψ 
ψ: 209, 280. 
ψάλλω: use, 874. 


ψεύδομαι: constr., 854. 


ψηλαφάω: opt. form, 327; constr., 508. 


ψυχικός: Origin, 158. 

ψυχή: use, 689. 

ψωμίζω: constr., 484. 

ψύχω: compounds and forms, 1220. 


Ω 


w: 178, 196, 199-203, 324, 367. 

πω: compar. end., 276; verb end., 
306, 315 f., 335, 350 f. 

ὧ: use with voc., 463, 1193. 

ὧδε: pronominal, 298; use, 299, 548; 
reading, 696. 

w/y: thematic vowel, 323. 

πωλος: adj. end., 157. 

—wpev: per. end., 200. 

πων: nom. end., 154, 272; gen. end., 
257. 

ὠνέομαι: forms, 1220. 


apa: ὥραν acc. of time, 470; with ἐν, 
523. 

ὡς: origin, 295, 301; constr., 302, 401, 
431, 481, 661, 674; and τοιοῦτος, 
710; use, 953, 9638, 967 f., 974, 980, 
982, 1032; c. ὅτι, 964, 1049; c. part., 
966; discussed, 987; c. inf., 990, 
1091, 1098; in consec. clauses, 
1000 f.; in conditions, 1021, 1025; 
in Lu., 1030; ὁ. ἄν, 1040; use, 1130, 
1140, 1193; proclitic, 1211. 

--ῶς: names, 172; adv., 248. 

πως: adv. end., 160, 295, 297 f.; neut. 
substantives, 267; part. end., 274. 

ὡσαύτως: adv., 298. 

ὡσεί: use, 674, 968, 1140. 

ὥσπερ: use, 431, 969, 1150, 1140, 
1154. 

ὡσπερεί: use, 1154. 

ὥστε: c. inf., 431, 909, 990, 1088, 
1090; with subj., 931, 955; and ἵνα, 
999; in consecutive clauses, 999 f. 

—atepos: compar. end., 278. 

wv: 203, 205. 

ὠφελέω: constr., 472, 483 f., 541. 


ileal: δον.“ ιν. ἀπ) 


re 
ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee 


μι μι 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Complete for Scripture references and reasonably so for the other sources quoted. 
(Figures at end of lines refer to pages.) 


(a2) NEW TESTAMENT 


5 ὁ Πα δ get sci 780, 793, 795 
> oR Sgt aR ee 263 


Oss eer 760, 788, 1184 


αι ὦ BRS ees 269 


ο Ὁ hep ae 263 bis 


LETS a io GS A oe 501 


_ . B14, 977, 1041 bis, 1091, 
1121, 1122, 1132, 1184, 1188 
ον 817, 966, 1060, 1128 

τς 261, 334, 350, 418, 463, 
464, 514, 541, 817, 820, 852, 
932, 1060 

πεν, 287, 459, 575, 679, 
779, 872, 874, 889, 942, 1191 

. . . 349, 517, 534, 567, 582, 
636, 705, 774, 820, 982, 998 
area Ye 505, 611, 713, 881 
ee 541 
προ το. 459, 975 

. 255, 263, 408 bis, 575, 

760, 762, 791 

. . . «234, 366, 370, 419, 540, 
542, 840, 915, 990, 1062, 1088 
Be 253) 263, 760, 772,774 
reese, 517 bis, 627, 773, 795, 
866, 1043, 1045 

> sare 695, 1186 
. . 255, 559, 587, 652, 669, 
729, 1106, 1109, 1165 

ph ae 530, 762, 1106 
. . . . 366, 479, 860, 971, 986 
. 408, 642, 714, 840, 969, 975 

i Sees 258, 477, 484, 1122 
που 593 


1275 


bo bo 


wo oe Se ) 


29 


Oo ὦ w 


212 Aiea: Seas 561, 747, 800, 816 
51379 [i 918, 476, 613, 828, 8θ8, 
882, 990, 1060, 1088 

ΕΣ ge Ak) «ot Sens ΤΠ 
ΡΥ ΠΥΡΊ. 636 
Lbs 22) Sots fois eer ae eee ee 299 
ΤΟ ireeae, 231, 297, 298, 834 
1112, 1126 

Lis Me’. Uae eee ok eee ee 255 
S18 ve als he aera 475, 1159 
7:20 . 392, 406, 892 bis, 996, 1111 
Ια ΕΝ ΟΝ ΚΕ ΕΝ, 559 
22 ν᾿ 510, 574, 1029 
ZS be eee Caps ene 593 
Ltt ee ea 587, 697, 868, 1185 
Zena, . 408, 609, 652, 762, 895 
BOT, tats? fn re aes 255, 697 
4 36 231, 577, 620, 686 bis, 
709, 883 

5 a ay 200,024, 6525 (fon seo 
Ὁ . . 271, 525 bis, 586, 636, 651, 
760, 791, 883 

hi 213, 602, 735, 848, 883, 
916, 1176 

Ὅν ΝΥΝ es 504, 835, 1192 
οὔ AL > nue 598, 834, 853, 1035 
110 yee Gee Se 418, 423, 771, 881 
:11 . . 418, 428, 516, 520, 586, 
590, 645, 658, 679, 889, 1076, 

1148, 1153, 1186 

33122 ΠΣ 260, 355, 533, 562, 575, 
581, 606, 683, 722 

118 8 0 ἜΝ ΠΟ ate ne eee 575 
3:14. . 235, 677, 682, 885, 1076; 
1148, 1183 

215 ~~. :221, 809, 315, 398; 491, 772, 
881, 1058, 1086, 1110, 1119, 1126 
0 TAAL 2 ΘΟ, 575,068, 
1025, 1213 

SLT) eye's « 2002, 400, 090 007. 859. 


842, 1097 


1276 


Matt 
ras AER covert ote ac 635, 820, 880, 990 
BO Say at ed ΝΡ 349, 860, 1112 
BD δὼ ee, SE We eee 329, 993 
Αἰ δ the eee eae 731 
ey Woe ere hes 604, 649, 889 
425 iy CRS Came spans iam 756 
ASG. το ον en ee 221, 548, 625 
Δ ΤΩΣ 311, 319, 874, 883, 895 
Ac®S | Soultech yi be ere 0. ως 311, 419 
BO os eg Pak stele ee eee ee 705 
4:10 ΡΥ ee eee 391 
At epee eee 540, 838, 847, 883 
4:13.44, 2°. 219,273; 593; 6134750 
40153, aed eee 469, 500, 646 
AVG Shake Ree Cee ees 576 
δε © 2508269, 615;,656, 1190 
4519 cat bce 480, 517, 645, 949 
4320 ΎῚΣ RCO aes bas a eee 770 
4:21 . 263, 501, 586, 747, 770, 780 
4:23 . . . 477, 499, 562, 617, 655 
BD 20 bya cal Πα: 428 
7 SRO ee ns es Sd 412, 799 
ADO eat. PLS ΤῊΝ dec ἘΣ oe 28, 788 
Gites) 001, 09387097. 700, 1192 
TL μα ΤΕ τι προ 885 
ΤΕ ἘΝ eg a 417, 523, 762 
3553 rest MA RR wih Rar ee ep (57 
ORL ες a aero το 945 
“ie el Deere ee ΡΤ εν Pun? 443 
Te: Tale Pat age Δ Δ Ch ape 533, 764, 872 
BEG As Temas en eee eee 474, 508 
DEG aay Ae nae 395, 523, 871 
δὶ Bihan 394, 485 
6:11. . . 234, 392, 473, 505, 551 
ly AS 4 τ τ tO. ig ae 621, 855 
56:18 . . .° 269, 5384, 590, 739, 751, 
768, 1019, 1024 
Bild MES ae SI, ΟΣ 505, 642 
5:15... . 221, 263, 428, 491, 633, 
635, 757, 766, 1183 
5516 eee Sera, . 640, 710, 782 
B17 ie ΝΠ 407 2789 833 saa 


853, 857, 858, 932, 990, 1080, 
1088, 1187, 1188 


5:18 . . . 186, 405, 406, 561, 677, 
751, 933, 1062 

5:19 . . 660, 669, 698, 712, 959 bis 
5:20 . 516, 666, 667, 854, 933 
5:21 . . . 212, 342, 349, 504 bis, 
538, 541, 658, 844, 850, 889, 

957, 1035, 1042, 1157, 1162 

5:22 . . . 219, 502, 535, 537, 541, 
677, 744, 772, 1107, 1148 

5:22, 285) G ca one aie eae eae 866 
5:22, ὩΣ ee pe 1186 
5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44 1153 


ὩΣ 
δ 


σι 


ion) 


or) 


On δι Or Or 


Or Or Or Or Or Ort Ot Ot O1 Or Or Or 


O Or Or Or Or OF σι Ot Ot δι Ot σι σι 


3 

aes 

:5 . . . . 552, 828, 874 bis, 942, 
6 

ἢ 

8 


DODO OO σ9 59 σ9 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


DBRT eh ΡΝ 849 
:24 . 428, 470, 529, 621, 640, 
657, 690, 882, 949 

:25 . . . 375, 488, 573, 729, 890, 
975, 976 

26). aie sca ee Ἢ We 255, 976 
ΑΝ ΠΝ ia τ.) 889 
28 . 474, 508, 573, 842, 1003, 
1060, 1075 bis 

29 . 502, 539, 575, 681, 779, 
834, 992, 1009, 1018 

Ob fs eee Ren on aoe 687 
ἜΝ λυ ee 779 
SUPE (OFE Neon eee 850 
:32 . 348, 517, 646, 764 bis, 773 
PU PME Pot) as 224, 333, 889 
34 475, 588, 1060, 1094 
Bd £7) 73.7 ne 594 
34-8614 Mh an ΩΣ Ε᾿ 1189 
84. 39 = γον Sete ae cn ΣΉΝ 1084 
BB TS RS AON hit aN aes 633 
SG: ΟΝ ον I ak ana 853, 1214 
37 . 279, 516, 618, 660, 947, 
1150 bis 

ene eae ES ne | 727, 746, 747 
SOA shh mon: rae: ats | 
40 _ 437, 529, 588, 683, 802 
ΠΑ PRO canner 183, 562 
Ao te TE 311, 809, 855, 943 
:43.. . . 330, 547, 646, 889, 943 
44 630, 889, 941, 943, 947 
45  . 392, 757, 764, 799, 801, 1200 
AG 0S wh AARC i 735, 1019 
4G fine 2 Sak, eae ΚΝ 1181 
ay A ee 687, 850, 1019 bis 
ARE steko ae Vas 429, 678, 889 
Δ .. . . 244, 394, 542, 626, 818, 


820, 858, 991, 1003, 1075 bis, 
1080, 1088, 1148, 1148-9, 1173 


:2 . . . 349, 429, 577, 633, 687, 


853, 866 bis, 969, 972, 986, 1154 
. 652, 662, 856, 943, 1131, 
1170, 1202 

. . 487, 471, 658, 764, 986 


963, 968, 986, 1157 

. 204, 777, 835, 855, 947, 1186 
184, 589, 591, 969, 1035 

. . 452, 482, 720, 726, 857, 
881, 895, 978, 1061, 1075, 1091 
459, 464, 779 


Say Oy 18 ey OD) Oe re ee 


“ἊΝ ον eee Te Oo, 


110. 334, 350, 396, 600, 818, 1181 


159, 779 


EE a ἂν......... Χ..«.......... 


Matt. 
0:15 . 518, 575, 598, 652, 653, 
853, 932 
UME SAO ee eae 1186 
τ ΠΤ 1185 
6:16 395, 427, 85 Ae 1040, 1102 
6:16, 18 pallet 
60:17 683, 779, 811, 1035, 
1102, 1126 
τ os ς, 589, 891, 1115 
6:19 231, 405, 853, 875 
i ἀπο ΒΝ ΤΣ 286, 687, 1186 
Ro ιν ς ς 702 
τῶ ee 523 
eo 284, 768, 1018 
το πτ ας οὶ 849 
6:23 : 740, 917, 1027, 1186 
6:24 "951: 573, 748, 749, Tole 
890, 1052, 1188, 1191 
6:25 . 539, 564, 738, 853, 917, 
935, 1028, 1044, 1176 
02 SS aos Se τ Πρ 1031 
ΠΌΤ 581. 1035, 1183;:1185 
G27 old, 561, 733; 891, 1115, 1128 
6:28 . . 341, 606, 619, 799, 1185 
6:29 . 502, 515, 746, 807, . 
1164, 1185 
A 2 5a2; 11071115 
6:31 738, 934, 935, 1028, 1044 
6:32 404, 419, 705, 771 
0599 πὸ τ ats 542 
6:34 . 411, 509, 547, 594, 765, 
853, 1202 
4:1 . 853, 890, 947, 983 
(32 . . 584, 590, 718, 721 
3 . . 471, 685 bis, 738, 782 
7:4 . 234, 286, 430, 596, 931 
ea : : _ 582, 659, 1088 
7:6 ν᾽ 203, 538, 763, 853, 875, 
988, 1185, 1200 
Te . 357; 1023 
Pe BA 1213 
Ly ἘΠΕΠΠ πππστο τ  - - . 773, 866 
eS 439, 482, 917, 1177 
tO as ee 917 
ΠΟ πὸ  ς 231, 1023, 1188 
metus $740,°1053, 1062, 1103, 1129 
ge 427; 704, 732, 733, 959, 1180 
| LR ae Sek ιν sa BOO 
πο ες 1200 
es ke 730, 739 
7:15 . 272, 477, 548, 589, 727, 
729, 800, 966 
716 392, 566, 576, 1172 
MM es om eo. wee 231 
EE et ee 3 Ὡς 402 
7:20 meee 420, 1148 bts, 1190 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Ὁ 


οοοο - τ --1ς NW GV ἢ AA 


Owe 


οοοοουοσοσοοσοοοΆσοοοοσοῦΤοθοοῶο 


[0 oie oe oe oe ohne 2) 


Ω ὦ ὦ © 


1277 


BIR πο hot ἢν 752 ter, 1107 
22 . . . 367, 524, 525, 708, 917, 
1157, 1175, 1213 

23 548, 559, 575, 1028, 
1035, 1165 

24. . . 468, 479, 602, 727, 772, 
905, 957, 1105 bis, 1107 

25 . 361, 366, 606, 905, 1157 
δόσις, el oe 727, 752, 772, 957, 
| 1105, 1107 
OFS ORR ce rear eae 1100 
28, 350, 532, 835, 883, 970, 1043 
D8 στ ς ile sia ch oi 966, 1207 
PARE | sacri teeing fas Wh oF 394, 656 
Lp ee aihcrs iy 597, 683, 1132 
ΟΣ τ dad Ὑ 501 015. 1010} 17] 
3 . 183, 391, 684, 770, 1028, 1216 
4 . 330, 338, 430, 595, 683, 
849, 854, 932, 949 
ἜΣ aa ten: 932 
Bi Sto ale ee ceeds cane 258 
Rr ive tee es 329, 635, 653, 657 
658 bis, 681, 819, 992, 1076 

9. 391, 817, 1180 bis, 1182 
10 PS, cca mee eee 710, 844 
Tian me 334, 357, 408, 819 
(Oo oe Re 278, 298, 803 
ΤΊΝΟΣ cane ue ee 818, 968 
Ve γέλιο ΤῊΝ 1026 
Lb Ὑὐ eee ee 367 
ΤῊ ee | 392, 533, 653, 773 
Le apes le ada 491, 646 
19. 282, 292, 674, 675, 796, 969 
D0 tes, Sah) . 737, 757 bis, 800 
Dime: Ue eae eee 748, 1152 
οάνενν ψιν τα sate Carnes 690, 858 
ἘΣ. ΚΕ eat 525, 560, 585, 683 
DTA ha Gs Re ener ne 679, 883 
OF oes. (an ee 828, 879, 941 
ΘΉΚΗ S47 SEI oe: 738, 813 
27 . 292, 507, 543, 741, 917, 
1001, 1176 

28 597, 634, 708, 1171 
29 348, 621, 702, 1136 
ΡΜ, ΡΝ νὰν δ νν 499 
Bie ee ep eee: 948, 1009 
20 Sie an eh tee 339, 570, 607 
SA χε ie 528, 609, 628, 771, 
995, 1046 

ἜΣ ee 691, 692, 770 
Dak f rage Sigg ee 315, 603 
4 . , 244, 395, 739 bis, 916, 1176 
5 . 186, 617, 737, 916, 917, 
1176, 1177, 1190 

6 . 119, 319, 434, 443, 562, 


907, 1203 


1278 


Matt. 
ΟἾΟΝ ΡΟ By ΗΝ 409, 710 
OrQ gt): steer 314, 602, 800 
O29 fis FE ue ae eee 215 
9:10 . 316 bis, 529, 1043, 1131 
OT AOE ee 244, 916, 1176 
O12 Wise ee ea 316 
0:18 . 261, 844, 1163, 1164, 1166 
9:14. AP AS AE ree ee 402 
9:15 300, 497, 559, 722, 733, 978 
ΟΥΑΙ: ele eee 214, 278, 604 
P17 . 251, 292, 342, 352, 745, 
880, 1025, 1220 
9:18 . 433, 842, 1109, 11382 
Die ZO oe andes omer ere 212, 1115 
ΟΡ τ τ ae ee 1019 
9:22 264, 433, 462, 517, 575 
Osa a ee Rie ea ea eae 512 
O25 1 tren. ee Ae Ree 300, 508 
G26. με τον ees 708 bis 
Qi 27s 29% οὗν Stes CEO aC mes 463 
9229 rei eer ne eee Sere ee 609 
9:30 _ 368, 430, 932, 949, 996, 1218 
G23 κε ES Se CO, 708 
GOSS Ae ΡΣ 477, 655, 773 
9:36 211, 212, 364 bis, 619, 968 
EY ls eee SALA Ue in i re ia 1155 
OBS AE τ i, Pe ee Vee 995 
10:1 500, 809, 990, 1089, 1090 
LO as Το On 657, 767 
νος ee 760, 859, 1114 
LO ΑΣΑ ee cantare 495, 500 
ΤΟ ΣῪ τὰν 358, 800, 881 
LORS. a cte VEO ear emee (eee 488, 799 
TOS9 ONY, 8S OFS ls OTS eens 810 
10:0 Τα Sad. eae Gree serrate 852 bis 
LOTLOSS Sere τ ὧν 395 
LOS LIS Ca EN eee tee 1185 
LOPS VO ies Pale 874, 948, 1019 
10313 Cis ee ee ee eee 849 
10:14 . 437, 517, 642, 813, 959 
10:15 . 214, 257, 587, 663, 666 
LO EL OME os νον eee 648, 653 
1018 Ss) ae Ata ee 1180, 1185 
10:19 738 bis, 739, 972, 1045 
LOE2QO ni.8 het ἐμ ee eee 401 
LOSZ LB hea ot ee eee 403 
10:22 . 357, 487, 584, 792, 871, 
889, 891, 1110 
LO εν ee ἢ 748 bis, 776, 976 
ΡΥ ie cata Mt 6 632 
1 ΟΣ ane 393, 537, 740, 992 
10:26 . . 884, 472, 473, 485, 575, 
577, 726, 816, 853, 960, 
1001, 1158, 1164, 1200 
10326528: Os a oni aaa ee ον 472 
10:2 25e8 chs - 603, 705 


10: 


10: 
10: 


10: 
10: 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


28 352, 472 bis, 473, 577 bis, 
1046, 1213 

23, ΘΙ Fam ΣῊΝ 1170 
29 . 395,300, 010,515,603; 
637, 638, 751 

OLAS. eee ns 437, 519, 853 
32 . 108, 436, 475, 524, 541, 
588, 957, 959, 961 

BQ EPC, oo, eee ere 956 
Bais 727, 951, 957, 959, 968 
Ps ESS bo aa Pecan a ον 956 
νοὶ 603 
DOF s5 cote er ed eee 284, 581, 607 
LMC ΚΣ Byes seed 633, 1108 
ον 1108 
alli SL ΗΝ ΤῸ 956 
ΘΟ ΚΑ ae? Up 956, 962, 1158 
7:39 . 859, 1108, 1109, 1111, 1112 
Ay GF gcc bates: 859, 1108, 1115 
ALT. ΕΣ as 356, 389, 525, 595 
2's Ee δ ον eT ΝΣ 593, 649 
42 484, 653, 1108, 1202 
rl ἀκ κα Βανι το Se δὲ 683, 1102, 1121 
23) ok) Me RAAB L984 10 7 ΕΠ ᾿Ὸ 
fh a ev aa pare 194, 258, 726 
δ ἐν νον Sar 052, 816 
ἀὐένο ἐπν τὸν Tee 765, 820, 1088 
1-02) han Ae eee 1166 
oe ee ΧΕ "364, 589, 653, 1088 
0 τα eee τ 100 
10 098, 703, 960, 1193 
ΝΣ ΣΎ ΔΑ eee 518, 587, 668 
12 SAMS oe te se ee 548, 816 
Sot Rae eee a eee 367 
SLA SU GIS NA pe eee 1026 
SL OC ey eee 186, 477, 748 
ΠΟΥ Rooks eee) ΝΣ 204 
ΟΝ le ae ee 279, 670, 1078 
:21 . 269, 302, 923,1014,1015,1193 
Sp ae ᾿ Σιν a G46 
Jy as : 505, 643, 653, 792 bis, 975 
DAG ΑΝ ΝΕ 1036 
ὙΦ, . 337, 419, 523, 682, 696, 
709, 965 

ἐν tees 461, 465, 769 
τ . 682, 742, 752, 842, 878, 
1024, 1164 

Ot AER opie 235, 625, 682, 915, 
924, 1193 

QOS ON I ΕΞ. ere 873 bis 
ΟΥ̓ 200, 523, Ὁ 5 
1028, 1182 

DOP ier Baste oat a cee ee 262 
Poe! eile Eee 696 
10 ἈΝΑ Pe! 262 
ay Pane 392, 523, 587, 1159 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 1279 


CS) ly Se οὐ ae TOR SATE ἸΘῪ 52. ΤΕΥ oe hoa 727, 957, 1156 
1.40] 011 714-776, 1016. 150|Π9 a 233, 315, 993 
1025, 1032, 1039, 1084-5, 18:14 .. . 94, 531, 539, 1004 bis, 

1119, 11380, 1188 1110, 1127 

AS) ΡΣ eee ΟΣ 1 ten... 201, 376, 533, 844, 
τον»... 261, 904, 923, 1015 988, 1173 
LOR eo... + ede Ό5». 219 en ΝΣ 339, 367 
TRONS: 2 511; 512, 910, 1024, 11 ΤΟΣ || σον 501 
ες, τὸν τον 292, 740, O99) fh 1S2alO Re το 00 
(10S) | AN oe 401, 656, 746 Loe? Ue etter eae. cos ae 623, 1136 
IL τ ἢ πα Ὁ ΠΝ OS ΟΟ Ue Les p25 meee gee. Mas ors aes 695, bes, 1149 
ΠΥ - -ππτύνος er GOA? res U5 eae aes aes Sty eit cane 835 
HOMIES σι: Hens wel, 005 VRIS2o Gobet oe 244, 550, 571, 762, 
UIST U5 Spal ey) oS ue 474, 842 1070, 1073 
ΠΥ τς νου τ LOM acy esc: 348, 762, 799 
AD NS Se 365, 1212) 13: 2788 ReLLOPOLis 107; 1176 
τ τ... Ee Soo, SLOTS _ 418, 430, 878, 924, 935, 1175 
Da a οὐ τς 292, ΟΣ 071. 13-00 534, 637, 638, 1157, 
τ Ὁ . 590 1164, 1174 
dV εν 319, 406, 413, 817, 1105, 13:30 . . . 479, 482, 626, 639, 645, 
1106, 1116 : 974, 1075 

ΟΣ O02. 00,042, 876, 1008! 138231 2 -- 656, 836, 1126 
“OL, fi ee Δ 615231 713 
PAV ADIT προ Sh se ihe. «. = 08407, 18:32 7.5. 2 5194,.348,, 372.018; 1000; 
ΝΥ. ree i.) 1205 
or) ΤᾺ | 425, 429, 1008, LLQOCOrsh LS Somiet ay sees ἢ 503, 1110, 1126 
COUR ον ΝΣ . . 7142, 757, LOLS ye US tS 4s eee ere 517, 648 
orl) oso ba ee e007, ΟΙ1 17 A153: S05 area eee ae 791, 1106 
OMe oe, oh ks θυ 19:9 θῖν 233 
methane: 494, 500, 65 Β᾽ 779, RY Ree et) ον τ. 768 
σιν... 1 594, 607, 1165 ΚΒ ΤΣ ἀπ 40 ree = oes ic. a Ne OOO 
Ἔν... a. 880, 924 15:1. Sey. a eee a ie care 598 
SES nie re 408, 757,776 18:44 . . . 562, 580, 715, 837, 868 
A  --:: 450. 450} 4091718) ἰδ ΠΥ Gs ie einen 715 
Stet ἢ BLD, OL ON AZ 9) 9) Ld MeO. Lames tka css ace 847 
Sth τοὺ -ς.,,.. 20543 5. 0 2a τυ 735, 837, 844, 897, 
ΞΟ ἢ - ον, 429 1110, 1120 
BA Ls ge. 452, 525, 561, ΟΝ 10 tae mele eater 561, 763, 837 
SORE Se a i 268) 15: 0 ot. eee 550, 578, 648, 775 
UT SU ὦ 418° 5607 582) 1S: συ ee 310; 115041 fo 
fee ee Στ, 300, 548, 1041 13:52 . . . 399, 475, 539, 559, 656, 
BAD Me oe his . §16, 611, 749 727, 1206 
Sh soe Gh) ee 6679; 9572 “1355 S4EIE ee en eke ee 1091 
ΙΝ ον 11 7. 10) 51. 9: eee ae 157, 917, 1157 
Ἄν τ ὐνὺ, Ὁ; Peek O02: 0701190᾽ 9) 13550 ΠΡ συ 625 
ΟΥ̓ yb 652. 75 7104: 1088.) 141i Se esc ee fe ae ote sari 760 
74 P07, 400; 564;.606/695,) ΤΕ ee oy. 694, 840, 842 
(oo, Oaters CLAUS epee eet 508, 585, 840 

He oo OS ee τι τ ρρρὸ, TAT{s” νι ρόδα ee ee 485 
νυ ΠτιΠ..:--ς ΤΙ ΟΠ ΙΑ ay ae a ee 481, 817, 1129 
i > Be SOL 1071 1001} sc14 Deel πΠ  υ ων 648 
ES eA ᾿,: TAD 740) ΠῚ Tae eee oon ΠΟΙ δ, 02 ΠΌ Ὁ 
POM Meth cls ΡΝ Δ 794 1031, 1039, 1047 
ΠΕ A τὸς νος 838, 883 14:8 . . . 299, 360, 434, 604, 866 
NS ES a ἐπ OG? 14s OF aA PAL ce ΘΕ, ὁ, ὁ 1129 


τ he's (6 +) sh is, 5.8 TOT 14:15} ὋὌέὲὺῚ πΠΠπΠΡΠ « O20, 20UIDUS 


1280 


Matt, 
ee AS See ed Vea oe aa 568 
bet Bp ke so are 546, 613, 842 
Δ TRIN S Hate i hale ae eae ee 265 
14:19 350, 367, 561, 1136 
18120 Ble hee ye ie 392, 1109 
Be Cee a uaa 419, 648, 674 
TA Sah ae 477, 857, 891, 975, 
976 bis, 1048, 1081 
14°23 ΕΣ 224, 656, 657 
14:24 WEE « cateivone 469, 644, 775 
143 25 ode), OR See es nara 523 
ΤΠ ον ον ΠΥ 603 
14:26. Ἐπ Cee Rave et roe ave ee 580 
14528 SES. ἘΠ sates 601 
LAS QOS A es as aris eee 601 
143 OL Δ ον 508, 739 
14:99 ey Soe ae ee eee 546 
14334 thiss, TA ΡΝ 219 
LAS OD IRR Ge ta ον 17. 546, 827 
14:36. . 732, 956, 958, 993 
ΤΟ ΘΟ, 564, 811, 972 
15. ΕΣ ata ates 739 
RGSS (attra eb eels eee es 477 
LOSOE sR Cc re eee 631 
IG DS ask Gees 485, 789, 875 
ΓΑ 0) οὐ τὴ Ἀν τ i Ben ony er 845, 874 
MnO Ae lass oe ae eee 482 
15:11 559, 1166, 1172, 1187 
LOA: ici tend ore eee ee 488, 849 
LOFIG. aia eee 488, 546 
a Lid Wy geo omemeny A πη τε wing etge 113, 1035 
LO SUS ays aoa aca ΟΠ 561 
τη τ χτ ae : . 408 bis, 427 
16320 8. eee 1058, 1082 
ΤΟ Tie Ae 261, 463, 464 
15:23 341, 484, 645, 1135 
LBS 25 ISK ον es ee es oe eee 541 
LS ΘΝ iit ΣΟ: 757 
ΤΟ τ Ὁ 519, 577, 1110 
15$28 AST Aa ey 463, 464, 1193 
1b: οι CE een Wate coerce 615 
ΕΠ} aka τ ele OlpaTAo lize 
15:32 . . 266, 275, 460, 602, 623, 
126, (37 
15233 710, 990, 1089 
153.34 0c) ον ae 740, 1176 
L535 ΟΣ 491, 561, 602 
LDS SG) vet cots ye eee ee 311 
Lb ρον ον τ ee eee 219, 502 
1 ie ete ΣΕ rs ae 1182 
16325 oi The Ree ee 213, 460 
10 ποτα Se oe ee 147 
ΘΝ ee cae 1062 bis 
16553150 tae ie Matta Wed ge davies 812 
16:6 .. . . 472, 949, 1047, 1183 
L637 bbe a ee ee 1028 bis 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ee ΑΚ ΒΝ, 1028 
οὐ ΝΕ ΑΕ Ὁ 506, 1045 bis 
LOSE: hae ASIEN per ce 1164 
oe eee ahr aioe 1047, 1160 
ΣΚΌΝΗ 1029, 1035, 1047, 
1060, 1160 

ἘΝ ees 781 bis, 1103 
if oe. 695, 749 bis, 1103 
EU epee eat On o 695 
16teeh Wet 235, 678, 768, 781 
Tyee pete pi 255, 419, 682, 842 
18 . : . 174, 255, 408, 457, 510, 
562, 604, 682, 780, 791, 875, 
889, 1028, 1029, 1185, 1201 
19a 231, 265, 361, 907 
20 . . . 485, 679, 983, 993 bis, 
1046, 1049 

21 . . 311, 579, 587, 1035, 1082 
22 . . . 260, 272, 396, 541, 942, 
1157, 1175 

25 Mat tee ey aimee 174, 498, 562 
DATE eee ees 690, 742, 878, 890 
OB SL crc ee 425 
26 . . 485, 501, 935, 1023, 1129 
Nise sit alae 576, 745, 882 
28 . 489, 743, 794, 955, 957, 
| 962, 1116, 1123 
1: ae 224, 787, 788 
Bi eee, ἡ Oe ee 405, 562 
4 . 425, 490, 538, 661, 750, 
1009 bis 

5 . 367, 396, 697, 776, 837 
GEN Be eee 409 
SAIC! SO a ake 657 
Dees iG ΑΔ ΟΣ ΝΣ 596, 597 
L0G ae π'. - 487 
Re een ya i ic 870 
[QUA ORR Oke 484, 588 bis, 815 
12 Ae eee 513, 1132 
LBW AER sone oe 802 
16 (ales. 334, 350, 368, 817 
17s 300, 548, 643, 917, 
1101, 1176 

ἢν Ἢ ΣΟ δ 224, 487, 739 
20 . 268, 300, 308, 328, 548, 
849, 889 

DO shin? sth). Se eu 594, 870, 1132 
προ 681 
DAS al goer πο ae oe 580 
25 551, 748, 1102, 1120 
D6 yi ae 513, 1132, 1148 
BGG wey Bie owes: 1190 bis 
27 . 425, 573, 593, 687, 792 
EN Gator tet Lae κι 668, 916, 1176 
δ ῆς 5 ine oy er 216 
Ἔν ἀλη 551 


a eee ——— 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Matt. 

ths. 0 a 244, 281 
Τὐολϑ δ. ὦ Ty ck. ee 525, 710 
ΠΡΟ τ tl’, ., 317, 594, 620, 992 
τ -.- . 537, 577, 580 
ΠΟ ome. ter, 400, 537, 593) 658, 
661 bis, 687, 1084, 1188 
UE perianal 276, 496 
OER UD) 5G ieee 995, 996 
“gS, Ue a 541 bis, 870, 1019 
i τ δι OF ree 
το δος 1019, 1043, 1058 
18:14 te ee yee 00S 
18:15 : 339, 348, 428, 505, 562, 
645, 687, 842, 846, 949, 
1019 bis, 1020 
IS eee ..--- . 604, 649, 846 
18:17 . 231, 539, 757, 846, 
1019, 1027 
eye bese SAI. τ 362, 375, 733, 907 
Thad ἢ ΓΝ ΕΠ ClO LOLO 
eee ki. ἡ 593, 656, 685, 767 
18:21 281, 333, 356, 548, 674, 
889, 917, 934, 1176 
στο τ΄ τς ΥΩ 
Os Oe a Si re 611, 837 
VS Soe Sele ee ee : . 109 
Re ers re. (att. 233, 283, 674 
18:25 oa 514, 735, 1048, 1068, 
1132, 1172 
1 a 538, 568, 570, 949 
ΠΌΜΝ ite Ws Publ}. es . +e 605 
See τ τ᾿: 509 
Pere, ΚΤ ΣΌΝ . 538, 883, 1025 
Pathe ὑπ: 309, 834, 885, 976 
πο ba. τ ως 689, 690 
ΠΣ eels 8 1: . . 464, 708 
1394 oe 886, 919, 968, 1181 
LISI a) ea or ‘tio 
DRAGS seal τ τρποιον 746 bis 
USI Oe oe er 517, 763 
Rae oe Sa ΠΣ 5}. See. Gal fi 
ΠΣ tiene Σὰ 009, 910 bis, 1176 
Ree ee. 3s lee 5 iy 
USE ey 458, 595, 819 
ike 9 ΝΎ 314, 845, 1165 
Ug es eee 626 
OE ee a τς 646, 649, 747, 1028 
πε Os eae 545, 1008 
hy ᾿ς 706, 720, 752, 1163 
ΠΟΥ τ. 233, 312, 367, 727, 
1190, 1214 
RS 710, 1061 bis, 1094 
OS ea rr 675, 735 
Seige te s,s. 3. 653, 661, 738, 768 
πε τὰ πὴ οὐςς 700 
19:20 . 419, 476, 478, 1216 


1281 


19:21 949, 1023, 1038, 1083 
ΤΟ ΟΝ ee We be 110, 1127 
Le CAR ΡΝ an tnt es 192, 666 
LOE ZO Seco inee Re ae hoes od ee ees 1096 
ΠΝ: 309 bis 
ΠΟ ΜῊΝ 314, ‘BOS, 601 
LEERY hn oid ab ee αν e 673 bis 
LOY SUG. AEA ee aay, ©, 280, 669 
20:1 . . . 548, 638, 658, 728, 809 
20:2 , 470, 510, 562, 599, 611, 769 
ΟΝ Ons aon es oe aat MoeC lees 586, 620 
ΟΣ ΟΣ ΚΝ Ἀν ee 920 
PANTS ον ΟΡ ΝΣ 190 
BOe RES es sce ae 470, 738 
ΟΣ 643, 1126 bis, 1203 
ΟΝ We Gre 
20:10 766, 876, 1028, 1029 
ΟΣ Se es 530, 658, 842 
0. eh eee es 472, 510, 881 
2 1G ote, te Ἐν 769 
ΟΝ ΟΝ 224 
ΦΟΣΤ  ε te : 532, 794 
ZOTADS Wee ek 349, 522, 595, 1072 
ZU; AON Sh ay ae eee ee Ὁ 482 
ZS BO R22, ee ae meen 805 
QOS εν ΤΣ 597, 750 
BADE nen ΣΕ ον 291, 343 
20:23 685, 721, 765, 1153, ‘1187 
ΘΟ ΟΝ ΘΙ 619 
ΡΥ Ἀν ee ena ee De ees 1100 
0: ΘΟ ee 190, 948 
ZOS2GHE. eee ee 874. 
20:28 175, 567, 573, 1088 
ον og) ate ΣΝ ΑΠΌ 
PASS τ ον 409, 464, 491, 615 
DOs τ ee ee Ot eee 994 
BOSS. Cae ee ees . 1213 
DUES eee ie cee 267, 834, 971 
D2 ae. BAGS ΨΥ eee 644 
7H A at AB a ed i OEY οι 742, 874, 943 
PA ie SEER etree ot Io lion st Oy weg hc ὦ 1123 
ORDA t APOANM Re Basalt 536, 560, 633 
2E Ose cto oten amare 968, 1126 
PA ell pl LP i ad cele eh ς 409, 477 
21:8 .. . 279, 318, 404, 660, 690, 
774, 779, 838 

AT o OTe υ a ere ee 525, 670 
DUST OED ERP rise totes oes 697 
Al VER ἢ τ. Se teegenh dO Mesa ery Gol fini LU fag 219 
Die ie Pees os ον 1122 
PALA ΟΡ... 649, 845 
iS LOE hee era 594, 603, 674, 943, 
1024—5 

20-21 . 767, 849, 1018, 1026 
DOD Ee Ate ee a wee ee eee 959 
DIAZ OR ac ea aes 653, 740, 1188 


1282 
Matt. 

DL QAR rel te eee ee nenets 482, 740 
LS Lee ieee Ue eee 300, 613 
TASTE Pa er at Sates γα Ὁ 443, 481 
OA OY (Mgr ota on. bee Pet pest 1185 
DS DS ele” Cone ee 949 
yh a! MR Er merce προς Prarie oc 1157 
“215. Δ SA og of) 291 107 
21:32 . 334, 996, 1060, 1066, 1090 
21:33 . . . 808, 340, 367, 399 bis, 
575, 617, 727, 1214 
D1 3a Os eee eee 696 
91: 90. Εν 516, 667 
DSS Te ee 473, 485, 819, 873 
βὰν ἦρεν νον γα νῷ 990, 097 
2YS59 wht sel toate eee 1213 
“1. ἢ) ee Neer eee ee 484, 880 
21:41} . , -. 119, 355, 727, 878, 9600, 
989, 1201, 1214 
ΙΝ 254, 410, 458, 587, 615, 
655, 704, 718 
DU: 4 3 See a ee es 873 
21:45 .-. . . 787, 1029, 1035, 1041 
DASAG A980 FO nae: 334, 481, 965 
See Ra tata Get, Pears 409, 860 
iS, αν. Net mae ae ΟΣ 408, 957 
2 |e boli aren eaten Lm ey eh 885, 919 
PPA A> Ag SAD ALE AM, τς 788 
dy TO Tena ENE ea se ike 399, 691, 695 
ΡΥ Ae ΛΑ oes or ae 834, 835 
ΣΝ Eee re eh ee OA aoe 11.) 
ΠΟ ΟΣ a ae ane 424 
POND TSE cate τῷ 485, 818, 1138 bis, 
1139 bis 
225-11 fh eee er eos ΤΠ 
ΕΝ ΟΝ ie Ls 1198 
ΚΕ Vaca Pe ae 486, 828 
Pian i See mee Ce, 2, CNBr ey ἃ te 148 
PIAA Lye Grae oh Mt CPt cot oe 392, 550, 619 
PAS ΤΟΣ τὺ tery τ 269, 1158 bis, 1177 
αν leAlngen a PgR GA 891, 1081 
222 2b ae ean ore: Roane 348 
ἀλλο, τές τοι ΣΝ ΔΕ ΔΑΝ ΚΝ 488, 668 
ΕΘΝ Nc a ΠΥ ΡΥ eee 833 
228 SO prank? cae ee 392 
22 DEK pale Sea ee a eee 840 
PPA aa Μὸν τῶ τ A 660, 740 
ΣΟΥ ΗΝ ore Cr eee 774 bis 
DAIS fa Saws oleae 411, 661, 669 
22239 | ee ee 232, 530 
22740 os Ne reat okie 917 
2 ΑΕ ae ee wee 760 
PEE Sn Pe i ate ey ye ae ye 480 
29: 4415 ΠᾺΡ ΤΑΦῊΝ 310, 314 
252 Dee wees 758, 786, 837, 866 
PSS ρον ὁ 733, 866 
2333, 10. cee ee ee ee 1128 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ρα A Mas ee ree, 560, 1184, 1186 
PETA ae ROE Satie ot 8 542, 1075 
θα Re Pee ae 957 
93: 140 A eieie. tet 892, 1116 
33) 15 Neen ee 204, 278, 299, 652 
763, 1202 

28-16 tae ee 424, 475 
58716718. 7 ee eee ee 720 
23 2174 eae Ὁ eee ΤΠ 
O27 19) ΣΥῸΣ 737 
5.18 Ῥα LO ae er 1146 
D300 fy) oa) eee ee ΜῊ 859 
PESTA Δ baie tee ue tae, 317 
23:23 . 261, 309, 310, 337, 347, 845, 
886, 919, 944, 1080, 1084, 1092 

Da od ut Ain ya ΡΩΝ ἮΝ ἐν μον: 205, 606 
OB OL Uhr ee eee 642, 765 
23:26 . . . 517, 640, 641, 642, 765 
23:27 . 203, 260, 267,.506, 530, 548 
PESPL RIE ΑΘ Luis = 1102 
PEED Vee aia emg 505, 633, 1153 
23:30 312, 340, 394, 922, 1015 
Do aT | aan ana 538 
δα Τρ ik ene oe 948, 1198, 1220 
PASE a amare Ct 476, 929, 934 
23:34 . . . 266, 333, 356, 515, 599 
23:35 . . . 213, 255, 645, 715, 789 
23:37 . 120, 204, 486, 531, 689, 
718, 917 

PRS Ree og ro SV 548 
24:2 565, 601, 828, 960, 1001, 
1158, 1164 

DAS τος, ΠΛ ον τ, 224 bis, 787 
D4 ALY cb ee ones 430, 933, 995 
DATED) ee [eee 604 
24:6 480, 500, 889, 932, 949, 996 
24° νον ρον: 353, 593, 889 
PETA δ aa. 357, 660, 858, 966 
DAS ὦ ae ee ee 698 
24 TB is ae ie ee 320, 434 
24:17 . 231, 307, 328, 599, 856 
24:18 . 453, 548, 586, 645, 856 
BASSO ecu eaten 495, 522, 523 
24:21 207, 244, 731, 793, 1175 
24:22 752, 772, 1016, 1163 
DATEL i Coe ee 990 
DE OGV ES: ale ED ΑΝ, ἐς 409 
DAO TREE col har a ee 792 
DAIS Εν Ne icles 871, 969 
24:30 334, 356 bis, 603, 611, 
819, 873, 891 

94°31 sea eit ee eee 611, 775 
DAS SI Shot ey rae 232, 341, 640 
DA°39°51 1D Oe ae eee 443 
DAV AS Nt ae 525, 604, 792, 972 
D415 ters Ἢ key eee ae 757 


- “eave ios 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Matt. 
ae UOMO Oo ey cee os cl elie 776 
τος 621, 639, 717, 974 
Sa ee Rin A eT 975 
ALND Sia aly πρὸς Ὁ 675 
oO Sa Ὸ 750, 869 
1 τἀ |S Sie ea 154, 231, 233, 675 
ARGU IA RA Ste 292, 522, 740 bis 
24:43 . . 349, 708, 740, 870, 922, 
1014, 1015 
2A NU eked Ce eh rr 718 
24:45 ΤΟ δ 77. (90,-192, O40) 
916, 1065, 1176 
Re we ae 891 
ee SMP ee cee wo cane 8) 604 
Ὁ αὐ Ge i rrr 849 
Ret Ee this es (ss > *s 1 1ORAGACIS 
fan dh" Cee) Sei ie (21 Rls 
RSA CL GU | ie a Se οςς eg 
PAGO ον 611 
OMRON re hic c: she) ews ss 611 
ΡΝ re 349, 367, 838, 883 
25:6 . . . 495, 522, 775, 793, 897 
oasled (ie Se ie 318, 879 
25:9 . 244, 334, 689, 818, 929, 933, 
934, 995, 1127, 1159, 1161, 1174 
ZS στο ----ὕ -ς;ς. 212, 108 
ΠΩ MN EE CC 1200 
ΟΣ Sa ear τς es 969, 1203 
Ate CRD Shs Oy το τς 1153 
Sov, Δ πῆ τ a ee nr 969 
ΣΟ ροΠἘΕᾳὩάἉππ τ ig) 308s 282, 090 
TERT  υ---:-. 746, 813 
ΗΝ Ms oh = a πδοιο ςπξὺς 747 
ΞΟ 4 eb ee ee 652 
29:20 835, 910, 1111, 1118 
24 Ve 24g SAG τ τ. 1125 
PAV COME 7 a Ὁ ΘΝ ΡΣ 337, 601 
Ad i PE 9g ee τὍπτὺ---ς 299, 604 
25:24 . 718, 909, 910, 1034, 
61 110 1118 
ΣΟ Mee Ue set ls es 548 
HAR IARS ge Oa τι πος 1045 
PARAS . 886, 919, 922, 1014, 1015 
JRE ISU RYE \ fea aan ar ae 873 
ΝΜ Cy OR rr 559 
ΡΟ ee 9 ee τ, 408, 1153 
25:34 504, 516, 777, 793, 1106 
Phir ee . 340, 347, 1087, 1200 
OOO SER ON ke οι δες 915 
PA |p GO" ΕΝ ΡΥ 234 
PA AY Does SD ela ee 334, 339, 357, 819 
ΣΟ ΟΣ ee eee 917, 1123, 1176 
Cate MT TER ty cho! oe 094 08 ς 234 
er MEU ΕΟ 0 0) 733 
HOC TY COS 9 hee τρολῆ τες 963 
RCO leans ges aes 777, 792, 1096 


ΝΜ i) Ue cee ae 1157 
TES Dito g- stk seg WAV NES S1Z2 1157 
SERPS A SY ely sheet Sue 1157, 1159 
TAGE © ete ae eee 242, 1153 
ΟΣ tee eas ae 595, 612, 869, 870, 
1072, 1090 
SAS tot ote 263, 693, 811, 993 
SEVP IE νος cant One αδ ον ΤῊΣ 1202 
Ome CoM Nok owe. 263, 595 
SEBS) ORM se. ua hee Ree eee 512 
SORA τ car all ρΎΝς 739 
Δ Die) Se es rear 510, 886 
5ᾳ 1} ὺ δ oh eo a Ae ee 484, 842 
ΤΥ RR As Oe ae 603, 1075 
ΡΝ Agel ol titers 842, 873, 969 
|e: ea be) SMe rn ΩΣ, 934 
15 951, 1023, 1183 bis 
LOM δι τ ΤΡ ere 6) cis eae 674 
pad Wf OPA ee ery 400, 935, 989 
718 . 234, 292, 491, 625, 744, 870 
20 pth 'S-Fe 48 ae eee 316 
PIAL MEA bh Wise bk oe pe: 675, 7438, 746 
S22] 120 hie. e-a-0 Pee etree oe 917 
:23 . . 525, 559, 585, 698, 707 bis 
724 707, 886, 887, 920, 1014, 
1015, 1160, 1169 

:25 . 859, 915, 1028, 1114, 1168 © 
220) 4: |: eg το cane cee cane mee 842 
526 (28 ΦΌΡΡΙΥ oe ee ace 768 
τ ee ΟΝ ΚΝ ee δ19 
728 . . 219, 352, 567, 595, 618, 
1106, 1116, 1118 
ΘΙ Greet ua aa ee AN Oe ee 523 
ΣΌΣ 490, 563, 858, 1039, 
1074, 1092 
BOCA ute, a eke 1008, 1026 
SAS ae Ss ohne hte 873, 1091 
35 . 208, 628, 849, 875, 1026 bis 
SO ALA elas θνν ἐς 976 
BOIhe tee ya oe 617, 648, 856 
39 «ot Ce. 469) 655.) 73872187 
42 . . 1012, 1019, 1020, 1160 bis 
VAS. ΝΥ cae ire 906 
SAAS) SY yew, satel, cps eee 597 
745. 807, 882, 890, 948, 1183 
T4067", 312, 428, 439, 799 bis 
SA αν come hoe oat cP MMe 774, 1127 
50:2... - 602. δ᾽5; 000, 7252917 
Pea Big eG BALL 496, 805, 810, 1205 
ChLa το me oe 524, 534, 859, 1191 
53 . . 276, 312, 666, 681, 1214 
Fda τ ΠΝ eM oc oe ΤῊΝ 851, 934 
ΤΕΣ Secale ΤῊ Ὁ 602, 818, 884 
a eee See ener aes ΣΆ, ΡΝ 705 
Bae, ΠΤ okies 694 
teh etre thi a the %- » 883 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Matt. 
PACES! Bele rime eur |e 505, 883, 986 
26200 BSE Le Felden ae 1129 
SETS Laat ΜΝ, eam 581, 697 
ΟΣ house) ec bases 562, 738, 1126 
26:63 . 475, 607, 781, 865, 883, 
993, 1045 
2G G4 GA get ee 678, 679 
QGEOD. ον. 212, 802, 842 
20 SOOsem Ca sere τον: 504 bis, 658 
PAUL ERR ete ἢ 212, 561, 694 
ZOCOU AE, ΡΟ 313, 337, 674 
ZOOM ΠΣ 517, 1136, 1182 
DOs Lites SeGlaaesen eh tide 547, 697 
2OSTB BAW ἘΠῚ 28, 108, 653, 1182 
20 HFA Sl ett ἊΣ 1028, 1035 
26:75 . 910, 1028, 1091, 1113 
DESIR, 2 URE 653, 990, 1089 bis 
27:3 . 609, 817, 858, 859, 860, 
1112, 1113, 1128 
27:4 ἮΝ: 109, 290, 339, 626, 736, 
859, 860, 874, 942 bis, 1121 
2 DA Re Cars 409, 807, 860 
QL Mtoe ΣΎ tetas 510, 537, 599 
27:8 643, 848, 962, 1202 
ERATE ROA oo wey, UNA ΟΝ ὦ oO 1201 
ΡΣ Reps a tatedter iss aie Ncleieels 967 
2d 678 bis, 768, 769, 915 
PoE ARS gree Sy ΤῊΣ 473, 484, 1073 
Piso τὴ ἘΝ ΡΝ ΜΑΣ 512, 741, 1177 
TEA rie vie cede 473, 738, 751 
ΟΣ 606, 608, 884, 888 
Digi Brite Ἐν Δ κὰν ΠΕ 330, 737, 1177 
27:18 . 583, 841, 888 bis, 898, 1029 
AE LO oat rans 396, 707, 842 
ARI ZO ER teens 805, 835, 993 
δ ee eae 515, 577, 737 
ΥΩ MR eae atom ae 484 
27:23 . 279, 845, 1149, 1190 
: 24 . 810, 576, 639, 644 ter, 
678, 770, 874, 810, 942 
ΡΣ ΔῸΣ ΟΜ, ἘΣ ΣΟ ΤΟ ΝΣ hore ee 1202 
έν SEI SS ΈῊ 562, 593 
BEGLD Le ell Eile nee eto 483 
BCL a ea ei 465, 474, 598 
ZIBO. Gia Ee ORS Se 593, 884 
2kalLye, OSS. WAR eter 483 bis, 840 
PY bs TAN ania Panel Hea 2) | 528, 993 
27:33 . 411, 714, 881, 1087, 1105 
χε ey TEAS ae eee 611 
27 $35 OS Pee Λ τα Sue 690, 811 
20357 Vey. Ae ee ee 604 
AUD IAT, D4 hae ere 697 
AUS BS) ER aos yokes 675, 750, 792 
21939 50, 4S es 473 
27:40 . 308, 465, 581, 781, 892, 


1107, 1116 


ΣΑΣ ἢ ΤΌΤ βς as Mie ok yy. tele. 374, 891 
ΠΝ fie SLY! 307, 419, 746 
πον o. old, 1028) O18 Uae 
27:44 . . . 409, 473, 480, 482, 487, 
1106 
745 ee Si) ἢ . .. 602, 643,'°772 
SHAG As 29, 95, 215, "219, 261, 
412 , 463, 705, 739, 842 
ANAT Ss oh ee eee 235, 1136 
πα alle 430, 877, 931, 991, 1045, 
1118, 1128 
27:51 . . . . 297, 300, 580, 643 bis 
DFG De oe teen , EES 
ΑΝ 258, 780, 781 
ὩΣ c4 a teatee es 548, 727 
PL ΟΣ ΟΝ May Gn er fave 957 
ZOO Ores see 263 
27:57... . 208, 263, 475 bis, 487, 
. 697, 800 
Ὁ ΘΑ ay, ee Eee eee ae 697, 1078 
σοῦ: τς 042 680715 
Ὁ ΟΊ. 405, 505, 639, 747, 1104 
ΟΣ Εν 653, 728, 765 
BeOS BRE At ee be 816, 870, 1035 
21 OE Ὁ 280, 669, 775, 794 
ZO DOR). So eae 949 
PAB) See Rtg Bed Ay hous 611 
ΘΠ SIA bis, S19, 6224622 
646, 775, 841 
PS2 > cc eee ee le δ ἢ 841-2 
δεν, ἐπ eee ee 197 
ΘΕ i MARR os ie ΤΣ: 430, 845, 931, 949 
ΘΟ ΤΥ ΩΣ eee 842, 889 
POLO Ae orn. een eae 949, 993 
POL Jag eaten ene eee 233 
ὩΣ ΜΕΤ beatles fe" 8 871, 1019 
ΣΟ ae PAT Brel gn, 614 
QR UL GANS oe Ce ee 694 
2881S" tr AG ee ae 772, 842 
28:19 . . . 475, 525, 592, 649, 684 
ΘΙ as NeN ee ter πο 1128 
Mark 
ΤΑ ee ee yt ce 781, 793, 795 
Leen Phere 606, 621, 956, 960 
1 FAT, AA ta Ae 774, 1106 
1:4 . .496, 595, 782, 891, 892, 1127 
DDT rm ΚΝ 592, 791, 1127 
ΕΟ nyt. el eee 118, 204, 485 
1:7 . 231, 656, 722, 961, 1052, 1126 
ΘΈΣΙ ΕΝ 524 
ον is ieee 497, 525, 592 
1:10 . 517 bis, 561, 577, 597 
1131 Soll eR eR Aa 532, 768, 837 
Wig? DOV iA. ae ee ee 880 





INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


_ Mark 
1:18 255, 611 
1:14 ean rove 1074 
1:1Ὁ 3 119, 458, 580, δ40, 001 
1:16 . Les 
eh : 996, 1023 
1:19 ΚΘ 
TRAE 262, 559, 880 
ΠΣ 1127, 1140 
123 ae Sage 589, 784 
1:24 : 118, 263, 395, 488, 738, 
762, 916 
γέ . 994, 540, 1181 
1:29 255, 611 
151 ate wey S60 
| So USAT. 348, 1109, 1214 bis 
1:34 a 195, 315, 319, 367, 546, 
1034, 1216 
Pleo 606, 766 
1337 Ε Sink: 1028 
1:38 299, 424, 477, 595 
1:39 w) 118593 
1:40 474, 849 ter, 1214 
1:42 a. ὍΣ 183, 559 
1:44 ἣ 118, 450, 019, 932, 949 
1:45 : . . 900, 604, 1186 
aA : 119, 525, 559, 581, 586, 
593, 1120 
2) Ol ρΠ δροιοΣ 119, 625 
ay SOs ci. 392, 1097 
2:4 . 604, 969 
ον ἡ 900 
Bote 118, 221, 697, 705 , 1025, 1129 
27 ie ae 737, 1215 
2:10 “119, 434, 907, 999, 1203 
weit 428, 855 
2:12, 16 ὙᾺ 1028 
OO πτ|ς . 119, 596 
215 316, 393, 10438, 1190 
2:16 730, 917, 1029, 1035 
TIM VEL OCS Ske ee OO) 
2:18 é 786, 787, 1186 
2:19 “528, "587, 718, 133, 879 bis, 
978 bis 
CUD ae SS 118 
EE OT a eae 212, 1025 
AAS Se  ῦς Bean (ae 14 7S 
2:23 ; 523, 720, 763, 1043 
2:24 523, 738, 1045, 1159 
ASAT Se ea . 679 
A a ea 603, 628, 714 
AOE OE “το’οὸ,οΤυ» τ οὔτις 584 
2:28 439 
US OO ντος E656: 739, 902, 1123 
LOO NS re 1024, 1045 
ΠΟ τι eg me τὸς ὌΝ 770 
ay py ee 368, 813 


ALLARD A 


1285 


Ge Ae ate ae 994, 1214 
ΤΉΝ ΝΙ, 596, 611, 624, 838, 1183 bis 
ay ae ...') 28,620, 733; 898 
ἘΠ 118, 404, 884, 922, 958, 973 
14 : 611, 1088 
16 441, 459, 488 
16, 17 ere ρει 
1 WAS eat = 1 τσ Ν, 411, 434, 713 
LS ee ck tag eet ea 530 
DO ithe aes aN) 627, 792 
ML GW Ὡς os on ee ΠΟΤῚ ΤΠ 842, 845 
EAs TE Ur ΩΝ a VALE 778, 1106 
23 . 1036 
7 es Faas Peet soe a eh νὴ δ 817, 879 
ΘΟ AMS Reed ot eee 602 
SN a ἈΠ Sane a et ae 1010 
ya meet Lean ce yl 8 479, 732, 733 
θα Be a eee ae 504 ter 
DO We ΥΩ ΕΘ τ {1 5.0] 
BR eos co ee . 991, 1115 
SYA) SRE MAES, UMD | (Mea gfe oo Ἰὴς 404 
DARA Cage) a as 521, 524, 617 
ΤΥ A ete 525, 615, 625, 670 
Bl ΧΗΣ hee ὄρ 
Hse &. “107, 339, 1073, “1153, 1183 
ΜΠ NaS eats Ue ΝΎ Lio 
UD wee Orne | Se 747, 749 
(CU AE bee ΑΝ ἃ [ΟΡ 
τιν ιν, Co ΕΟ 589, 592 
δι 202 ΣΝ, 232 
th hee (ς. ee 20 eon. 
10 244, 841, “482, 550, 653, 765 
ΠΡ ee. 233, 315, 1173 
AS TS Ske BOS Se Cease 
ΤΣ ΣΤ . 300, 880, 1131 
21 ΑΝ 789, 917, 1028 bis 
:21, 24,26, 30. . . 883 
2 659,164; 960, 999, 1020, 
1185, 1187 

23 Bee Cit a 956, 1009, 1087 
24 BM, ὰ wnt. 392, 471, 718 
2D : 399, 720, 956, 957, 1158 
2G aes Ta: 603, 928, 968, 974 
BG Lac: Ov eiranexe te eee 987 
OTOL. watt OLY FER. ot. 470, 1213 
28 s 160, 183, 273, 275, 276, 
549, 687 

29 tes Se Ae 809° 800; 97201214 
30 407, 678, 736 
31 516, 782, 1104, 1129 
ὌΨΑ ΓΑ Δ νι 343, 371, 635 
20) a eral ero κα 710 
885. Fie. EA eee 884. 
te See ee EE OB ae 224 
SOMA. in cs ees 549 
a7 ΓΟ ΤΣ 561, 800, 868, 1000 


1286 


Mark 
Ax38 «(4 427, 602, 623, 879, 965, 1034 
4:39 .. . 330, 360, 428, 908, 950 
4:41 . 405, 468, 699, 1001, 1182 
TPE PEL ue aI ue ταν ἃν 223, 1165 
5:4 . . . 231, 581, 636, 765, 828, 
909, 966, 1070 bis, 1071 bis, 
1079, 1081, 1091 
Cae eerie Weg ck pate sete 244, 582, 793 
BRO ae cna a 8 oe con a0 hrclak ene ano ὦ 300 
WH fs ee ere Β 279, 475, 483, 670 
B20 ee ae vane eee 656 
δ eyo) SU ει: 624 bis 
519 283, 580, 607, 674, 884, 968 
τ} ΤΙΣ vo ee ae ans eee ee 1043 
δ ar eee on) 4 868, 900, 910, 1099 
1117 bis, 1136 
BP 1G va atl soe eek Geet ese 1032 
BSS Oyo. PE ere ne seca aie 1117 
δ:᾽19 . 624, 733, 901, 1045, 1177 
ΘΟ ares 625, 733 
5223 . 297, 299, 324, 546, 933, 
9438, 986, 994 
La: BS Ms PP Rr oe ee cee 774, 838 
ΟΣ balconies 779, 892, 1115 
ΤΡ E2TR ia) ie cee coe ees sens 1105 
ὄνοι annie Goes 1136 
ΣΟΥ a eee 615, 635, 1110-11 
τσ earns a ag Cokes me Pe Ὁ 619 
5:28 . 208, 1018, 1025, 1027, 1060 
5329 . 232, 524, 1041 bis, 1216 
500 . 508, 599, 1042, 1110, 
1123, 1136 
Dias . . 838, 883, 1088, 1136 
εν τᾷ . 542, 726, 858, 897, 1118 
ΡΣ ΠΥ τος τ ΕΝ 264, 462, 596 
Heo oie ihe wah ciate ee 502, 845 
BBO ae Sits Ga Re wes es 845 
B91 ΟΣ Ge eke oe Cur tally 1166 
5280 ΙΝ ee ee 1119 
5:41 29, 104, 465, 684, 714, 
866, 881, 1119, 1215 
5542.) Ceo eee 497, 531, 1190 
5:43 . 308, 1079, 1085, 1214 
νι, ee eek sade ex © RS 880 
6:2 .262,0(05; 1010 19. (30,07 70. 
6731) 6.2555,203,,6975 20S arse 
ON i Se oe eee ees 269 
OS sas eee 368, 682, 751, 1011 
1013 bis, 1169 
Θ᾽ ρον δ 5: 212 
G6 ΑΝ ΠΡ cues ees 797 
Go εν vou Chie aE: 284, 673 
6:8 . . 488, 441, 657, 944, 950, 
993, 1042, 1046 
ΘΟ: 5 ΤΑ 1047 bis 
Θ᾽ ΟΝ: 413, 438, 633 


Oo δ᾽ & DD δ᾽ δὴ δὴ δὴ δὴ δὴ δὴ δὴ δὴ δὴ σ9 


Juv ἢ Δ ἢ Δ NNN SS or) 2 δ᾽ DH δὴ δὴ δὴ GS? GH. 2. σ᾽ σ᾽ > σ9 OH δὴ δ᾽ OH δ" δ" Oo 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


LOWS ee ig ee eee 969 
1 eee eee 257, 517, 647 
12 AR aT eee 993 
CS ΣΙ ee hee eae ape 483 
ΤΑ een 694, 1029, 1111 
16: 5 ee ee ee 698, 719 
PTAA OR Cit ae Ape eae 964 
ΤΥ are 539, 542, 800, 1202 
ΟΥΑΙ ΜῊΝ 1103, 1123 
D1 ate Pst ΗΜ 408, 523, 786 
Ὡς Δ Υ 5, a 482, 956 
9 ΟΡ ΑΕ τς ΤῊ ΣΡ 805 
23 . 275, 502, 643, 655, 729, 


775, 959, 1028, 1032, 1040, 1047 


ΣΝ αν λον, 1. 934 
DAT AS Oe nee ae 805, 934 
25 . 431, 611, 933, 943, 993, 
1139, 1214 

DT. a Wats eee 1084 
DO 1 pinot eee ΕΑ ΣΟ 310, 347 
BO 80) a cote ater aaa ae 733 
31 224, 367, 488, 654, 1087 
Bab Toi) ἐπ Πα του δον 580 
BAU ΡΥ τον 482, 1140 
Sb eda 279, 640, 670, 737, 
1044, 1045 

37 . 201, 309, 580, 876, 934 
88 1 ca eee 916, 949 
39 . 460, 487, 604, 673, 1084 
30 £7 be ws τά ee 284 
40 . 460, 487, 673 bis, 1210 
A. sh RAIN Rg ΟΣ 613 
Bh eh wy. ones 259, 975, 976 
46 Ube. VRP ee aes 542, 684 
ATT. Na a 550, 686, 775, 884 
48 400, 477, 528, 640, 1073 
SOF asa ae 604, 806 
BS Pet ΟΣ pe 214, 623 
55 234, 477, 604, 617 bis, 
884, 953, 1029, 1049 

56. . . 318, 733, 806 bis, 922, 
957, 958, 969, 973, 984, 1025 

ΡΥ ΑΚ MEAS ge C8 562 
Die eee aes! 234, 399, 416, 705 
Shite tia os 4 Peeedeneter 806 
8. ΠΡ τες αν eeee 439 
4 256, 791, 807, 1087, 1218 
Bir ad Aad Ghee oer ae 790 
Bh ga ab A Cae δ 367, 546 
Ἔτι. τ 1198 
10 arth ie Roe 0. Ἐς 793 
1 Spr ort 233, 270, 433, 599 
1023, 1203 

ΡΠ oe teem 484, 1162 
13 tsa (ae Pra aes 715, 716 
LEK Me ee sctit.- th gs Fo ee 642 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Mark 

πος τς 298, 488, 548 

ΠΕ 5 215 28} πῆ το τς 3 
ete παν τον 118, 413, 488 bis, 
11380, 1203 
ΟΣ τὺ 707 
οστ΄ τις 408 
7224 . 27, 156, 334, 350, 368, 
1094, 1162 
ΟΝ ἐν} 560, 683, 722, 1205 
WOME Coe ek 155, 487, 884, 993 
Detect Se 633, 634, 647 
ro), Se ae 1123 
fools “a 491, 596, 775 
το  --π- 210, 770 
ἌΝ sk eee κι; 231 
ΠΝ ΠΣ τὸς 29, 215, 714 
7:95, 849, 549, 835, 838, 885, 1218 
7:36 . . 278, 279, 488, 546, 663, 
680, 733, 967 
ΤΙ ΕΣ > Gy 171, 297, 546 
8:1 . . 407, 696, 708, 737, 1131 
See το ---΄ 400, 720 
ith) 4 et A  »., 266, 275, 337, 1215 
ally a rr 508, 1028 
ΟΝ. τς. 561, 983 
ΘΝ 8 Uh 05. 0, 339, 1046-7 
ραν νυν 529, 614 
IAS ἸΤΥΣ ἢ 94, 1004, 1024 bis 
lie) LS να ΟΝ 190, 841, 1060 
Ee oy pa an 471, 541, 577, 949 
idl, ee ere 360, 409, 789 
TRE pa) SS a 902 
EDL” sao a) ee 535 
tie Aad. τ 259, 807 
ΘΟ a este ys 508 bis, 916, 1027 
ΒΡ η΄ 423, 1041 bis 
ΟΝ Ae NS ee 170, 368 
ey Aaa) ly sr 747, 1028 
PASC a ae μει 1036 
ΟΠ SE στ΄ τς 861, 1186 
ΘΝ AES.) ahs. 350, 579, 1035 
| οὐ δος ον 727, 956 
ron) Me, pel Ee ae 956 
siagoe .-. 193, 956, 957, 959, 901 
male | (<n ie cd 472, 485, 689 
δι. A 309, 573, 935, 1214 
ΠΟ ὦ 472, 485, 523 
9:1 . 742, 957, 962, 1041, 1116, 1123 
tied) oy Te ka ie 428 
shy 0) πὶ 375, 723, 890, 903 
Use. 4) AN SOS 268, 529 
ΠΥ Nees ei sk ep es 750 
9:6 473, 738, 1028, 1031, 1044 
ὌΡΟΣ ...ὕ0......ὕ. 657, 809 
Sit) es aS es eon 1025, 1065 
GRA e ses» , 1058, 1065 


DEL Teese trons eel haart 730 
ΘΠ ΠΟΘΕΝ ack error αὶ 244, 917 
9:12 149, 219, 224, 316, 342, 
602, 993 

“τὰ δ erie Ce νυ λέ ψον. 1152 
GIS IEP. ee he eee τὸ 732 
ΟΣ Tre Pao et ie ea 620 
URE te ΤΥ es 407, 597 
OPTRA Siro et ne 624 
OL Sao Mini! 184, 318, 850, 969 
QE GO Bee en χα es 264, 464 
9:20 .. . 436, 603 bis, 883, 1139 
9:21 . 300, 740, 741, 963, 974 bis 
ΟΣ ΟΣ 312, 472, 948 
OF THe eo ner ys 340, 1214 
Εν ee nN 118, 491, 766 
OMA aes ΡΣ ἘΝ 465, 769, 1173 
G S20 RAR ΤῊΝ Ὁ 412, 968, 1091 
OS28 3 cates ΟΝ ae 224, 514, 730 
9:30... . . 808, 988, 994, 1055; 
1156, 1214 

OSS LSE Ste ΟΝ 815, 870 
οὐ  c os C e a 118 
9:34 .. . 334, 529, 668, 811, 818 
O23 8 per: ceeee tern 775, 874, 961 
O956 SEs Sie a eee ee 800 
0:97 ,.. 710,77], 954, 1163, 1187 
οὐδ ἢ ΟΕ an eee 964, 1123 
OF39> bien: Fee eee 726, 1164 
940 e 2 ia eee 630 
90:11 wire es  - 484, 795, 1053, 1054 
ΟΕ ΌΤΙ ae hc 663, 997, 1011 
οὔ rar asus 218, 1019 
OFAS FAST Cee sort, Ὁ 661 
ΟΞ Δ ENR ns ΤΡ 849 
O44 aie ie. Sree 231, 850 
O74 AGN 5 te eae, eee 849, 1084 
OLAS A, oa Gree ge pad ees 318 
DAG ἀν 269, 534 
9 S50 Tea re ἘΣ 145, 269 ter, 534 
1021 ae eae 801, 904, 968 
1032 Were re ar ee 794, 916 
10 S46 εν τὰν eee 1028 
ΤΟ ΝΕ 574 
LOS OIE IA ΣΝ ΡΣ ΜΡ 314 
ΤΟ ΟΣ ΡΝ ΥΣ eee 593 
10:1 ΡΝ RE ΠΥ ane, 747 
ΤΣ ον 747 
10213 Ss ae. ee 392, 538 
10816 ΑΝ ὩΣ eee 318 
10:17 εὐ τ eee 418 bis, 474, 675 
10:18 . 176, 276, 298, 479, 480, 
656, 661, 916, 1176 bis 

LOS202Fn oor ar oss oe 597, 842 
10:21 . . 302, 476, 541, 834, 1193 
1Q22 208), ΣΝ 888 


1288 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Mark 
ΤΟ ΘΑ mee at peed ΣΤΟΝ ΤΣ 741 
ΤΟΥΣ 902 
ΡΥ ΤΌ oe tak ee tee ee cone 780 
TOS 26 ee). oir ch πε εν ee eps 1182 
RU ED eR alec shel ee cn 542, 1096 
ee ep beige pee δ τς 309 
10:29 . 427, 726, 955, 961 
POSS AM ΟΣ 611, 673, 727, 1020 
10:32 376, 541, 888 
10 ΘΕ 533, 539, 882 
LORD EA) ee τὴν eae 333, 356 
10°35. 156, ner ae 405, 501, 933, 994 
10 935,133 Nee a Merete icra 805 
LOS SOR ao eae ses Sees 430, 994 
10 Pa diey ss coeoeae 750, 993, 1065 
LOSS ie: τς 426, 478, 485, 879 
LOSS E55 eee tea 715, 717 
LO239 PAUP See Σ 312, 356, 1214 
10:40 721, 1058, 1065, 1076 
ΚΙ 2 Se Se et 7d aie 510 
LOS Bete oo? Oke ον 961 
ΤΟ eee reas 5738, 632, 815 
TOSEG Mite ene sie Ponta. ream 1204 
LOFETEES HI OR I Υσὶ 760 
LORS LH ave το ες δου 933 
UG ARS aN ea ae eet os 259, 624, 971 
ἘΣ A eee 505, 1165 
MED is Davee gto tee 738, 874, 943 
AS Bae eee vin ee hee aes ee ἸΠ0} 
1) το aoe ene th re UNS Tee τ δ 309 
WAS), Re SAR ORR. 198, 593 
ΠΡΟ ΠΕ ΤῊΣ 620, 786 
RAPED PhO, yer pe are te een 279 
11:13 . . 877, 1024 bis, 1027, 1043, 
1045, 1190 
11:14 854, 913, 939 bes, 940, 
943, 1170, 1178, 1215 
LAD pA pee crete sence cee 
"1 cae τὸν ΕΘ nd 63 315, 431, 993, 1216 
US aka eae. 786, 838, 995 
11:19 392, 922, 958, 973 bis 
Lie ZOLA Oe ie a ee 362 
ERD) τ τ ee 473 
Ta 22 inate Nee en eee 500 
LUZ onesie ete 880, 1048 bis 
Τὴ eee ae 732, 1023, 1029 
125 ον 150, 188, 351, 958, 972 
BBY esa etree yar Ve 292, 740, 916, 999 
τον ete Ae on eh 11.727 
RES) ROE hr ἀγα eda Ἐν ΚΡ ΓΚ 018 
11532 295, 443, 551, 887, 1029, 
1034, 1203 
1241. Ὁ SEC ae 190, 308, 409 
Vere We eid ere 519, 614 
B22" ioe of bes Bee 149, 551 
12:5 .. . 213,394, 694, 696, 1213 


123 °6 AD yahte Ve de era 334 
ΤΟΎ ΘΙ Ὁ» 480, 768, 789, 931 
1 APACS Ras ace 339 
ΤΡ ΟΣ xt Pao ee 718 
12:11... ... 234, 254, 410, 655,°704 
12312 . 858, 1060, 1078, 1183 
LZ 8 8 Carron eoe yaar . 233, 786 
12:14 792, 850, 928, 934 bis, 
1158, 1170, 1177 

LAUT ee ere aa ae } 597 
1221S oa oe ee 1046, 1082, 1171 
TOO we A eer hte ee 309, 348 
ον eee 669 
FD: ZOE Tee ee 497, 587 
ΤΥ δον a Se eee 700 
V2 26 199, 253, 603, 1032 bis 
1228 Aer ae ae 410, 516, 669, 740, 
1042, 1123 

1 SO SA aa? ον. 774 
12530933 (PAP Sree ee 774 
Τὴν Cee ee Peake 667, 688 
τ, Ἢ ρος 1187 
1250 . 789, 890, 1058, 1081 
ΤΣ SE AM a ates eee 297, 546, 551 
T2395 79 veces eee 660, 774, 775 
ΤΉ aR ey ee 441, 589, 1106 
13389. ©. ee eee 1199 
12238740 Fue Een oe 458 
12:40 AMM 5238415) LOG ASO 
12-41%; . 839, 844, 883, 884, 1032 
122A 144 ARRON eee 838 
Το ΡΥ ΗΝ. 411, 674, 713 
TSA SA ia το cere, ee 700 
TS Re ee ea oe ΝΣ 413, 741 
182 +5. 638; 960) 962, 1174, 1175 
18e3 tee. 224, 593, 644, 930 
LORAIN cee 972 
TSS5' Pare ee eee 751, 995, 996 
BS pO errs hs eee cee eee 593, 603 
LStLO SG Ae Sa eee 535 
151) BSA. 233, 709, 738, 768 
WPLS SA Sea ee 859, 889 
193149, Se ere 320, 429 
15: oes eee ea 308, 599 
13:16 . 453, 525, 536, 547, 548, 
586, 598, 645 

13:19 547, 710, 715 bis, 722, 731 
13:20 ἢ 424, 584, 752, 818, 1015 
Vil. J Ae 1170 
19 εν iS Oe oe ee 1075, 891 
15: oy ee δὴν ἐὸν ee ὩΣ 873 
1 by ον aes OOP ἃ 353, 375, 782, 889 
1116, 1180 

1S ΟΝ πο a ae 599, 775 
13328 232, 341, 350, 614, 827 
ΟΣ soda bckey roar ee 601 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Mark 
UE ie Be Sa 873, 975 
Ve tes ei ee τ re 873 
COBY US aa re 1177 
RE SEMEN Sek oy oy mck vs . 993, 1203 
“os SS ae 185, 495, 1188 
MIM Πρ τ το ρες 987 
Pera PM ς ἘΠΕ τὰ Cece 720 
UG th eT ΝΣ 408, 590 
τ ΟΝ πον 988 
14:3 . . . 253, 339, 342, 499, 512, 
607, 1127, 1131 
it π΄ 739, 916, 1176 
14:5 . . . 341, 368, 511, 538, 541, 
642, 666, 674 
oN a SR ae . 484, 564 
Leto oy Oke 299, 473, 879 
ΤΕ οι; 551, 845, 1120 
OLIN) ΝΠ ς are 593 
ΕΠ TEL, ee 969 
τ: a 675, 983 
τυ ES aS  ς 309 
ΠΡ πο ae 1090 
EL owen ck e's ss: oa 522, 980, 989 
14:13 . 333, 356, 499, 578, 873 
Wid τ τ  284 Bis, 442,737, 955, 
960, 969, 989, 1045, 1049, 1177 
ite tri 2) ee τς . . 185, 260, 538 
14:19 . 105, 282, 450, 460, 555, 
568, 606, 675 
MANO. ile Wy as he. ces 231, 525, 560 
ΠῚ UE Sn as 432, 1016, 1169 
ΑΗ τς 213, 618, 629, 632 
Le NN oe 708, 854, 930 
ΠΡ τ πὸ τς, ΠΝ 
14:28 . 355, 681, 756, 871, 1070, 
1074, 1083 
14:29 . . 394, 1008, 1026 bis, 1203 
14:30 . 522 bis, 550, 873, 1091 
115. τ τορι) 529, 819, 850, 875, 
1019, 1026 
Mus gie) AY Bon 9k ee CM Sr 976 
OS ke as ee τς, 856 
14500 Ph. ae 42-003, 88a, 993 
14:36... 29, 186, 461, 465, 561, 737 
14:37 ru pee. 426.1103 
14:38 : 933, 994, 1153, 1170 
14240"... . 319, 339, 1183, 1213 
ἘΡ ee 391, 392, 470, 487, 577, 
800, 842, 866. 
Tea eG iho! te. 312, 931 
ΠΕ oe enn 526, 786 
ΕΠ ΠΥ τς, ς- 679, 905 
LEDS 4) Ga ie τς ς ὡς 606 
ΠΟ cc " . . 339, 684, 1213 
14:47 . 292, 564, 684, 742, 805, 


810, 828, 1110 


ΠΕ ae at ΣΦ ΠΡ: δ20 
14:49 550, 625, 1187, 1208 
ΤΟΙ ον tka 485, 529 
14:54 4 314, 548, 625, 643, 807 
1 ΟΡ ον le xe ve 367, 607, 883 
LEADS I acer ce ih ea Some te alate 1042 
14:60 550, 648, 738, 775, 792 
917, 1158 

ΤΑ GL Bey ss were reels 695, 917 
LE OS OR πες tte. Go ea ee We ek 212 
LE ΟῊ ΠΕ το ΣΟ ον. 1036 
TES ΘΟ dot hese cies 391, 530, 617 
L426 ΡΟ ee: 118, 313 
14:68) oreo eres 620, 1185, 1189 
1 ΕΣ 70. ee aes eee ee Pe 612 
Το τὰς 91.7.51} 
14:72 . 509 bis, 550, 800, 861 bis, 
1091, 1109, 1127 

LeS1h ta OO eee: 787, 802, 812 
1533. ter eee 367, 511, 884 
Lp TAY APR cn PEE ate ν. 292, 917 
| ia Pee eee mera A. 6 ok 473, 484 
15:6 Ἐπὶ ee 291, 608, 710, 884 
922, 1154 

LES 6-1LOS ee TE τε 905 
15:7 . 255, 339, 366, 727, 841 
ΤΟΊ ΡΥ ΑΝ eee 1205 
1 ΠΟ eee 366, 841, 1029 
DST ΑΝ A ae ee nee 255 
Lhe PA ks Deere eye 484, 718, 720 
15:16 32, 411, 505, 643, 712 
ΤΕ ΣΦ ΤΩ ΓΤ 918, 488 
1 Εν ν. 465, 898 
1Ew0 hh ΎΕΥΨΝΝ 203, 542 
Plier ot oan 183, 791 
ΤΟ ae a 259, 411, 483, 714 
ΤΟ ie Cy cet Sete ~ Baby 695, 885 
15:24 737, 916, 1044, 1176 
15°25 ἀν ΠΕ: 793, 1183 
L229 ΕΑ Ὁ ale Ae 231, 1193 
15230 »A94 tees 307, 802, 861, 1113 
LESS 2" eee ol are ean 308, 856 
15283 Nee ce ee 793 f., 794 
L634 ae 29, 205, 261, 714 
TH3052 oe. Oe aoe en ee 320 
ΤΟ ΘΟ τ 430, 742, 931 
15 ΘΗ 300 bis, 548, 550 
ΘΑ τ 597, 649, 652, 697 
1340 ie 297, 300, 501, 780 
L634 1s, SoS Sao, eee Ὁ 529 
16242 oe ee ee re 965, 1139 
15:44 . . 430, 845, 916, 965, 
1024, 1043, 1045, 1177 

1 Bist: Asari ΣΝ ae 579, 760 
Lh a ee 542 
LB S47 a sete τ: ΟΙ, 1043 bis 


1290 

Mark 
LOSE rote te ice: (othe fs) eee a 501 
ΤΟ aha an oe 523, 602, 672 
1G ΔῊ ke ile ae 596, 597 
LOU ΝΣ, 1035, 1041, 1190 
AG SOY Celotta ΡΥ ἫΝ 408, 485 
10% Gece oa rade ao eee 817, 842 
IOSOP AAs casits bee 578, 672, 905 
16s10 Σὸν eee ae 708 
Ute PAS Sieg, ay 293, 749, 792 
10. te ee eee 208, 472, 1026 
1658932 oe eee 561, 1074 
AOE 20 Oe Ciel cress 891, 1127 

Luke 

Le Lae twee coisas 367, 841, 965, 1154 
Lola te es ene ee 107, 121, 418, 
432 bis, 1208 
Us Sears vere 308, 347, 687, 1214 
1:3 . 221, 244, 279, 392, 463, 464, 
670, 771, 1039 bis, 1084, 1085 
ἘΣ ae ee ais, ees eee 719 
12578, Gee Wn gees ae 292, 395, 743, 760 
Ti Gi wale ae eects eats ee 505, 641 
1 a ee ee 523, 587, 906, 963 
1:8 . . 148, 505, 640, 658, 979, 1072 
Ls Gee . 231, 509, 1060, 1068, 1113 
Ἐπ A) See epg ear ow ak 888 
AS) PATA > ch ΎΜῸ; 418, 560, 602 
MEL S geal et. nc fase. Wee ΝΣ 480, 964 
114 . 9306, 357, 541, 871 
ἢ Rea Renan eee ake ἩρΥς 889 
1:15 . 270, 505, 642, 871, 933 
ΤΟ τ aie ere aan γον 889 
ASTON ETE iia, area, ΟΝ: 679 
EAN 6S OAR EA | Po 255, 477, 562, 683 
LE LS ΟΣ ΘΟ Σὰ aes eee 739 
1:20: . 208, 353, 594, 714, 717, 721, 
728, 889, 960, 963, 975, 1173 
1:21 . 260 bis, 5382, 979, 1073, 1092 
1622 582, 680, 888, 1029 
LDS: RAW. ΤΑΝ ΣΝ a eee 658 
1 Re Per OS a 351, 617, 1217 
1225 ie oe ere 224, 566, 721, 792 
I h-w)-¥ Gammon pears Pash AP ED Lg 1g. τὰ 364 
1328 EY ARs cee ne Ee 611 
1:29 741, 938, 1031, 1044, 1045 
12350) ee ee 614, 647 
I hs SR cre RS er ΡΠ, 480, 1202 
I Bets Fe SPP PO oe aie op oboe 602 
1:9 4 oer in eee ee eee 1159 
Leah . . 409, 560, 764, 1181 
1:96 _ 256, 267, 272, 275, 701, 790 
ἱρόν. eres cel Ons ict ee ete 752 
1298), tobe Gee oe eae ee 940 
Liss eee Ὰ 255, 652, 708 


food) μὰ 


to bo bo bo BND et es es μὰ 


Nw dw bd by 


μι μι μι fk μα 


πα μι μι μα μι μα μοὶ μὰ μὰ et fet μὰ 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


40 As! ee aes 255 
Bye τον ΟΣ ΎΝΟΝΝ 506 
OS sabi Pe ΌΜΩΣ 417, 660 
AOA AM ea ee 422, 1199 
AR aie, eho 235, 398, 699, 992, 

998, 1076 
Tink Nein re dt 615, 689 
UO—HO tne ee 242, 422 
ἀπ ο cn ee 1199 
£70 Shey Alt ene 532, 605, 1212 
ASR EE EU ee 355, 547, 560 
δῦ: MER IER ee 594 
SIM: Lite eat 590, 793 
51-539 te eee 837 
BB RIA oa da aan 510 
ΩΝ 508, 1001, 1086 
BG Re ber eee 535, 562, 628 
BJ ah ΕΣ oe 1039, 1052, 1076 
BT A7Ass ae ah ees 1061 
5S ΚΑΤ τ hanes 530, 610, 611 
δυο 480, 523, 605, 885 
GOP eee eee 391 bis, 1187 
οι eh Oe ee ee 234, 726 


:62 . 683, 739, 766, 884, 890, 938, 


940, 1021, 1025, 1031 bis, 1046 


ΡΠ ΠΡ 
[64-0 ΤΥ, 207. 550,885) 1127 
1201, 1213 

οὐ ΝΕ oa 409, 736, 739 
87:79 hPa: ane ee 429 
G8L751 εν σὸς ees 1199 
το Gow. Sa en 107, 762, 783 
(DG Ss eee, euiion, 649 
12 ΜΕ 509, 1001, 1086 
73: SEC 475, 479, 488, 718 
TARP oe ee 540, 1039, 1076 
Tbe: ont eee gee 470, 527 
76 . . 560, 678, 694, 1149, 1185 
TORTS Eh ie ha eee 1001 
ἀπ ρον ere 990 
79, 231 bis, 341, 349, 371, 1086 
8075 .c 5 ee eee ae 497 
:1 . . . 185, 417, 561, 708, 793, 
809, 1076, 1086 

[2 . . . . 82, 510, 657, 669, 701, 
704, 790 

Be ers tare Men eae 417, 746 
A ELS ANT: 578; 728, bie zee 
966, 1039, 1071 

:5 . . . 216, 364, 804, 807, 809, 
1080, 1214 

GMI pc. tent te 1061, 1076 
TRI Ne teak < 541, 1210 
SUT Wee es i ele cei 376, 477 
δ με ae 542 
ΡΥ ects ana 538 


ee ens Oy te 0 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Luke 
δ ἐς Soar at ae ὃ 350 
SLA MEMES RIE Wie a ce et deck 701 
2:18 , 272, 404, 407, 412, 655, 656 
ΡΥ ee 242, 792 bis 
ΕΠ πον ou tay. co 393, 714, 1149 
2:16 759, 760, 861, 1109, 1113 
DN ee a pire 532, 619, 838 
PEO ene πρὸ ee 828, 884 
Sa a eee 429, 716, 717 
2:21 . 457, 480, 621, 858, 978, 
1039, 1075, 1076, 1091 
Si aa 491, 561, 609, 1088 
DOU OAPI be Στ τῆις 990 
AM teh ce 204, 1088 
EET EN GAS. 395, 602, 770 
2:26 . . . 362, 816, 858, 977 bis, 
1030, 1036, 1047, 1080, 1084, 
1085, 1091 
2:27 . . 47,490, 504, 619, 858, 979, 
1039, 1065, 1073, 1081, 1109 
τον: 473, 593 
ΕΞ ἔθ πος 1199 
ΘΝ πὸ πιο γος, 210 
ον τον αἰ 405, 412, 605 
ANS Ae SS) ee 8 2 OC a 687, 986 
ΡΟ τος 723 
2:37 . . 202, 495, 518, 559, 576, 
680 bis 
ECE ae a 523, 541, 574, 686 
ERO Mie eee a ty τ 766, 800, 841 
2:41 . 224, 279, 523, 608, 884 
σοι he ALE 497 
eA shyt 269, 469, 479, 496, 
1036, 1060 
eA OMEN ne ALOR ΣΎ th 4 491 
AT ΣΤ ΣῊ he ae 883 
eam Wh et ae | 402, 879 
2:49 502, 586, 739, 767, 884, 
1034, 1176 
20 UNS ἈΞ OR A ta ee 680 bis 
LAUR 6) OY eee 828, 884 
3:1 . . 189, 255, 510, 523, 788, 793 
Se ek a Ὡς 255 bis, 501, 603 
WaT) i ὰ 458, 595, 652 
Sat) BE εν. τς: ς 712 
οὐρα oy Ee ἢ ΡΤ 853 
LADS ROME Ae SP eens 870 
Beal eaten oie os im 850, 916, 934, 1176 
a Vie a eer ee 243, 996 
πο ον τον 0 187, 667 
8:14 409, 532, 541, 582, 626, 
853, 1173 
ΠΟ aan 939, 940, 988, 996, 
1031, 1044, 1045, 1177 
The ae 355, 521, 722, 828 
UWE OA aoe cities. SOUS DUD 


μ. 


Pe 


LPP PPP 


LALA LPL PPR PP 


Or ot ἢ 


1291 


sh Ua 474, 749 bis, 1181 
19 . 258, 512, 619, 717, 719 
ὌΝ craic ae. 605 bis 
ἸΟῪ Liles cess 371, 771, 1073 
ΠΝ Ay tanh ΜΔ 795, 837 bis ~ 
PE Ca RR TOU Lo 1102 
reat iN Pur cy ces MAL 236, 761 
DAC oi ee 215, 263 
ΥΦΧ ΗΝ ἈΝ aya 215 
iy) eta Ὁ ΡΤ ΜΟΝ ΣΝ 214, 286 
Tare Soe ee ΜΝ κα ΤΡ 215, 236 
ΔΝ 214 
5. εν πὲ} κι eke 255 
ΓΚ mali Ὑ ΤΣ 236 
πὸ ον CRIBS aes 236 
SYP! ka ee ΠΔν 184 
ἡ Ἔσο, ον ἢ ον Se cae 396, 880, 1185 
5) See atts eae 781, 1009 bis 
i poe ee 701, 771 
7h ge er cae “ 234, 540 
er eee Oe. an 834 
10 582, 642, 762, 1068 
νι co a Cae 762 
13 505, 576, 771, 791, 974 
[Ate yet As. hk! 607 
Gis. Rg adh ak ies Fee se 1127 
16 219, 299, 358, 523, 537, 
881, 909 
ΤῊ ον ΘΝ ora 29, 108 
Cea ere ere 425, 641, 901 
ΚΡ ΘΑ ns te ctee 757, 773 
22 . 418, 496, 532, 651, 697, 838 
23. . 402, 864, 1035, 1103, 1207 
25 . 253, 255, 410, 523, 602, 
604 
26 219, 263, 399, 1016 
26 pemeeenr ere cele 1187, 1203 
Tap ea Oe 214, 603 
OR Mba strat ΔῊΝ 1127 
DOME er ak. 365, 603, 905, 990, 
1000, 1089 
80 . . . 550, 565, 581, 648, 775, 
791, 905 
34 . .391 bis, 488, 539, 738, 1193 
35. . 230-1, 472, 482, 484, 648, 
860, 1172 
ΠΟ ede 735, 1001 
AYE (ona kal eee IDM τι 261 
I Se Rpt cdg Re ἮΝ Δ ἃ 619 
PUY Set a OG SORE Ctl 800 
41 404, 1035, 1041, 1103 
42 643, 1061 bis, 1078, 
1094, 1171 
ARTA Bare weer ee: 474, 748, 776 
ΠΑ nc aed nae 375, 615 
POS) FR ak oa eee ieee 308 


1292 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Luke 
De Leelee Leek eras 1183 
ὌΝ as autem Δ ΚΤ ἫΝ ἐν ὃς τὴν τ as 559 
513 SN Le teal hee meee 597, 733 
5:4 . . 431, 860, 891, 1102, 1121 
5:5 : 339, 582, 604, 774, 1186 
5:6 ; 212, 318, 885, 1219 bis 
5:7 . §29, 616, 745, 748, 769, 
1039, 1068 
5:9 . oh. bees 628, ras 
Or. Ὁ 353, 504, 528, 765, 889 
oka 994, 792, 817, 849 
5:14 ; . . 442, 537 
pei Ws . 393, 393, 788, 888, 906 
5:19 . 494, 506, 550, 561, 636, 


or) 


5 D> δ δ5 δ" δ5 δ᾽ δ5 GI σι δι σι δι σι δι σι δι σι δι σι σι σι σι σι δι 


OO? 0 δὴ δὴ δὴ DAA δὴ GIO 


652, 740 bis, 1029, 1044, 
1202 


τς 434, 907, 1203 


_ 978, 1085 

560, 1025, 1027, 1182 
“συ 

ὩΣ | 157, 878, 480, 1097 
168, 393, 538, 560, 1048 
NOY a Soin 235, 425 
300, 726, 971 

: . . 1045 
435, 714, 1032, 1039, 1084 
393, 684, 748 
1103 
ane: 680, 800 
327, 854, 885, 938, 

940 bis, 1021 

. . 500, 582, 1040, 1049, 
1058, 1085 
477, 577 


δἰ ἀν fa. Ceye whe πὶ ear ere ee «© 


6} Sst) je Sit” sce δο 


oe ey ae eee. 


ἬΝ ΠΟ τ ἢ 
28, 278, 579, 613 
ae alepe! 


. . . . 


. τ ρα et Le 
593, 681, 683, 770, 910 
333, 356 

.. . 641, 834 

208, 523, 687, 855 

1107, 1187 


9 δ" δ. 


τὰ σα πὰ τὰ πὰ πὰ σὰ πὰ “τ σα ὦ ἀπ κατὰ SSSI Oo 


Ἀν ΝΣ . 1193 
33, 355, 459, 466, 
1107, 1193 

208 


518 

_ 855, 890, 1214 

1019, 1026 

Ree 

_ . 850, 1019 

576, 720, 721, 1010 
|. 293, 476 

930, 1164, 1182 

; oi egos 
_ 184, 213, 718, 828, 1136 
’ 917 ter, 1157, 1175 

. 1105 

ἀρ ΟΝ ΠΟ] 
_ . 312. 597 bis, 686, 932, 
980, 1138, 1139, 1214 
676, 762, 763 

436 


| 212, 214, 232, 256, 365, 530, 


551, 779, 909, 1071, 1081, 1091, 


μὰ μα OON OOP We ἘΞ 


ne 


1105, 1136 

ee va: 

"212, 648, 785, 1105, 
1114 

. 841, 965 bis, 971 

; . 582, 995 
724, 872, 884, 961, 996 
eye 


Ry ee πὶ 1023 
767, 856, 865 

Lhe . . . 290, 474 
: 523, 530, 547, 660, 774 

. 2382, 536, 537,' 680, 

1116, 1183 
842 
50 

of ae 104 958 
742, 1108, 1116, 1118 
. 748 


ose) on 6" We 


ef, wt OF SEA” a 
Φ᾽ ΟΥ̓ ὁ Por et,” ον > a0 
e. “eS oF αν “ounce 


oA tS ΕΝ 
. 778, 792, 1107 
519, 1189 

837 


ee ee ΨΥ a “ 


Luke 
ΤΥ Beene ae a 
ΡῈ SS he tits )50 
Oo AT! 525, 533 bis, 645, 799 
7:38, 44 . . 0. 
7:39 292, 727, 736, 741 bis, 
887, 923, 1012, 1014, 1048, 
1049, 1177 
ret i . . 142, 1087 
7:41 . 201, 668, 749, 750, 920 
CDRS ee ere 515, 737 
PONE Co De προς τ τ 668 
fie: 5 τς 393, 659, 1034, 1048 
πον προς 720 
7:44 701 
7:45 581, 653, 717, 978, 1102, ΠῚ 
7:47 _ 647, 722, 774, 777, 962, 966 
Me en wales Ss 703, 724, 735, 961- 
ad ee 587, 608 
8:1, 22 680: 
Buses. Pe ΤΡ τ ΜΉΝ 
243) τον} 214, 215, 599, 749 
8:4 ey, Sy ΝΗ τὸ 
8:5 Ἶ 107, 478, 695, 990, 1072, 
1073, 1153 
Ley ef Ay ay Ge ΡΟΗ 749 
ΠΑ πο ον ν τος 1152 
SS, ον ae 966 
ΡΟΝ ἐς rl thd 350, 749 
lee ΝῊ 216, 341, 644 
adhe? fees Ds Mi ae 2.284, 777 
ΟΣ τς ΚΝ oar, > 736, 938, 1031 
ΡΥ A co PEP ict Fees: cs. a's 993 
ὑπ δος 704 
ΝΣ πα tee it Ὁ Σ 290 
λα oe 625, 793 
Reames SWE er te ly . 1164 
reeraatoany SO ACT... . 704, 728 
bs 176, 1182, 1201 
40s 43. i... 318, 634 
Bats i 726, 764, 1001, 1158, 1164 
8:18 957, 962, 1170 
8:19 . 830 
IN ae τον 349, 881 
τ a. ; τ 00 
8:22 A POTD 
Bro itl tS. 834, 838, 884, 885 
8:24 yi 787, 879, 1200 
8:25 541, 697, 917, 1176 
8:26 . 573, 638, 639, 728 
εν ae 527, 528, 809, 841 
ΒΟ Δ τ τς 234, 463, 464, 519 
8:29 . 212, 262,{318, 392, 527, 
581, 827, 905 
Pea Ta, ee, 543 
εν aan mee 404 
Do Dad Sacco oe on 252 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


00 


COMM ὦ οὐ ὦ Ο ὦ Ο ο ὦ ο 


ΦΟ ὦ ἡ ἡ ᾧ ᾧ ἡ ᾧ ᾧ ὦ ὦ ὦ ὦ 09 Οο Ο Ο9 HHH HO ΟὉ 


Φ ὦ ὦ ὦ ὁ ὁ Ὁ ὦ Ὁ Ὁ OO Ὁ Ὁ ὦ 


ἜΝ IN TS 607 
AE OP PMA 339 
ρέει ty Ot ee aoe am 339 
Gt he OO 1043, 1045 
ἘΝ ΑΗΒ 
Apwawere gi 2. 203, 342, 1214 
BU Tal kes) δι Se Π9 78} 
40 107, 587, 891, 1078 
41 2397 
TOA Ce τος _ 232, 680, 827 
43 367, 1105, 1112 
45 _ 828 
46 τς 284, 742, 910, 1035, 
1042, 1103, 1109, 1118, 

1123 

47 _ 718, 721, 726 bis, 966, 
1045 bis, 1032 

TOURS aie here . . 264, 462 
49 _ 742, 827, 867, 890, 895 
50 SebAG 
51 cia (ay: 
52 475, 809, 853, 1166 
ee eee eee 341, 827, 838 
PAS PRA NTE EPL 264, 465, 769 
Se eye ee τὶ 1049, 1085 
56 . . 1109 
tee ei RY . 427 
Bi _ 571, 944, 1092, 1189 
Sep wear eo Cu. uA 
5 437, 733 
rt iy eee . . 299, 608 
yee ae ee ΠΝ ἀν 
τ} 743, 750, 1049 
πον Halk ὑἱ 233, 686, 747 
οὐ τῆν: 710 
Οὐ αν e, e186 
LOR τος 691, 733 
11 367 
12 Pr S00 
13 201, 666, 751, 762, 1016, 
1017, 1025, 1172 

γα an τις ὁ ἐ 482, 487, 968 
Cy er ae 771 
16 Osh ΒΟ ἢ 
[stant _ 871, 375, 431, 891 
ΡΥ ITE in ye tee 1036 
TEU Dd tips sae A “a 91035 
19 SAE i ita . 695, 1047 
22 oe ea ΒΟ ΤΟΣ 
TRS ek tk (Se, 681, 688, 690, 811 
2a) se. 10k, |, 641, 688, 689, 698 
yaya ee 816, 1023, 1129 
Di dae a OM Mate ed _.. 473, 743 
28 107, 434, 460, 968 
29 - 163, 748, 1073 
ΚΟΥ ROE RE Wen ry 957 


Luke 
oO LEtueiyct vas bie τ μιν 3438, 884 
9:32 .. . 529, 533, 582, 628, 766 
9:33  . 720, 726, 750, 931, 1030, 1048 
ΟΣ ΕΙΣ tsa hes Ss Eee 299 
OR S4r a i eos av bere ee 885 
URES heed er eend ol Pade My ΔῈ 507, 818 
9:36 . 337, 364, 657, 680, 720, 
776, 834, 897 bis 
GIST 0 i ρινοι ΑΛ ΌΣ εἶν ς 393, 529, 774 
ΟΣ UP ie. dc aoe 232, 541 
ΘΙ ΟΣ A. τον aes meee, 231, 296 
240 — 2 eee a ee ee 993 
ΣΙ Aes 264, 463, 464, 623 
9242 ue ee 212, 818 
ΟΣ ΞΈΝΟΝ" sy Gera len vA We 
0 FAS AG NE Sie caer eee 883 
OAS I reece ἡ 509, 812, 998, 1212 
9:46 424, 491, 585, 739, 


766, 890, 938, 940, 1021, 1031, 
1044, 1046, 1176 


ALi) Pree ccc tts Meet as ade kets mee 614 
Qe ART teak acu erie 668, 698, 954 
9:49 .. . 611, 838, 864, 885, 892, 
964, 1030, 1034, 1041, 1048 

9:50 . 607, 720, 956, 962, 1158 
9:51 349, 426, 951, 1002, 
1042, 1068, 1183 

ODL heer. ate 621, 967, 987, 990, 
1089, 1091 

Οὔ ιν 561, 858, 878, 935, 
1046, 1080 

ΟΣ eine See ies 731, 740 bis 
ΘΟ eat eateelce oe 748 
OT DTrace: Neale ae ae te 969 
ODS aes πο 969, 1044, 1045 
0259 bch ee ae an 1039, 1084 
ΘΕ ΘΟΕ tee ao aie 582, 1201 
OSG) eee ee eens 536, 593 
τ ον τα pols mee 1097 
10:1 284, 299, 571, 655, 
673 bis, 749, 884, 969 

ΤΟΥ rahe ee 644 
10 τ ΚΝ, 608, 853, 1172 
1085° 3 SS ee eee Da 
10:6 . 334, 357, 394, 561, 819, 
874, 948, 1025 

10 0.5; 10 ee Ὁ 849 
10 7 Ὁ . 408, 561, 615, 709, 757 
1028 5 ee ee 959, 1115 
10:8) 10:0. oteee ee eee 437 
LOSE IAT ΤΉ. 401, 539, 699 
102152 Se eee 643, 678 
10216 07 ον ee eee 418 
LOSE 7 edt ee 543, 1181 
10:18 843, 864, 883, 910, 1041, 


1042 1114, 1116, 1123 bis 


10: 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


19 _ 875, 890, 1061, 1076, 
1165, 1175 

D0) hk See 965, 1035, 1173 bis 
21 . 464, 524, 709, 764, 788 
DOR WL tae eee . 845, 959 
ΟῚ ree ia 339, 678, 843 
DF Leones eens 743, 796 
OB Ne mtg ΡΥ 423, 917, 1176 
DT LE ee Rie arate 765 
PA OR TE EN ty. 949 
20 Tan Mie oe hae 234, 547, 1182 
20°36)! ΡΣ 646, 765 
30 521, 524, 542, 1113 
Blouse ond: eee eee 165 
BY hale WO GNS 2 of. 565, 572, 613 
34 508, 691, 817, 1220 
BAT AL oly ie eee ee 219 
:35.. . . 107, 243, 291, 602, 681, 
688, 729, 959 bis, 964, 1039 

36 . 501, 561, 585, 593, 908 
STH Rae ΜΈΝΟΙ 611, 802 
BS eee My ee eee 633, 743 
80. 4055 ΚΝ . 289, 613, 696 
40 . 529, 560, 565, 573, 618, 
627, 816, 1087, 1090 

ἀρ an sac eee 620 
ΔἸ 816 
:42 . 518, 559, 562, 728, 810, 819 
1. . . B71, 375, 429, 742 bis, 
891, 952, 1036, 1042, 1181 

ΣΑΡΡΑ ΡΟΣ \ocen a a 852 
3. . . 159, 487, 766, 855, 1214 
4 . 315, 335, 541, 744, 773, 
853, 880, 963, 1216 

‘5 a+... 185, 738, 875, 9300934 
6 . 720, 726, 960, 965, 996 
TES ote: 340, 362, 593, 853, 
947, 1170 

8 τς . 244, 518, 733 bis, 1012, 
1026, 1027, 1070, 1071, 

1148 bis, 1149 

SO fie Coc eee 357, 1213 
=O, ΠΝ yo oe ἘΠ: 1213 
εἰ νοι 436, 490, 573, 738 
Hf ee Red LL 
13 548, 599, 1045, 1204 
ie Mike ΣΝ opis κν 1119 
15 EEE PE ae ΣΎ ΥΝΝ 515 
15 ff act Aen eee 749 
{τ BiG Sas ee 750 
JIS BORE eee 750, 891, 1081 
30 ha deel ore es ἘΝ 1008 
SOL Seiad. eo eee 690, 779 
522 231, 366, 580, 904, 971 
DA eee Sen er ene : 969 
26. tc ee 775 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Luke 

ΠΝ Des iat nc gi ον 219 
11}. Bea ae! oo tea Re Re al Pa καρ, 1151 
Rete CMe eres as V5. hess oo oe 500 
Pe ae eng i a oe ees 1190 
Be SCAMS its | sis cls) 20 ἢ 963 
ποτε, κα alga aaa a ass 231, 764 
LAGE. Biel re eee 284, 971 
11:95 Rigid . . 995, 1045, 1169 
11:38 hee 532, 621, 808, 965, 1035 
11:39 399, 459, 505, 642, 643, 786 
11540 .. : Δ 
11:42 er 315, 477, 499, 500, 800, 
919, 1171, 1193 
ODO ἘΝ a ν᾿ 642 
ΠΕΡ OS ON ea mae: ¥ 63) 
VLED) Stee oe ei 484, 751 
πο. : ~ 1153 
LENE Et ie ean ae 529, 1153 bis, 1190 
Bee ΡΥ 1181, 1202 
τ ee es cs aes 213, 796 
ΠΕ Πὰν" 789 
πραγ ἀπέ τα ΑΗ Saree en: 265 
ΠῚ τ: 474 
ΠΤ ε τ! 231, 577, 587, 623, 696, 
714, 722, 727, 802, 818, 952, 
953, 1091, 1192 
eect oes fa 627, 818 bis, 1158 
12:3 . 696, 722, 724, 818, 952, 962 
12:4 . 472, 577, 704, 752, 935, 
1046, 1087, 1213 
12:5 . . . 282, 560, 818, 858, 950, 
979, 1046, 1074, 1092 
12:6 . . 751, 818, 917, 1157, 1182 
δ ens κτλ τ τ 818 bis, 1186 
12:8 . 108, 193, 459, 475, 524, 541, 
588, 684, 955, 956, 957 bis, 959 
TULSA Up ete ye ier eee 1114 
“ONS τ die ae ae 439 
PG i, 642, 812818, 819 
12:10 . . . 436, 459, 473, 594, 718, 
818, 957 
12:11 . 334, 561, 739, 787, 1170 
PSE task wos Wings 523, 709, 726, 776 
Πές 742 bis 
"τ τὺ re 480 
12:15 . . 472, 476, 543, 598, 772, 
802, 807, 933, 949, 979, 994, 
1073, 1183 bis 
CD Cy ewe Nae gh) 5 ote 349 
COMI NRCG gah Nea ee 699 
UO? Pe ae 594, 902 
12:20 . 264, 392, 406, 463, 464, 
523, 541, 816, 820 
12:21 Oe ER Cea a, Aone 4 689 

OY Ona ἌΡ 


6 6% Oe (eR 8? 02 


12: 


1295 


26 . 669, 670, 1012, 1024, 
1160 bis 

Pitas. | dg ae ue ah RE τε 184, 352, 1212 
ἐς ΑΝ ΚΣ τὰν eae 009 
DU ΣΎ των 419, 705 
ΙΗ firey. eo τ BA 1187 
32 eee bem cole 20 E460 
33 . 215, 504, 1100, 1109, 
1137,.1172 

ΟΣ coe Π τ OD 
3D Wolo; 314, 308, 330, 360, 
375, 890, 908 

SO] Pho Ὁ 597, 1044, 1045, 
1110, 1132 

38 158, 523, 794, 1018, 
1025, 1182 

39 471, 740, 922, 1014 
mL heey Fo are ree aun, ΟΥ δ 718 
2 AN et eh Srey, Breen Λον 1180 
Aa es EOS pie etter (Oar 604. 
ga A> asl at Sete a oe Ra ae OGL 
ἀνύποπτον ἐς 604, 866 
ΠΟ α Ὁ. 718 
ὦ τ 479, 485, 626, 859, 
1112, 1114 

CUT ip CARL ay oa pal ec ae 653 
:48 436, 477, 479, 485, 659, 718, 720 
749 . 302, 739, 917, 1176, 1193 
50 ; 302, 729 
tS LORD iene 1187, 1188 
Dea aale oo Wot ee 361, 375, 907 
ΠΌΣΟΝ he «ts oh ee oes 605 
AND (dear tk ere ee St te oaks 1180 
VE cd El ee reed . 109, 686 
58 559, 909, 967, 988, 1062, 
- 1079, 1081, 1147 

DOME. Nh trees ates 775, 976 
ieee 200,517,061 1, Old.0s0 
:2 .« 016 bis, 661, 801, 1029, 1178 
ὌΝ GA eee cies a eee 
heh Ree ie Sai dite 259) 616 bis, 724 
LP a alt ie a ΟΣ 906, 1115, Ἰ117 
RE ea tte ΠΡ. 
(em aoc: 739 bis, 879, 977, 1115 
pak ALY cae ee NE 5. 528, 620, 976 
ὌΝ es 208, 394, 594, 874, 924, 
942, 1018, 1023, 1025, 1203 

ΟΣ ον: . 1110 
ΤΠ: 627, 1119 
WAN Ket τ νοῦν mee ae 264, 518 
Το σὸν 367, 770 
SOW ELLE a, © yh) amie amarh ae 885 
pF Ey nl gape Ohh ae aa 920, 965 
LOR ees oh ooste τες 746 
16 . 283, 460, 518, 887, 919 
1 ue rac ah τλλινες 542, 605 


1296 


Luke 
1A a ert 3 458, 595, 690, 791 
TSO 1 vers a eee 715 
1 3... ee te hel τος 656 
Te τ le eee ee 916, 1024 
13 ΡΥ ΣΝ 434 
LAO as) yearns 188, 319, 800, 978 
i ΣΟ ν᾿ 324 
ΠΗ ΕΣ ΤΥ 559, 778 
13:28 188, 324, 339, 348, 876, 
972, 1218 
15 ΟΣ Sa ARs ieee = eee 254 
133 320) - St. eee 653, 1202 
13°33. 418 29673898, 652; 11981202 
13:34 . . 204, 219, 267, 348, 635, 
689, 718 
LO Te Riad cha satei ota 972 bis, 976 
ΠΣ canes 613, 811 
bE Soe er Ra acre Ace nN fy Mekal Sa ot 743 
LAS 8 ry OY Soe ee eae 787 
Ee Oh Renee Oh ἀρ δ τ bet yt) pat” - 818 
RAs Oe ee ivan a mneee 574 
ἐν σέ ee Ὁ 477, 800, 811, 883, 
1032, 1202 
pS Sey Oe oh end Pay ae ieee PE Pe Oe 907 
LEP AR Cea cot ee ee a re ee ee 988 
AS ste nciicee ce hens 360, 910 
14:10 . . 186, 308, 328, 338, 561, 
910, 984, 988 
ee nc aie. ed ec 1108 
ΠΣ IPR SU Rea mY WER Son as Toes) 988 
VASA 0 Το ΤΥ ies 192 
gE Sane τ Ny aoa aiid ope Pray 574 
1 Ea ee eee real ἢ. 356 
AA Gebie) Sree be a eee Sete 262 
14 T: ea. (Pe 186, 656 
14:18 . 109, 360, 375, 480, 550, 
653, 1108, 1122 
Lac ΕΟ ΕΗ ea tae 1110 
1421 8501.0) OPPs Ce Sey oa 809 
aod 8220 eon Boe cage ease 842 
1491 OF ΚΑῚ Ge eee, eicen ce 818 
14: 10 SS he ree ers 748, 902 
5 Tf Bd apy tee eine Σ 427, 787 bis 
ἸΔΈΣ ie ee eee ew oan 789 
14 24a. Bar eG emicks: 473, 506 
142 διε (JAR Oe eee on ee 774 
14:26:35). See ee 688, 789, 1012 
Π 4 2 BAAR et ee GO 3 21159 
$428 a τ 1024, 1045 
1 hae! Pee gy ty bi a ger 5 1173 
14:30 Rae eS ed ee AEE) 18 Ce 
11:1 281, 531, 589, 748, 1045 
L4sB 2h it a ee ae 546 
14233 iP τ 515, 720, 744, 1158 
1496405 CAPS See, eee 269, 889, 934 
14685 tS cS ee ee 535 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


LO? Dire e atten amet eye 529, 697 
1B hy: SR ie el es Be ΠΣ 976 
Ltd (ate 213 
ἸΣΘΜῸΝ ΜΕΝΑ 738 
1 ρον. 562, 563, 786, 805 
15: Of 202 Se oo eee 1035 
152 ἐπ Εν ee 661, 1188 
LO Ogee ΟΣ 787, 805 
LLY τ serene 743 
1021S hn ee ν 771, 1163 
ipiideny ee 253, 410, 608, 680 
LOSI DRS AVS aS cele: » OfDP S17 
IBr ΙΔ Se 208, 716, 883, 885 
ἘΠ pe 510, 532, 741, 828 
Le γε παν (ας φρο λοι οι πος . 594, 874 
ΤΟ AY Ry, ee me i 658, 1076, 1080 
1BT19 21% nL ee 1061 
15% ΟΣ ΙΝ 1110 
1. ee ers a ee ee 845 
ΤΟΣ το Coplay eh 483, 649 
sq We others Peak (ely! 701, 904, 906 
LDS 25 ue τς ee eee eee 507, 792 
15265 ies 407, 411, 736, 890, 
938 bis, 940, 1031 

᾿ ἘΣΌ ΚΑΙ ρον τὰς Rae 881, 885, 893 
ΤΟΣ ere 470, 477, 879 
LO PSO Rha eae ee eee 697 
Loto ae ee eee 685 
LiOee ΜΕΥ ΟΥ 834, 842, 887 
16:1 . 529, 652, 697, 703, 1140 
16:2 312, 736, 916, 1164, 
1176, 1214 

16:3 . . 480, 483, 559, 600, 1060, 
1078, 1102 

10:5 ΕΟ ch ee ae πα 935 
16:4 . 308, 518, 827, 842, 893 
1675 Ae Se bie pee 201 
1O36 sien oe aie cakes ΤΣ ae 499 
16:8 . 496, 633, 651, 667, 779 
£629 0, V3 eee 254, 510, 598 
THS1LOM, eee 658, 660, 782 bis 
LOS see A eee 1009 
ΤΟΣ ΝΕ εν a ae er ome 1012 
LOT IS a a ak ee ee 288 bis 
16813 an eee 251, 508, 748 
ΤΟΝ hee ΤΕ 472, 705, 778 
16: ἼΜΕΝ Goer eee 1108 
10: 1GES ies ee 221, 645, 975 
hii) Were es Peery 186, 921 
TOSSA ae ee 579 bis, 910 bis 
LORI OSM. eos omens 485, 810, 883 
16:20 _ 361, 364, 366, 905, 910 
16: 0h tere ane. eee 1186 
ΤΟΥ ie ence va eee 1085 
Το Cae a ae 408, 502, 586 
LG SAAT AMS Cea” soe ee on 495, 775 


ee “ω. 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


See e4 eS ew Oe © τ δ ee 1's 


ee mee BOM Bee) ee Piel τ τὸ 
Sem Oe δ lien, ΟΡ. οὐ et. ws?! δ vie 


. . 819, 871, 1210 
393, 720, 721, 996, 1002, 
1040, 1059, 1060, 1068, 
1094, 1171 

. 212, 472, 485, 560, 661, 
992, 997 

. 477, 542, 689, 802, 1202 
505, 769 
Brat i. 5.310.948 
_ 887, 921, 1015, 1022 

aye a Moers 
340, 738, 869, 976, 
1045, 1215, 1218 
349 
920 
562, 565, 581, 
648, 791, 1042 


Cy A ee ee δ' τὰ δὲ δ᾽ 1.4 


CPC. OR CN Ce α΄ ἀν Ὅτ 


Weer Or! ἘΝ Ole ee tb ι νον ῳ 


. 550, 560, 


a RG agian Re ἘΠῚ 


505, 641 


on Le Δ΄ 0- δ. ὁ δ΄ ὁ 


992 
2, 792, 1202 
579 


SF δι el | we Te fel. δι, “ὁ 
By Che 8a er οἷ Ὁ 

On etree te) wep ie! hoy Be, ον 6 
CY δ et αν 
δὲ On Oe? Oo tee ΦΊ τὰ A Lee 
wi COC Ὁ δὴ δ΄ δ᾽, et he 


208, 968 


957, 959 


ὌΝ Oa OA Obs er) Ole eb! TO τὰ 


a Oe ey 6) δι .2δ᾽ ὁ 


Re νους 969 
_ 626, 997, 1003, 1049, 

1060, 1075 

Rear ne, 748 
_ 688, 1012, 1026, 1027 
. 201, 244, 1039, 
1148 bis, 1149 
CIC aan . . 496, 651 
495, 930, 934, 1158 
802 


ee ee a et Ὑ; 


ee Oi 1.O: ne fe OL ke) hea aye) ὁ 


26. @ et Os Ve 9 


18: 
18: 


18: 


1297 


Qo... 4 2342, 540, 605, 7785/1107 
10 . 748, 990, 1080, 1087-8, 
1088 

11 502, 697, 700, 965, 1035, 
1159, 1188 

Ls τ fae an 505, 646, 769, 880 
ta act fae ae 231, 561, 756, 858 
eT Le 2 oie 661, 703, 708 
1 ed SRI aura: “ees Been 675 
PAUSE! $A Enea) ANS ae BB iin 541 
OAT ha Om OSS 1s SEO a Be 192, 1058 
aM ee. AW? Dp Ys ee ag 234 
ae OUR AR aah ea x oo Male | oP 310 
nea her ok Sub hh erin ca) aah 641, 726 
BU Br ΣΡ ΡΣ 284, 673 
oy Lars on ly fe Saas ae 539 
AvP Laps Ree cement Pere θεν Ὁ 1190 
ΘΟ ETH. SP PIS aks oe 762 
SANE A ρου νον gaye 751 
ΟΜ eae πη σύν τς ΤΟΝ anes 743 
36 890, 938, 1022, 1031 bis, 
1042, 1044 

RS ΤΙ Seman, ΑΘ Εν, 1035 
COS ete Ri AIL er de ΤΗΣ 463, 464 
ΟΝ τ ον προ Une Ml 532, 664, 800 
SE LA i ae AA ee hy 924, 935 
LSRMES ONER? ca th gr 472, 476, 563 
ΡΝ τὰ GAMA RPO μ θα 162, 457, 679, 723 
ΟΝ a 423, 488, 580, 738 
:>4 , 186, 201, 472, 476, 494 bis, 


547, 652, 983, 1202, 1205 


Fae, One, Se 328, 861, 1127 
Fp Ae mR 1109, 1127 
πο a ΣΟ 
8. 5... . 199, 275; 502, 742,870, 
880, 892 

Sa ea Sale 1008 
τ αν TE en eee 963 
ae, ea 411, 764, 1109 
1 551, 640, 800, 1071, 
1126, 1127 

poe, a hs ee 272 
ee os ee Meade 690, 976, 978 
ie Pkt ΠΌΡΕΝ . . 879, 886, 919 
15 107, 308, 737, 841, 1044, 
1048, 1049, 1214 

RL BOO theta Mere amen ae 749 
:17 _ 299, 330, 375, 890, 950 
:20 361, 375, 776, 906 bis 
FAR τς SRC eae ΣΝ ΠΗ 
23 _ . 922, 1014, 1023 
29 1584 bis, 232, 259, 267, 
458,780 

ΟΣ ieee ea i Sd 644. 
TAR EU heat OA SOR at 850 
it Yay ny yo, a 212, 799 


Luke 

19 2360 eae ee 318 

1953720 ἫΝ 154, 412, 619, 623, 
624 bis, 719 

19:40 . 325, 333 bis, 356, 361, 801, 


873, 907, 1008, 1010, 1217 


10 ΔΊ, ee el eo eee 834 
19:42 . . . 483, 523, 793, 834, 835, 
842, 1023, 1203 

10 ee ee 617, 873, 907, 1183 
Ποὺ ee 480 
1OFA IAS ee τᾶς ἃ 470, 487, 550, 888 
ΟΣ 36 ease Vites 190, 317, 766, 771, 
1127, 1217 

DOL Fe eee hr A De eee 523 
ΟῚ Os oP ee CE Roe ees 1188 
2023 = Fk San ed ea 1180 
90 4, ts ee ee ee 1177 
20:6 . 163, 903, 1030, 1040, 1081 
Ps A ea RS rae Ad i: 1036, 1038, 1171 
2079.68. PEAS ee 308, 470 
20:10 . . . 324, 519, 522, 872, 984 
Ate Petia! ΝῊ 748 
DOLL Ee are ee area 551, 1078 
ZO Der ne ae 94, 822, 1078 
ΡΠ Πα νοι ΚΣ ἀρ ee Oe ee Meee 497 
Po DE Bite Rey ie be ry ere aay ae 876 
ZO Gre Cave τ νον. 939 bis, 940 
UL eee Me OME hes res Ns 718, 870 
0 LOU TE το τ ν ES rs 626, 1183 
20:20 . . 481, 508, 787, 990, 1036, 
1039, 1040, 1089 

ΘΟ ΣΡ Pees 1 L158 
ZOLA Ss ee ae i ooo 
PAAR AT er ure τ 425, 767, 1154 
ΟΣ ΟΣ ak ἸῸΝ 508, 573 
DTZ Li cae ee ABB, 1094, 1171 
DOR 28 eats re ee ee . . 849 
ZO S4 ἢ ΡΟΣ, ee 150, 1213 bis 
yA SRE) ae oa anon 1 509, 598, 782 
20°35 fs Jee ea ee ee 1189 
20336 eS. ΣΟ Se ae nas 879 
PAS Y Ra ere ne re rh 253, 1034 
ZOSAO KS Alle Be SR he mean 1162 
ΟΣ AD A aes iy Ces eet ie 199, 686 
QO MAT oy δον: 564 
BY QD APU AE ear sa ee 743 
QTD evar Ste ee ee 153, 187 
21:6 416, 439, 459, 565, 601, 960 
21 4,22 ον 932-3, 996 
A to) τὰ τ νος πὴ Ὁ 219, 1201 
PA Red WA σεν ον τὰ 622 
21 WA Wim ae em ee 641 
21:14 334, 818, 1094, 1171 
SE bw es chan eee 573 
ZIG1G) co he Pelee ee oe ee 599 
217. π| be  ὺν 55} 000, 5.5). 550 


δύ ας ον Ae ΠῚ ΤΟΥΣ 597 
LO RR See tees 681, 683, 871 
WP A leh REAL de Sie pat oo 1041 
MLL Whe toe as Men 1061, 1076, 1088 
τ te TE ok hh ae cei ae 216 
ἜΣ ed ἀρ ΣΤΥ Ie 534, 889, 974 
ads 262, 419, 794 bis, 795 
ΔΉ eared el cect at eee 566 
εν ΡΣ ΡΣ le ὁ 876 
GRECO a eh Na Fk ga ah, oir 873 
34 . 186, 272, 400, 542, 550, 
657, 708, 996, 1213 bis 
ΘΚ eres ΠΑ τ ἊΝ 476 
"7 154 bis, 232, 267, 458, 470 
Cees Rene Pe eee δ 416, 498 

Are ers hee Ὁ 427, 766, 985 

yee! th MP San Big IAL σΟ, 1031 
TL Rp Pareee vy. 766, 1031, 1046 

Pee mcr : 350 

Ὰ BLT: 1061, 1068, 1076 
ον aera 639 
PS Se Boats diy.) 887 

LO aes open er ees 333, 356 
11 934, 955, 969, 1045, 1205 
1 δὴ ὁ νον a ΟΝ 185, 260 
14) i a eee 219 
15 531 bis, 621, 978, 1075 
1035 νὰ ee 976 
ΒΥ ταὶ τόν a ie Se τῶν GY ir 
ΠΟ RE Bees eT ee 685 
HO) Ὁ ἘΣ 213, 1060, 1074 
ea a Seer ΠΡ} 15. 
:23 . . 427, 480, 739, 766, 890, 
938, 1031 bis 

23 TE ei a ee See 1046 
Sey 2A INR σῦς Me ieee ea nates 739 
SAT de. 0 ee eee 766, 938, 1031 
ZOE Shick een wee ae ae 510 
UDG OF Sik ot) eee Snare mes 1214 
26 Teste ee a eee 1140 
74 UE PAP See ac 737 
2s Wea eRe  τεν eee 1108 
PA! a ear need Pre πο δι 581 
OOF on Ρ manana ae 232, 1216 
Dae canal oii Nh ae ae 300, 1139 
BOs Le να ida ae ae 659 
34 . 548, 908, 976 bis, 977 bis, 
1036, 1094, 1171 

TODS cao ae meron 219, 750 
BY Pa es 401, 611, 766, 818 
POO ES tel he her: ow a ee 411 
S40) WAS ORES nee ΤῊ aaa 603, 853 
TA Lee ee eee 469, 559 
742 193, 339, 1023, 1203, 1214 
0 ὧν ΚΟ ALM γον τς ΚΝ, 231, 339 
ΔΈ τε ΜΩ͂Ν 580 


a_i te en 


Luke 
13 CEN Gy ag leas BANS ROLE τ λει ἃ 477 
PEGA wae At eek ay ol % 311, 533 
22:49 . 374, 456, 502, 590, 620, 
876, 878, 916, 934, 935, 
1024 bis, 1109, 1118, 1215 
ee OU es Sic. 156, 292, 675, 742 
Be Rap | ρος Ce ED ie Re oa 611 
MEARS Te el δ an ΤΕΣ 704 
πος ΣΤΟΝ 559 
CETUS Al 8. ae 617, 644 
ΟΣ ΠῚ ana που τος 697 
te aly ΘΝ ee 612, 653, 678 
ΠΟ τ πες 550, 697, 743, 746 
a Ee eee 483, 509, 873, 1091 
ΟΝ τ a> he Ae 628 
“SAAT oe a: co a rn 1130 
See ag SY gS Ga ed ee 1179 
ait) (MM Oe ν oo) Ὁ 1020 
ΣΟ ets. oh os 678, 695, 915 
JOR Ca a ὑπ ς; 519, 649 
ASS UE, ΠΑ ρου er 404, 412 
Pome 4214. 2539: L039, 1041 bis, 
1094, 1123 
SAG a ent ee ans See 786 
e505 413, 548, 1126, 1203 
Be OM ee tout r eis sy bee 916 
ΕΝ it 561 
ZEA AS Deity ES en eee 597, 884 
roel We Le Wie Sel et A aa ee 483, 628 
2312 . 226, 289, 405, 625, 686, . 
690, 888, 1103, 1121 
Darian. 511, 560, 720, 750, 966, 1141 
23:15 . 534, 542, 794, 820, 903, 1186 
eae es ee eee 170, 348, 530, 760 
“OE AP cs 2} oa 323, 375, 860 
ΣΕ αν rly subse, 695 
Oat Pei alos i eure Os 805 
dts, OE RATLA Shae) Al 05. 517, 645 
ΕΝ (a er 475, 1173 
Mesias Bh ae νειν θεν 219 
“AU ΣΥΝ ει a δ 338 
23°31 . . 195, 587, 588, 929, 934 
ἐάν τα ar sah ene, ee ee ae 749 
Ὁ ΒΟ ΠΟ 096, 792, 794 
a ile la. os τ A 1009 
ὩΣ ἐλ as irs 159, 604 
ΘΝ δ a ee ὟΝ 409 
EN TN et ae το δ᾽ να 720 
ay Ee ee re 1183 
Peery ΡΝ a et ey Cobian, ey, 775 
SY > OS te i oe a 700 
θα πεν tO, 366, 560, 778 
ΠΥ n iet Os tebe Ne a ors 176 
[ACR En en μὰ 434, 529 
AC DOM fib. -. 316, 375, 906, 1165 
Ba S EAs We oss ΣΝ «asa 493, 885 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


1299 


Ba TOON sea oih et 1420, 70 1002; 1043 
24:1 , 274, 495, 522, 672, 718, 841 
WAG DEMME ΠΥ ΌΛΩΝ stants 575 
ZAP OME aE kre eee cokes 225 
24 ΑΨ eee SUS MA NY 267 
ΟΣ τ ΣῊΝ 611 
PALAU oO vig a ae ae ΤῊΝ a ae, Bae 1032 
ΕΝ τ ies Bae 649, 1049 
Bee lO bees ον 214, 501, 767 
a SGM) by eae CA eee ere 404, 540 
ee ena ρου τοὺς 263, 424, 469 
pA ad Ee eee Pa ae 529, 625, 883 
setae Te ΑΣΑ ΝΎ 680 
24:16 ΙΒ ΟΣ L06 lalla 
24:17 _ 572, 625, 703, 735, 835, 1202 
ΔΉ Geer.) tare 172, 235, 549, 656, 
657, 1183 
24:19 . 399, 419, 651, 735, 740 bis 
QAO TAM Hares τος oun 1046 
24:20 . 731, 732, 985, 1045, 1177 
24:21 . 216, 244, 392, 424, 628, 
679, 701, 771, 884, 978, 1029, 
1035, 1148 bis, 1185, 1186 
DEAD Mgr Bae iris 18 550, 657, 1186 
24:23. . . 489, 1028, 1038, 1039 
Pee LIAe ete ants os. 968 
DAS A MAILED Sh u's yea 487, 658, 659, 716, 
1061, 1077 
DE ta NE eae AP Re Σὰν 887, 919 
ΞΟ ΤΕ SOC RAL AA a eS 367, 566 
Da Te ΟΣ ee. 1% 297, 298 
24:29 . 625, 765, 792, 1065, 1088 
PY pe oe eM ede eter ΥΡ 1039 
uD LEN Pode sss) ΤΣ 575, 682, 1213 
2, ey? yA aoa 367, 888, 974, 1212 
DACA 334, 842 
ΑΝ πεν Στῆς 534, 587, 726 
OLGA By Le Γ΄ 587, 739 
ΑΝ ποτ τς ς 203, 260, 1041 
ΑΙ a 580, 743 
PA A’ i cae a aca fe 159 
RI 545-0 sa ς 315, 1036, 1212 
24 ΑΘ oor, (τς 858, 1080 bis, 1081 
7230 0 re 413, 491, 535, 946, 
1126, 1203 
DAO Re as sare aden. «lee 643, 683, 1205 
CATO ase as oi 561, 581, 1072 
John 
11πΠΠΡὀὄῸ as 185) 579; 623; 6259758; 
761, 767, 792, 794, 795, 883 
TRH 18 4 γα eee. ee 915 
Το ἀν τ Es Ind Wan ea ne 628 
Eis MCA EW eek chia’ oo 700 
1:2-8 . ΙΝ 918 


1300 


John 
He any OS BEC ON eas 751 
Tiger ee ty BOD Sess το 243, 768, 801 
PED icone fick eh Hgts Ce Nee 1183 
1:6... . 416, 434, 460, 534, 615, 
707, 723 
Poa cae Pees 583, 703, 707, 850 
Rowe en Pipe elke ae Me ee 915 
Dei eo pies. eric eae 619 
TGS ean! ΕΝ chats 505, 707, 708, 1187 
figO Ne se ea ae 777, 891, 1118 
eg: Sie oe eer as IAS 762 
LEAD AG GAS an el νον ide 894 
1911 502, 691 ter, 767, 834, 1157 
POLL L SENT Re os esa oe 563 
1512 339, 732, 778, 834, 1076, 
L107 5191: 
Les SO Ree, Vetere es aes 408, 534 
1314) ΟὟ 275 R276 R894; 40 413; 
505, 767, 794, 818, 829 ter, 1204 
1:15 .. . 280, 434, 438, 473, 484, 
516, 640, 662, 670, 801, 887, 
895, 896, 1111 
11 hie Sak VE ote 964, 1034 
1:16 . 407, 505, 574, 829, 1181 
ΤΡ ΟΣ 1200 
1:18 . . . 364, 536, 586, 593, 614, 
656, 707, 708, 829, 893, 896, 906 
ΠΟΥ is, wieder 704, 905, 915 
LUD SE ΕΣ oe is tee gee ime 897 
120 Sage i eh ee Ae 1205 
ἸΕΦΟ TAR eee ce eee eee 918 
1 sa Ae an. 233, 768 
DR es ca oc Beto tk eae ΠΠ δ 
Leva SRA ΣΉ ick ee Ge hes 905 
1645 . 1012, 1135, 1160 bis, 1165 
1:26 Hoe 005 550 50445720 
1327 508, 658 bis, 961, 992, 996 
[ete ket ee ΝΥ ne 970 
L329. RY Le ee ors 391, 1193 
VO eA heer ak en a tat alg ate 868 
10s. eee ee 234, 629, 632, 677 
LSA RUE ΕΣ Ass ees 904 
1:32 , 408, 440, 602, 792, 893, 897 
1232, 54-4100 SR. bao as ee 896 
Loo rite bi 7.7: 440, 677, 707, 724 
τάν ced. Se sheath nesta 893 
TSO eee Beek ea ce ee ee 366 
LB 7s reer ΣΝ Παρ, ΕΣ 1042 
1:38 . 411, 416, 433, 465, 875, 
1044, 1123 
1:39 . 299, 470, 714, 813, 871, 
949, 1044 
1:40 . 519, 614 bis, 762, 779, 785 
1:41 . 416, 433, 549, 657, 691 bis, 


714, 762 bis, 770, 795, 881, 
893, 897 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


LALA) sf eek eats eae 215 
1342003 255, 376, 411, 678, 835 
Tat dace Wate aes 578, 598 
ΤΟ αν ας 578, 782 
1:46 428, 478, 720, 743, 875, 949 
USA Ee Ai ark oe oo νον 598 
Ft a eR EY OPA . 1100 
1:48 621, 634, 635 bis, 765 
858, 1075 

ISAS ET. aes See centee 978 
τ oe) ros ee ee ee 769, 781, 1126 
150 . 277, 396, 476, 634, 871, 
1028, 1029, 1123 

LEO LACS A ΡΣ 423 
Lie ee ee ΣΉΝ 364 
ys Ns amen s aa"  Eoll ee i Cee: x 762 
PA SAY Pe: PME Ee 7 EY 428 
DROS rie ee ae eee 405 
pS Cees aR τος ee ear 2 oy: 700 
DEBIT. oe A Le, Oa ae 539, 736 
Ds a oa ΤΣ ΤΣ 243, 729 
Ὡς Ξ ΟΡ SOOT Oa Tt ara tee 855 
Bee whe in eee ee 571, 906 
AOA iss eee : 510 
A ee ir a AR 474, 506, ‘507, 841 
COT: Dad) hails cig. aides) Geeta 1184 
2:10 bahia ae ΣΙ ΠΟ noes 
ari . 216, 701-2, 704, 771, 781 
2°12 Mie ee, 470, 680, 681, 686 
2914 Be say OR ὦ; 265, 427 
22 LGR) jee) Re ore Weve 427 
Μη PSE AN MB 855, 950 
2) eee: PL Pek ae 500, 903, 1029 
2 ΘΥ SPAT αὐ 311, 433, 964, 1034 
QD Be eee te. 586, 856, 948, 1023 
2:20 . 283, 365, 367, 523, 
527, 833, 1183 

PED UY Fee ΣΦ ΎΝ ΤΟΣ ras νἀ τὰ VS" 230 
pL As Ae a eras Ἢ 399, 498, 707, 708 
ye A Re ete re Lm ee NR 715 bis 
δ Es ees ae εν Δ ὁ . 523, 760 
2:24 . . . 226, 287, 476, 686, 688, 
689, 765, 885, 966, 1071, 1186 

De Dd fire) ΔΗ ees ee ὁ 584 
YS) fen a Sn Gay Ὁ 1029, 10438, 1176 
3:1 . . 395, 434, 460, 599, 782, 1185 
FS Srugily sic Ca eae es 611 bis, 793 
Ὁ 9. i ea OA Pca eta - 857 
is νυ ΠΛ ΡΤ as ref 751 
SEA TE ea ΡΝ ne ae 795 
St os Pa ak eet a. ee 1200 
Sale. OR LPs st ta ca eee 852 bis 
3:8 . . 299, 342, 548 bis, 800, 1177 
3:10 Pane Ante tyes 678, 768, 1175 
sl ee A Ae γον. 407, 653 
ΘΕ ΝΣ 654, 1012, 1160 





INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


John 
OB Sa ον ὡς 600, 859, 1183 
AO as pee ea of ee 908 
eG. ta LOO, 437, 753, 758, 762, 
770, 1000 bis 
eel tata te πὰ es ΕΟ LO 
ait te ae ἐν 897, 898, 963, 1028, 
1159, 1169 
3:19 . . . 426, 663, 666, 699, 789, 
964, 1033, 1183, 1184 
S210 f. . 1191 
Sy OY Eg | ie A a τοὺς 364, 795 
ὌΝ lt TONNES era ene 438, 884 
1a ER OP) Re ge ~ ‘392 
ES ΡΝ : 905 
SA ee 433, 515, 598, 610 
οι ee ene Ooo 
ead fl LA. 857, 907, 1019, 1162 
pede | are re ae ae SAA’ 
eee Mee Pa Ὁ} Σ 94, 531 bis, 550 
SEL Meek τ τς 218, 707, 708 
tee PEM Pek Ἐς ες 248, 598 
τ ῦ . Ὁ ΟΡΟ DOLD 
ΡΝ a ie: 859, 1034 
GSE as Up οτος 597, 1163 
ERED ΤῊΣ rack Cie ΜΚ eet 585, 643 
Rent y ety eA poi ocak 540, 879 
ον ΤΕ re 438, 666, 684, 841, 
1034, 1049 
4 Es 9) ee gee ree . . 484 
4:2... . 1129, 1148, 1149, 1154 
ἜΗΝ τ προ eae . eas 
ΣΤ ΟΣ ae ΤΠ Ὁ 393, 582, 887, 919 
4:5 . . 428, 505, 547, 596, 646, 715 
ἀν κοι ς 867, 549, 599, 604, 778, 
909 bis, 1110, 1146 
OE ΔΕ ΤΑ aka hele tet 598 
Metros oe sie hot 434 
CLAY US Gin Ay oot oo a Aro 343 
Aters GS Thy. 905 
vers See 204, 371, 482, 530, 678 
ΤΟ Seta 18; 656, 678, 922 bis, 


FRA RRR ERR ERR BF BRR RRR 


1015, 1046, 1069, 1105, 1110 


:11 , 394, 656 bis, 777, 778, 1105, 


1106, 1166, 1179, 1182, 1185, 1189 
667 
599 


714 ὙΠ 520, 716, 818, 889, 1212 


Cl San ee 201, 985, 1088 
RS |g) τ τ eens eae 299 
CAE ΕΝ ΕΑΝ 856 
ὌΝ μον aaa 699 
18 . . . 657, 720, 790, 838, 843 
BOR abit ee ἢ 426, 842-3, 1183 
ΣΌΝ teeta idl 919 
Da eee WR τς νὰν ar fy. 1159 
ΠΥ, οὐ το ne τὶ 971 


ee 


σι σι σι σι δι σι σι σι. AMTKAAAAAKNATE EERE EERE REE RRR EPR EER ERE 


pp ὩΣ 


Or Or Or Ov Or 


SF Ee. ΡΥ Xe. Pe ie) αὐ δ is 


area? eer, 6. 6? ον ὁ 


CONG) GOP) Of. ἃ Δ δ δ 


Pee δ Or. ἀν πὴ δὲ 08 


“πα ΠΥ ee  ὦ 


. . . . 


τὰν ΓΑ ΓΑ ΚΣ Play τ." 


ὌΝ ei eet ee ὁ 04 δ, Tt Ih nt 


Oe Oo γ᾽ 2) OF, OY Te yee, Be πὰ 


τα το Ποὺ Ὁ ἃ 


Ὁ ΑΝ at TE On ee eet ee bee συ, 


1301 


. 233, 429, 678, 713, 1159 
. 234, 400, 476, 540, 566, 
710, 1186 
215, 707, 708 
MO γον: 
_ 424, 604, 611, 756, 791, 
1154, 1188 
433 


_ 251, 917, 949, 1167, 1175 


ἸῸΝ 587, 645, 884 
_ 292, 743, 917, 1168 
bite nea ol Ua}: 

: 685, 992, 1076 


τος 422, 626, 678, 870, 1180 


299, 659 


δι για νυ δι τι ὁ 


702 


1128 
ie eee 
368, 597, 884 
_ 977, 1091 
. 715 bis, 841 
eka 1b: 
_ 206, 470, 546, 665, 834 
.. . . 566, 680, 721 
782 


ΠΣ 104, 169, 524, 604, 760 


τι 
. 291, 585, 710, 719, 1149 
892, 1115 
428, 879 


τος 879, 960, 978, 1001, 1068 
i ee 681, RBs bey 950 


681, 838, 855, 890 


|, 258, 274, 480, 481, 656, 


695, 707, 769, 855 


681 


396, 884, 1060, 1166 


τ . 190, 707, 708, 1018 bis, 


1094, 1181 
188, 311, 325, 985 
969 
1137 


453 


1302 


John 


:25 . . 135, 234, 333, 356 bis, 781 
ΤΗΣ ΛΩΝ BY ca wih ΝΡ Ais 333 
δον ον ea ee 859 
D7 Waa nee. i τῶν 781, 802 
BR eS pl ene van τ 890 
OS foe) ΗΝ mene ae 859 
BOO it Fetes Wine) een 500 
BOD Ra τ γος 685, 828, 890, 1162 
Bel wing ae sheen ees 890, 1010, 1018 
CHENEY tae Wyn Pee ΟὟ 677 
BON iste apenas 479, 746, 764 
Bee ote, waa eee eran 897 
533. 0 Al ie ere een 896 
34. τς τς aha ae 110, 866 
Sh hee Ti eae 334, 625, 1212 
36 220, 265, 274 bis, 516, 
667, 686, 789, 894, 1204 

BT opie TAs i oe 893, 896 
CV ee ee πη 1179, 1189 
DOUG Sie: uae ne eg ae 678, 703 
39 329 bis, 678, 707, 941 
BO LaMar aes aan 1183 
AO eis eo ae Se 878 
Alen tee as arent ae 110 
AD ieee see ee 499, 500 
AS at tan yt cs 707, 762 
rR een 437, 442, 771, 857, 
1128, 1135 

AWW RehameRet sas Dye st Sas ν 678 
45 a ee ἊΝ 779, 853, 890, 895 
AG Sieh ee. ke ee 540, 1014 
AG fH. trict eee eee 1012 
ATi atte sie Wake 1009, 1012, 1160 
| Pert eee ra cee hf 2 hoe 44, 503 
ΗΕ ΡΥ 868, 404, 604, 1218 
DOI bad Ar ον SE 2 6 774 
By ts bees that eres 1035 
Gil ΤΣ 891, 950, 1029, 1043 
TERY Poop see 745, 921, 998 
:9 . . 407, 674, 704, 713, 736, 762 
107 ty RU Semi eer core 486 
11 ee eee 732, 762, 967, 1181 
12: bi nh ns 618, 751 
12, 16 sone ae ant are 974 
132°. ee 598, 762, 777 
14 ices eae 444, 718 bis, 768 
15. ict be ees 287, 480, 657 
18᾽1.. ΠΥ 602, 841, 904 
1δ:- 2 ΠΝ ἘΣ 904 
17 . 361, 366 bis, 904, 1214 
18 i) yeeter ane ie 367, 1179, 1215 
10 enw ieee 263, 469, 603, 904 
τ eee 890, 947 
PAE A kr 603, 857, 886, 919 
22 .. . 437,444, 776, 887, 1034 
22:92 NA Sen, emir stip 


DD ADD A δὴ 5 δ᾽ δ" δὴ σ" δ᾽ σὺ HH NH 


«ὦ τὰ τὰ ὦ TTA σὺ σὺ σὺ δ᾽ δ δ᾽ Ὁ AWRRAAAAAARRVRAAABARAWWAM 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Sed mtd ΤΥ ΤΉ δι 292 
ΠΑΡ Re gta ie 887, 1029, 1049 
20 Male εν ate ee eso 896 
γέ πο ΣΡ ΤΑΝ | 471, 595 
28 . . 850, 880, 889, 923, 934 
29 . 567, 706, 708, 720, 721, 850 
2d BOAO ee τπ τ 400 
30 SL as Mae pee 850 
ΘΙ ΉΤΟ 375, 903 bis 
ΣΕΥ ΡΤ retain 1187 
ἈΠ Ped ἘΣ eer m Aa οἱ ὁ Ὧν ρου 6 300 
Sa een ck Te eh cy 40 349, 850 
BS Yee sae i ee Ob ὁ Ὁ ὁ 235 
BG ey τ ες eee 889, 1182 
BYR yep Fe hs FeO oh 409, 682 
θ᾿ 653, 713, 773 
ον: 895, 1166, 1187 bis 
39 : 437, 439, 684, 718, 753, 


769, 775, 992 

. . 520, 522, 586, 708, 762 
. 444, 561, 853, 859, 1201 
697, 698 
610, 853 


oy δ ΦΥ͂ αν 16” 6. 8-645 ὦ 
¢ ιν ‘e466: 488-07 le. 4 ἃ 


oe , Ὁ. ἀφο ιν οὐ ie. #6” Se Sek ἀν 
ac ek ee we he at Sette Ri i 
Dei δ. @ O's 62 010 οὔθ 00” oF Fie. ~ 612-6 
a τοι νον κοὐ Cees 


599, 768 


ὧν OO” ert Catiy eg be. Oe ee se 
ad το δ ον ee 6 Bere 
om Cae 6 Ter en éf le Fel 0 586 a6 
6 Os ἡ τὺ ὁ “er δ᾽ here. νὰ 
φυῦφι Hehe) se, ἀπ Oe eo 4 etme ne 


. 470, 487, 550, 1023, 1203 
eile Ye Nichia tt cel eimat ὃ 768, 1206 
374, 550, 597, 792, 878, 

1118 bis, 1159, 1214 

me Pree ea Oe G2 444, 597 
ἜΝ 878, 917, 923, 1175 
. . 790, 791, 876, 924, 934 
. 423, 652, 763, 895, 1035 


be Rbldac, ΠΡ «(ta pin Ueda 399 


764 
a} s+ sl Sake) tole RMSE eee 1185 
. 170 bis, 777 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


John 

ΣΌΣ pe sGi ARES AM cena lar Sa 833 
ΠΝ ea © horn 429, 444 
το 707 bis 
SW, thee Oh oi oh oak veh A 491, 500 
Sead Uy aig RS ral oa ty I ns ona 619 
ΠΙ et 444, 838, 885 
ΣΥΝ FA Ae Ee ΝΡ 1172 
ΤΟΥ λον 400 


NWSI ONIN τὰ τῇ τῷ -ἰ τῇ τὰ ὦ καὶ 


οοοοσοοοοοοοοοοοοοοο τ 1) ]1͵ὺ] -ὩΠπ͵|- 1]. 15.15.1 5.0 


17. . . 292, 551, 741, 757, 878, 
1019 bis, 1045, 1177, 1188 

TSM ΜΡ ΠΕ 698 762, 
(Ly): Se gia en 1175 
22 ᾿ς, 243, 434, 1166, 1187, 1202 
23 . 275, 418, 541, 656, 774, 
965, 1175 bis 

OE (in an ae 478 
ig Gee 27, 444, 698, 703 
SAR AAN pues o, 135, 845, 1168 
ἀπ ΣΌΣ, 917 
VAL Σ  Ν ῊΣ 1188 
Smee ties, Fe μοὶ 231, 905, 1183 
Sire alt ιν δ 716, 720, 1175 
ὌΝ Sh ce ee. 44,1123 
Bae et ye tee Mh 659 
ἜΝ Ty oe ten oes 969 
BIRSh Mauer Vedat as 232, 233 
35 95, 501, 581, 1001, 1205 
ἘΣ ees aa 234, 444 
BSS ἐπα oN 333, 355, 356, 437, 
459, 1130 

39 368, 433, 795, 859 bis 
CAYO ply ee 599 bis 
PIMs ore eye, 1190 
TTR, | οὐ γεν χ SRGan eae 578 
omer CARA Ono τ 970 
eee eee a eet a ie 857 
AS” ae bee he a Tee 444 
ΓΝ ibe ote aE a ae 1175 
DR Ss RSE ae ΦΉΣ ΤΣ 599 
ἼΟΝ ane Ge ATs 404, 407 
eae ae 308, 1168, 1214 
ὌΝ rade Darvon + | 866, 949 
BA Cima Te at, 1210 
Be pee A es. 405 
ἡ. τον ie ees 1102, 1121 
We δι ιν εν 282, 294, 602 
Tee eee eerie νεῖ 768 
:14 208, 866, 870, 1010, 1018, 1045 
GWEN. A pt nets 208, 424, 1026 
Vie ee ae Ὧν 1019 
Oe TE τὰ 922, 1015 
Of ΟΝ, 586, 905, 1165 
BORGO ces yes 1159 
Uk Ore: Gin eae eee 870 
Dap nS seta ἧς 547 bis, 548, 765 
ΣΤΥ Στ: 356 


ῷ ὦ ὦ ὦ ὦ ὦ ὦ ὦ ὦ ὦ ὦ ὦ ὦ Ὁ ὦ ἡ ὦ ἡ ὦ ὦ ὁ ὦ ὦ ὦ ὦ ὦ ὦ ὦ ὦ ὦ OH WW WH Οὐ οὐ Οὐ Οὐ οὐ οὐ οὐ Οὐ Οὐ Οὐ Οοὦ Οὦ Οὐ οὐ οὐ Οοο Οὦ οὐ οὐ οὦ ο 


1303 


:25 . . . 244, 294, 419, 470, 487, 

546, 550, 729, 730 bis, 738, 917 
Day ACLS eho 698, 1186 
DTA MI τὶς 473, 1029 
Dotan Pare 8, 698, 837 
CAVE ΟΡ ἡ ἀν οἷς 871 
29 . 537, 549, 611, 659, 845 
πα ne a ee 1132 
SY Res Se 234, 453, 1117 
BVA) ἐλ ecu SEs ile pea ἮΝ 872 
BoA eminem s ὧν. 872, 896 
BS ameter line OVA) 614 
30 ΤΕΥ τιν, 921, 1015-16, 1022 
POLS ἘΠ ey 579, 708, 881, 1014 
44 224, 551, 683, 768, 1219 
ΠΟ 1): Jigs ee ee eee ee ha 690 
Fy ley Fea Rael hee, Ute 850, 1019 
Hota CoM os Hash Υ. 473, 507 
elon sl oe ee ere eee 441, 728 
AMP rn Fc ee site tere 1034 
ik Aah ah oe Τα 505, 530, 1026 
Gr cas ΕΝ Ἀν 993, 1212 
STH er fy NK 310, 337, 1183 
ΤΕΥ gos ie 394, 880, 977, 1091 
59 . 350, 581, 807, 817, 1136 
ik is ie Bae Sepp a ae a oe 784 
αν Rok hed pee ine ee 998 
TE io eM ie πλλκΝ 404 
mee es nc 976, 1081, 1159 
Ct eit PAR Be ἐν ere 684, 972 
ie Ane ee 420, 681, 779 
Genet ote 0) 253, 592, 714, 855 
7, 10k ee ee oe 253 
:8 . 503, 768, 866, 887, 1115, 1139 
TS OFS Ay eee τ Δ, λυ νῦν 1028 
10 . . . 339, 419, 420, 503, 1213 
ik or 420, 681, 779 
al vst, aa rt 708 
1 eh a am 234, 707 
Ti geet a 368, 718, 1213 
| Re ον 681 
τ πον 0 ee 710 
Tea ek Re 779 
PRM sos noes 964 
OH ESO es Kole 420 
WE Sy eed Ca aR oe 1213 
ibs. gah Eee 291, 841, 975, 1029 
dey fae sere s cine ae 768 
ἜΑ bag, eR legen 524 
ἌΝ εν ἢ 733 
22 . 366, 480, 811, 816, 905, 993 
DTS A aoe: 597, 697, 700 
25 . 866, 892, 1045, 1115 
(oe ae ka 878 
terri ig veo 268, 473, 707 bis 
BO Gey ee eer Τὺ γα 433, 1190 


1304 


John 
DIU LEZ) Ose Pater sited, oa ΔΕ 1029 
Oe Lei ee Teas ae ee 698 
Sos eA ie Barer es Phas Wr eae B14 ey 597 
APRS ARTE Ys oe ctu wen po 920, 1014, 1016 
OPA Aah se ak oe 656, 678, 768, 774 
Os 1) LEST Pinyin ey res" im ul» S 841 
DESO ΕΝ Pea ies 960, 999, 1182 
OPAC) νου ie ts aa ο: 611 
ΟΝ 1013, 1014 
LORS» ΣΥΝ" 300, 708 
10 ΤῊΝ 608 
LO 33, Of Δ eter ena 428 
TOR OS ot ER Se 358, 404, 801 
1035 ot ane 355, 356, 418, 889 
LOSO eet Se eee 500, 708, 736, 880 
DUNT 50 ES, eo pene a ae ome 501, 768 
OSB NA LIC ee Oe eee 507, 622 
LOSI O 6. Mite ee a eae 1025 
10:11 . . . 398, 418, 429, 656, 776, 
865, 1206 
Τρ ig κυ es 762 
ΤῸ eee ca ese ee 632 
10f1 2 434, 764, 955, 1138, 1163 
LOSLS ΕΣ OR rs oe 509 
LOLLS TE a hie Se oa ee 870 
ΕΠ ΡΤ ἐν Rs RS REN ΤῊΝ τὸν ἢ 965 
LUIS ace pte ces yee 420, 579, 845 
ἀν ΣΉΝ" 408, 700 
ΟΣ ΣΙ eee 702 
10:28. 2 .... 3338, 356, 752, 875, 1164 
O50 Ue Cee areas 402, 677 
TOGB2 25" Saeed | 740, 845, 880 bis 
TOSS SEE Poe ee ce 480 
10:9 4289 τ ie Peo 1028 
10:35 . . 434, 480, 708, 1160, 1182 
10:36 . . . 425, 487, 442, 781, 952, 
1015, 1028 
L033 [a esta one ἊΝ: 1012, 1020, 1170 
LORS GES ΣΝ ΟΣ eee 1160 
LOSS ER eee 425, 850, 983, 1026 
ORB PT" Bean oa Coser eee 409, 885 
10340 Ho fee 487, 659, 833, 970 
LESL CAT Se ee rane ances 256, 578 
Tare ite Ce τὺ τα 859, 1114 
L128, Gy 2ycl dele ea nee 1191 
LISA Aottee cele tee eee 632 
Via gt. FAZONTOG, 718) Ib 2 1198 
Pn car Sed eee 931, 1205 
|B hs τα, eae ee ARGO 
LL: αν Ὁ 587, 800, 1019 
VL SAO ΠΕ Πνι 587 
LUE) TRY a a ee ee 895 
LEsLisL oth: Sey See a cee 905 
LESS ne. Seo ee ee ee 1009 
L113) aoe ae 498, 905, 1029 
1 ΠΟ, eee 1210 bis 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


{1 GA a ae mee 580 
L141 Fae eae ee eee 266, 800 
11:18 . 283, 424, 469, 575 bis, 760 
LISI sere ἘΝ 619, 620, 905 
130 hie. ea ee 521, 791 
LEST heres Coe 420, 841 
1199132. eee 313, 922, 1015 
14823 Pe a 676, 684, 733 
τ (Alt Sere 420 
111247404 he a 669 
11825 es ΜΕΝ ον το 356, 768 
11226 ties ο, ie Lg 
11:27 391, 781, 891, 1028, 
1034, 1150 

LIS OS ue tapos he eee es 861, 881 
11380 eS eee 841, 905 bis 
ἘΠ 3 1) τ ce ae Ee Sipe BAO 
11:32 . . 420 bis, 681, 706, 722, 779 
11235 ak eee Aime BOARS 
TBE teri ores 302, 339, 741, 884 
11:37. . . 698, 857, 920, 985, 993 
11:38 . 341, 559, 560, 593, 596, 604 
118305 itd: Kee ae ee 657 
11280444 ee ee 856 
11405 oo i a eee 1030 
Lied ee, eee 541, 856 
TisAD UNM 6, (ns 477, 617, 843 
11443 δέν "Ὁ oe a oe 328, 1193 
11:44 . . . 193, 197, 361, 366, 486, 
905, 910, 1117 

115474. Oy gee ae 880 bis, 923, 934 
Ligdb he. nu ae eee 681 
νον Sa 675, 742 
TY SHO seen eee 631 bis, 993, 1034 
brat brat ΠΑΡ 688, 1029, 1034 
11 51; 58... Ὁ ears 709 
Rasy tee meee eG bie 581, 593, 1162 
ἐγ δά; ὁ eh eee 205, 640 
ΤΊ 65», πεν en eee 517, 621 
LUG Ube) 527 a ee 1217 
11856 LE seg eee 905 
11:57 . 134, 234, 308, 905, 986, 993 


12:1 ....°. 110,424) 598; 6218622: 

702, 762 bis, 970,1191 
12322 LEED Reece eat ee - 627 
ΤΡ ΟΝ ee 510, 598, 859 
19 As Son 5 Soe a eee 111 
1 roe, Uae eee a ee 932 
ΤΟ ΘΜ τὺ ee 656, 777 
1239) (123 2 oy ee eee 774 
ΤΟ aes 811, 993, 994, 1180 
1ZSIS Pee. ἐῶ 248, 528, 595, 838 
T271b ass is ns ee eee 264, 462 
12:16 .. 487, 550, 605, 653, 765, 905 
19516, (ot oa ἀρ 1029 
| ee CARS Pepi ene rd GA pre Shee 892 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


John 

12:18 . 909, 1035, 1042, 1101 
ἀκ ἐπ fae 0 be 8438, 9438 
λα es ies ek ces ah 243 
ROMP Wi ve Se. we’ go τῶν 27 
ME εν ea de) Ste 923 
Li AR pee RS ΝΡ Ὁ 405 
ἸρολΣ ΕΣ 895, 992 
ΠΡ a an aa Ui 1019 
ROOM MS ins ley ss Syne te eh 317 
ΤΟ tl Se 870, 969, 1019 
(eae . 598, 843, 895, 1187 
ΠΕ ΟΡ Si hes: . 462, 845 
eto. (Me τὰς 908, 1047, 1081 
12230 ‘ . 584 
(4 SYA ee re 190, 597, 889, 1018 
TEMEMS MTL ας a 740 bis 
ee kms 679, 704, 735 
De Peay ens el ow 976 
UP ea τ ea 138, 807, 974 
ΤΥ ΡΟΝ, Se, ΤῊ ΡΣ 1129 
“ΕΟ πε τος 699, 875 
12:42 ek Bliss: 1188 bis 
12243 301, 633, 1150, 1154 
OOS Ih A Ro ee Lk νος ος L135 
ΠΟ ΠΗ Son Ὁ, 753 
A ope aM Ras eS ee νυ ος 234 
cia ASE RS Das τ 2a τ τὺςῃ 698 
HL Me ΕΣ aoe Reming 698 
ices ΠΣ Oe Lee 498, 691, 843 
Rena οτος σε Pt 435 
13:1-5 eee, My os 435 
sh gp get 309, 799 
EERE Se. τ τὺ a ec sys 562 
Ve et ποτ΄ 188, 314, 597 
Sa ie ae pe Os 716, ἤν, 
13:6 . 418, 420, 880, 915, 1175 
ΠΡ ον τὺ τ er oe 915, 933 
Ih aS CE rae 1162, 1172, 1173 
ween) MEPL ITLL. MG ed we 234 
ON ER i re 481, 1045 
18213 270, 416, 458 bis, 466, 1028 
BOUL TS A eg a a a 399, 845 
le (hea. τος ς΄, 633 
AS LPI. co @ (Ped aia eee a 516 
13:17 . 850, 890, 1019, 1022 
USERS an RI Sane es 560, 845, 1203 
13:19 765, 978, 983, 1075 
SOU AAW c fae as 190, 956 bis, 1018 
ἘΠΕΊ αν Veta ee 675 
DRA Ee oO? 5.) do ΤῊ 759 
1 3 Δ ΠΗ ΠΡ ἢ 703, 724, 1045 
Beers CRI A sie. ον 602, 707 
LUO a ear 707, 708 
AY baal MIU  ΤΈΒΗΣΝ 488, 664, 880 
see vet) Pith yah!) 
13:29 . 200, 442, 595, 706, 720 


1305 


ΙΣΤ πο 5, 848, 847 
RO ν. ἡ Fo RM is ΤῊ . 1009 
WS ΡΥ ty sa ae is 548 
ΟΣ τ PA Ss τὰ | 845, 993 
ΘΟ τ ΣΝ 857 
AY B73) 2) et iy CL ee 9 879 
je Sake Tie a 329, 941 
DOE SR alee te 424, 1015, 1025 
SQ i ee 6 6300 
a fn 14 τὴν ΤΥ 353, 690, 846 
ΓΤ © SO ee ee 299 
ἜΣ Ων ok gt sae ΤΕ ἢ a A χν  ἦνν. 791 
Τὼ το tee 249, 583, 769 
{ΟΡ hehe : 923, 1181 
πε ΚΠ es nicks Nac ee . 303 
3 Naty rage tae . 419, 528, 879 
ofl 287, 395, 856, 1016, 
1025, 1202 

BS RNY eae 243, 727, 729, 850 
ΠΕ 72 ROA oe os uke 956 
ΤΟ ee cer rOld 
BOG Kutt ses 613, 747, 1023 
LAR RPA Pe fe oss 233, 614, 857 
LG PAL ee Gaon Cee. Wea aa 709 bis 
19 Ἵ . . 995, 963 
2d. 635, 688, 707, 708 bis, 769 
22 Ἶ 739, 916, 965, 1001, 1034. 
Oa cote Wan κοι : 802 
A et 3. ΔῈ Ὄπ δὴ 
26 . 418, 482, 483, 509, 634, 
708 bis, 709, 795 

Lo ΔΎ ΦΉΣ Ὁ ee rolomere 
ΨΥ τοῦ 234, 817, 923, 1015 
Ja SF aa Raa a Pe 109 
SLL (sa ee Aa Bee tee 308 
τ en οι χα πες cee 
οι, πο 248, 487 
A ἴδ νον Deke 437 
ea eA echt. PRIS GES 584 
“λα ἡ 586, 587 
τα, πὶ ἢ . . 437, 442, 1165 
‘6° 4.8. 1892;'820 bis, 828; 836, 
837 bis, 847, 850, 1020, 1204 
ΡΠ ee 850 
78 . 3a, 699, 837, 843, 984, 
992, 1076 

CMlbeey Tee rs ken. ia 856, 968 
NEE 2 Aig Waters Sorin glee omen ΩΝ 779 
Vp Rig Ak ee ΔΝ 784, 1204 
OWES WT AES τον ν Bee VA gg τὴν ὁ 699 
R20; . . . 398, 699, 992, 993 
13 . 272, 401, 429, 699, 992 
De eA eS Ἐπ kee . 681 
Laat . 480, 709, 845 
10 . 309, 327, 729, 993, 1214 
ral ah Ue mateo at os. As 28, 670, 1008 


1306 


John 
15219 . 559, 598, 921, 1013, 1014 
Lae oe ee ee 509, 716, 1009 
ΤΙΣ are yh Ny, 484 
L522 Fee eae 921, 1013, 1169 
15:22, 24 . 336, 339, 887, 922, 
1014, 1015, 1016, 1147 
ΤΟΣ CRGe a, peor 921, 1013 bis 
156225 Tie ae ee a eee 1033, 1203 
15:26 561, 708, 795, 970, 1181 
ΤΟ 879, 1185 
16:2 859, 998, 1114, 1186 
10 τ ae ees 834, 845 
ΤΟ inl Ae ek, aa eee 1049 
LO 37 Ste alee eles eee 1019 bis 
1688.72. 2s ee eee 566, 1126 
LOES=P Uy) that ee eee oars 964 
ΤΟΥΣ ee EG eee ey eee es 857 
16803 saree es ae 698, 708, 709, 1109 
1GEA7 tesa ere 393, 515, 599, 698 
16207 ΤΟ See 703, 719 
LGR SA Se Peet ae Oe ee 738 
16:19 . . 610, 659, 699, 875, 1029 
16220, 623 Shee: ue 458 bis, 595, 871 
ΟΣ cen ec oar ae ee 871 
LOSD LSA ye ae em ne cree: 866 
16922 supe ee eee, 424 bis 
16:23 190, 482 bis, 708, 1018 
16025, 26.2) se eee eee 709 
16:24 325, 360, 375, 848, 907 
16226 PR a ek we ees 618 
ἸΌΝ ἐν et eee areas 579, 614 
LO328 8 ieee ous a ee ae 598 
LO 350, RS aie ee aet es 579, 589, 699 
IGS Lar ee etter ceo ee 1175 
10 ee Rh eee 657 
LG3SS ἐπ Yee ae Ce 135, 677 
Ae See aa eee 801 
17: oll oi eee ee 462 
17:2 , 198, 309, 348, 409, 411, 437, 
500, 718, 718, 876, 963, 984 
17:3 . . . 203, 699, 718, 776, 984, 
985, 992 bis, 1079 
17:4 . . . 234, 418, 677, 682, 843 
175 5 418, 401], 678, 6825716; 
765, 891, 978 bis, 1074, 1075 
1 See 337, 598, 894, 895 
LRT ees ee eee 337 bis, 820 
LCi eee eee 310 
LEST RAR re ee ee 234, 337, 423 
17:9 . 566, 567, 618, 619, 720, 721 
L710. 244, ae, 685, 770, 898 
LUPE Ἀν a a ae ν. 464, 948 
Vil) fi 45 eee eee 716 
L812 ee ee 599, 1188 
17213 ΣΟ eee 902 
ΙΑ δον 598 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


17 GTA AP et ee 598 bis 
VEU GT VR Sei τυ τον 768 
ΤΙ τιν συ bl eee ae 439 
17... 19 ταν we Bee 900, 908 
ΤῊ ΤΣ 983 
VOR Se eee thoi 234, 395, 461 
1] 224 ey ek en eee 264 
LV ΖΑ aa ee eee 462 
LHI 22 Sea τον eee 898 
17: 29 ee ees, 360, 593, 677, 908 
1049, 1116 

17:24 . 653, 713, 933, 969, 1048 
17:25 264 bis, 419, 461, 464, 
843, 1128 

15 0 Mee Aer FIR ee ae 478 bis, 482 
15 ee cS 213, 275, 627, 680 
1842, [SUE Sey es tats a cane ane 859 
LS 2.3) 5 eo eee 548, 1127 
L835) Ase es. Tate @ cc ee 888 
LS 3G Ty Slee" ce eee ee 521 
1S LOS a Se oe 457, 762 
18. 1 Vert neers. 459, 683, 850, 934, 
1161, 1174 

Ro Sa eee ee er a! 255 
18:14 . 529, 1035, 1058, 1084 
18:15 . . 405, 529, 537, 707 bis 
18:16 . 764, 747 bis, 775, 777 
18:12 as πον ee ee 708 
18:1 τ 909 bis, 910, 1116 
18220 Me eects ee ee ὁ ἢ 589 
18:2 1 coe asi ete eo eee 726 
LS P2200 Ἀπ ει eee ee 1116 
15 Fe eet ee 1009 bis 
18:24 2 ΣΕ oe δ. 841 
1SS2ZGRE Ie.) woe 575, 706, 720 
18328 ΣΡ δ. ee 1183 
ΕΟ ee Ce 500 
18330¢ ΕΞ 1015, 1016 
18:32 531, 740, 1029, 1043 
ΘΔ Pon. ee uc een cee 288, 688 
1535 ΤΣ Shee sees Miz 
1S $36.2 belo ae ele ee 922, 993 
18:37 233, 599, 915, 917, 1165, 
| 1175, 1192 
18:58" Fase ot alte. 411, 736 
18:39 . 430, BAL, 876, 878, 924, 
935, 980, 992 

18240 Hh Fe eA ee 1172, 1173 
LOR τ Suk ecg τ ae 801 
1932 ic te. eee ee 408, 483, 883 
19:3 . 311, 465, 969, 884, 1214 
19tO co), Soa eee 1190, 1200 
10: ον. nok oe coe 480 
19:11 . 885, 887, 906 bis, 921, 
923, 1014, 1015, 1016 

LES 1 ΤΕ 521, 542, 573 


John 
TENE ee Se Ge eee pee 104, 367 
͵ eee τος 501, 793 
Π ΠΣ (a. cae aa 104, 539 
TUG) Re al  νννι 300, 775 
foe Ue πς 362, 375, 603 
SOO oe ὡς τρενος 28, 104, 205 
VEER (a nae 707 bis 
ORS Se ie 358, 801, 895 
PS as Se, . 212, 408, 1184° 
19:24 . . . 619,690, 811, 931, 943 
19:25 . 235, 255, 501, 614, 767, 904 
"ΟΠ ρον Se DoD 
ΡΥ ce es ei 502, 586, 691 
PON Me ated eres os 425, 898 
ΠΣ αν, ἢ 214, 254 
"ΤΡΙΣῚ νὴ 365, 392, 1212 
19:32 530, 746, 747, 775 
ROPE Ey Sea ee ne WPA 
19:33 . 546, 602, 909, 910, 963, 
1041, 1042 ἜΠ115 
Eee OR se 707, 1118 
Gee ees a 2 Oe is 260, 704 
19:37 293, 594, 706, 720, 721 
Ti2escl 
Πρ ees. 578 
ΠΣ ον 3 495, ΤῸ 
ΠΡ Ὁ ΟΦ 05.8. 533 
Pome eg ee 1076 
Ope νγ΄. . 316, 762, 905 
DON ewer eee," 522, 762, 868, 1097 
Aeneas 2. 7 392, 506, 845, 1202 
SOUR as be ae oe ee ee 747 
72 Do” AS Sian ae ae ae wi 
20:3 1... 746, 838 
20:4 , 278, 401, 549, 656, 662, 669 
20:5-7 . 868 
Ta ΟΝ ao aaa 593, 603, 648 
τ ΟΣ ΕΑ ὦ ἢ 868 
ΟΝ ΣΤΟΝ Bede Wasa. τς 1165 
20:11 . 525, 624 bis 
20:12 _ 589, 624, 653, 868, 906, 1202 
POA σέο τ τῶν 868 
ANSEL ES 0 fee en το 133, 868 
ΟῚ το νου ΠῚ 443 
TUES TAP” eine 683, 1009 
20: 15-18 869 
AAG TT a eee 416, 462, ‘465, 714 
20:16, 18 ὙΠ eae ANY) 
ΠΟ 7 aus ae te See a PCT 
BO isl ee tee 438, 1028, 1212 
θέν ἢ 522, 653, 708, (220679 
10 28)... τ Ὡς ᾿ 593 
AO Wet oes hay as, 6 1128 
ΠΕΡῚ were a os 429 
NS aes e207 
TURBOS DENS Speen gee 190, 315, 1019 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


μαι 


μι μα μα 


NOSE CP κα ον Δὰν 258, 259 
I On! ae eae oe a . 882, 1201 
728 261, 461, 466 bes, 779 
S748 A ee Wee ara 859, 895, 1028 
sme ttn Pa ΚΘ sa 362, 655, 1181 
ies LMM Me ie ee See, wa Lae s 540 bis 
oS err am Sec os) ahs ΣΝ 003 
ον Ag Py 405, 501, 767 
a ae 353, 627, 882, 923, 990, 1062 
RY εν a IOUS 
BD : ἘΣ μον eRe 
‘Nie Faget ΤῊΣ 408, 580, 5938, 652 

"7 Ν ee FARE 
:8 , 268, 469, 499, 520, 521, 
533, 543, 575, 802 

8 he Bn eo ie ard Se ΟΣ )54} 
:10 . 519, 577, 716, 843, 845 
11 aie LO Ea 1129" 
aN ny ae 437, 885, 949, 1128 
[et Ae a eae tee “τ AALS 
14 dest d OS Deo 
sae 187, 516, 659, 667 
SG egal et at Da ΤΥ aco 
al ee seg te ie ee 255, 1201 
SAGE 30 SS OL a cag en Ae 1028 
18 314 bis, 802, 884, 969 bis, 
971, 1199 

19 531, 740, 876, 891, 1029, 
1043, 1110 

ONT Gas) Oates τ ΠΑ oe Poy κα 724 
OAC Spa 395, 411, 697, 705, 
736 bis, 1202 

ΟΣ ει Ae 395, 736, 978 
RE ea ae es τ 
25 δ98, 703, 870, 1216 
24 : 137, 406, 416, 785 
25 . . 234, 369, 729, 877 bis, 
891, 1030, 1040, 1082 bis, 1162, 
1205, 1210 

Acts 

. 280, 419, 440, 463, 663, 

669, 716, 954, 1152, 1179, 

11938, 1203 

Near) Wy. RA a Gea bie ee 121 
οι Ye ae Vid 841 
Εν 24 141, 05), $20, 1039, 1074 
t _ 442, 475, 507, 519, 578, 
618, 688, 715, 717, 1029 

5 . 110, 389, 418, 420, 533, 
612, 656, 702, 1158, 1205 

6 316 bis, 523, 695, 916, 1151 
ἐν errs ry 497 
te ἀν δεν Ὁ Ie τῷ “418, 787 
Τ0 Pinoy ΟΣ Bere, 7 267 
10f 904 


1307 


a TS OR Se ee Oe Ce OC 


1308 


Acts 
i al Bras far Pe 398, 701, 718, 771 
1:12 . 154, 232, 267, 269, 458, 
469, 640, 778, 780 
ROOT Be Gees xii, 501, 629, 760 
De aT re, oa 623 
OLD Wine ταν ἀπ 0 νον, τ 283, 434, 602 
( iad Ko ape ees ΓΔ Ὁ 399, 651, 859 
| hl (omc re oo Sere Fl os 509 
1* 18 . 472, 510, 599, 775, 834, 
1151, 1217 
Ted Ot} ho eee eee eco 28, 219 
1:20 . 272, 939, 1110, 1214 
ΤΟΙΣ σον. 721 
τὸν 413, 639, 717, 974, 1126 
DAT NOG AAAS A ete ny Me a 214 
ΤΣ ΟΝ eatery ae 215 
ΕΣ τ δ chee Me ve 678, 706, 861 
1 ΤΑΣ Sa ΠΕ δ01, 092 
λα δ tee τοῖα 261, 376, 966, 969 
1105, 1140 
PA: Sore Gee ee ἧς ἐς aay 748 
DPD ae eho e. Rope ter eect 212,-593 
ον «a? a ca Reed ees 1042 
Ded Ce ΑΕ ΟΝ, 224 
pa Taba ΟΕ en 186 
ΡΟ Δ Se oe at ee 788 
ὍΣ carer eee ie PiU muse 
Piel bis . 692, 747, 883, 1031 
15 . 749, 908, 1127 
AP dea. 4 ees yr i a NTE 
Ὁ ΟΡ ΡΝ. 793, 1158 
ADL eck eee re atc αν 393, 531, 577 
2.181} ΡΥ tad eee eta ΡΟΝ, 1042 
et Lee igs Ree LER ει ec ne 1148 
De OS ee sie es a. 561, 1091 bis 
Zeal ΠΟ 7 Ὶ 
2222 399, 427, 534, 579, 698, 716 
22238 . 317, 339, 698, 1113 
DDE NOG SA ay ae eee 122, 1058 
Ye τὴ ΤΡ ὁ ΛΑ ΤῈ 234 bis, 367, 594 
VIA HE ES ON eg A 224, 604 
ΟΣ ΤΟΣ ΕΝ 591, 593, 792 
ΟΡ 502 
2°28 ny RN he rose 510 
Beg 234, 587, 612, 881, 1119, 
1130, 1182 
DESO, ake eee pols Ol 7 9 }0 
ΙΔ nee Chea ne er ae 593 
τ ων 701, 714 
PGR 448, 498, 652, 781, 
1179 
21:94 Se Oe ee See Α 652 
ἈΕῚ Δ ee en ee 712 
VAY MOR ay τὼν Ὁ hme BA 350; 1179 
2 as . 389, 592, 595, 780, 781, 


782, 795 


Ww ὦ9 wwwwwww ὁὁ WOWWNNNNNN τὸ 


WWWWWWWWwWWWwWW&W 


Abe. FF PREP EaRe eR E 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


BOF ie) Seka ney een 8 541, 593, 733 
DUDES FEN A hk Sa 666, 813 
BAP a koa σι δι, 5. ἢ 283, 1151 
AD ee ΝΡ ΟΡ τ Ὁ 542 
CPA Ae EE Gh tke es 541 


:45  . 581, 722, 884, 922, 958, 967 
:46 . 508, 519, 608 bis, 609, 1179 


o47 UM) Oe Big 801. 1115 ΤΙΣ 
1 Wickes Sais iy eee 602 
Tele tes Ae 905 

SDs WISTS 505 eda a Red ede 

990, 1088 

Bight. a, OPN ΟΣ ΘΝ ae 429 
Sabine laa τ 313, 559, 877, 884 
pena sae 538, 828, 1036, 1127 
MPA RUF eRe elt 698 
Tie ae er ee 210, 508 
hye tae 423, 1116 bis, 1136 
Qe SEN, See rh ee ee 1103 

:10 . . . 262, 626, 885, 887 bis, 

1111, 1117, 1179 

(1 ee ote 269, 407, 604, 655 

:12 . . 334, 423, 818, 1065, 1068, 

1078, 1140 

15. Ἐν He ΜΕ ἢ 649, 707, 1151 
LEGO S cane 399, 651, 785, 818 
LBA gic2ar.,0n ee . 714. 
161 opeiae oa ree 517, 639, 644 

Ta ἢ τος 609, 1128 

:18 . . 409, 858, 877, 1036, 1080 
19 ihe die ee . 649, 1075 
1D Est ice Oe een 986, 1049 
ΝΣ ΜΉ ΤΥ 716, 1151 
οτος εν. . 733, 1151 
ἈΚ ΚΕΝ 189, 598, 727, 959 
ΤΡ ρ΄ 732 
STAM shales 9 eee el 625, 716 


:26 . 538, 549, 800, 891 bis, 991, 


1072, 1073 bis, 1116, 1128 
ea ie ee ae 587, 966, 1071 
3 LER NS yan ea A AD aing 538 
B fests sj ek oh aes ee 1047 
G anes nt ae io, See 914 
Tos scene 648, 655, 678, 740 
at Nd oe μῶν, 500, 703, 780 
[10 >.) cd. 656, 698, 705,715 
10,816 seh a ee 656 
Lie oct aoe 698, 703, 769 

12. . . 686 bis, 749, 751, 778, 

1107 

13° 3.57 127415" 691 S128 ear 
1035, 1197 

| Coats ee red 1087, 1179 
6.0... (eae OSG RBRO ALE 
17-7. Se ES Loe aioe 
[SRO ORE a eae 546, 550, 607 


ES ———— ee Ὁ Ν 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Acts 
ΠΟΥ i ea 516, 666, 1045 
4:20 Τ᾽ δ 910, 677, 1004, 1164, 
1171 bis, 1173, 1174, 1214 
Bea dt SRK 766, 905, 966, 1031, 
1046, 1128 
ἤιλωῤλῦδ, . 268, 498, 002, 666, 905 
ATC RG I a a Co an 50 
Ὄντος 419, 1214 
kee Be ORE AT 1 ι  Ὁ, 739 
ROARS 1D Se Ame 905 
BON, PS eK 224, 560, "765, 772 
ALR bb Se RO 1072, 1073 
Ἔν ee πον 000 
LES VAL τος ποὺς 688, 691, 751 
Chas? @a AU PO a) aa 1 ςς ὌΝ 
ἀν ΠῚ τς 587, 884, 891, 892 
1115, 1116 
A ae 190, 312, 318, 922, 
967, 1214 
36 . 487, 530, 579 bis, 714 
SES, BS Rarer . 891, 1116 


Cr Cr Cr CU OT Cr δι δι δι ST STO δι δι δι Ot δι δι OT δι δι ἢ ἃ 


δι σι on 


Cr δι Kor ὧι Ot Or ὅι 


: Mee LO, χοῦ bis) 457 
᾿ 256, 319;-517, 627, 810, 1116 
. 1001, 1089, 1090 
BAL, 965, 1166 


ee aN) Ma ee Pe a we τὰ. ὁ] ee Der | 


on ὡς eee a eee 18 


Rasy cv oe we CL ere Olle yy ee 


308, 510, 710, 810 
529, 601, 1084 


BIE τοι ἄν τὴ ἢ 269 bis 

ἄρον eke yee . 529 
is ae Ὁ . . 435, 453, 1106 
(it eae ae 194, 214, 984, 1091 
Vit ene 404, 412, 617, 928 
τυ ean 261, 1107, 1108 
Phy ideal eae 408, 581, 791 
URN eaten t NN κε ἢ 497, 706 
pipers oe Su ee 635, 1086 
ee a τὸ π τ΄ 800 
ἢ αὐ a 601, 603, 621 
24 . 405, 736 bis, 789, 938, 940, 
1021, 1044 

SE a de ae eee 233, 881 
| AT es ee 531, 995 
2% .. . 224, 253, 510, 531 bis, 
697, 760, 878, 895 
ΛΑ 405, 747 
BOR ee Oy OSS tht: 317, 603, 1127 
Bia Grey Usa ἔχ, 480, 526, 1088 
Ri Mie MGR. Say 653 
ΠΣ, 605 
36 _ 172, 233, 411, 540, 542, 
581, 743, 1038, 1113 

ἐν Oh a he Os Oe 732 
AWC Ses Ca a eR ἀν ον 835 


CO OS O&O od 


TEST SEAT NIST τὰ «σὰ ST SU TT AT ST ST σὰ ST τὰ ST πὰ ST πὰ ST SI ST ST «ἡ αὐ - SI “ἡ - αὐ “πὶ πὰ «ὦ «αὶ σὺ SD 


1309 


OSs WNC te dete ἢ 547, 1018, 1019 
7M oF yh a i 08 
ΟΝ TT: ς 995, 1009, 1096 
ἜΠΗ σεν Δ} 632, 584, 1151 
LAS Ye en i ona ae 1102, 1109, 1121 
1 _ 104, 626, 782, 
1043 

PASM Aaa ny Se . 348 
oes aon Jew eee eee 816, 989, 1149 
RE sc, es 173, 235, 275, 276 
Si ἐν τως ge a ERTS 
1 Fg ES poe 594, 634, 801, 897, 
1042, 1113 

19 Acts Graco DB ey. ἐξάψαι 1102 
PRC OD pia Th ws is seers mers ae 701 
blame plat: 546, 800, 916 
CE ed Alle te oe 215, 419, 1091 
Ry eae ME BY it par 464 
BARRIS ats ad τ 957 
MEPS ES - 901; 566, 721, 979, 1074 
Ὁ 1036, 1131, 1138, 1199 
ΟΠ ΔΎΣΕΙΣ see | a ΚΝ 889 
ΠΆΡΩ “Tis le ka τι 203, 959 
EN eae tee 522, 760 
At Se Sah a aN ee 308 
10 . 339, 480, 481, 640, 1100 
12 262, 536, 1042, 1103 
LOMB Ole te oes bee Se 537, 587 
Ἐν ἐπ σι τ be ποτ ἢ) 
ἘΣ πὸ 867, 510, 561, 716 
LSE | es recess 716, 968, 974 
32) Ty er eee : 639, 748, 975 
:19 . 477, 703, 1068, 1090 bis 
20 : ΡΟ ULL 718 
21 : 530, 401, 482. 680, 811 
AAC) Va ΝΑῸΣ τα εν ἐν Faas dia 
SMR sisi Fah equ 207, 392 
TURE Ss ns Le 805, 1204 
25 315, 885, 1036, 1049 
26 522, 739, S61, 885 
ee eesti Cas hook RODE 
nea. tices, LNs, Bes bs +e 206, 718 
ΟΝ ΤΥ. ie ce. cones 589 
UC | Mey ΡΥ ie adn 760 
LE) cee Sale anes daa A 474 
734 187, 490, 932 1110, 1147 
35 ; 253, 268, 649, 698, 778, 
860, 863, 1113 

35, 36, 37,3840... .. 698 
ΠΟ apa Re ΤΕ EP ΝΝ 794 
a oye | aT. ΝΗ 778 
OER τ ΔΕ 2. ae eee eee shy 
40 . 436, 459, 541, 697, 701, 
703, 960 

eR a ee eee 367 bis, 532 
Δ vende alt a ha tures 463, 800, 1087 


1310 


Acts 
7:43 . 244, 355, 517, 550, 642, 647 
ΔΑ ey Cait a em ae a ne 268 
TEA 5 lest etre 367, 409, 582, 716 
TEAS SE ee eee ἈΠΕ 424 
ΔΘ Tk) US. a es 735, 740 
ΟῚ cee 300, 523, 542, 573 
εν τ Swe cae ee ee 502 
TDS we, hee Oe eee 482, 728 
ΤΟΥ VET ae ee 1123, 1213 
TEDL WM COR a Eee 339, 789 
TLDS aa aw aha ee eae 256, 811 
TOU eR hee reer evens 834 
SLs Soe nee eeseee 581, 782, 787 
SoD FB ΡΝ ἘΝ τὸ cree aire Beek eres 802 
SS Sle louie £8. ea weirs 174, 419, 473 
Sia: LOC ΜῊ: 696 
S440 ee Oe ees ee eee 695 
8B ce Ps ΕΣ ΤΥ ΣΝ ἘΠῚ 684. 
8:9 . . 316, 743 bis, 888, 1038, 1121 
Ss 1) NRE ee ee ee ee a 704, 769 
S710" ae ὙΠ} 
Silva as 523, 527, 533, 906, 909, 
966, 1060, 1070, 1071 
el PA A Fes Dans an PR Oe 1179 
SST4 Ties aia toe tas wea es 728 
So Lb: yen) νει wey, 367, 995 
8:16 375, 560, 906, 1103, 1121 
8:17 318 bis 
S19 τον Ἣν een 706 
ΕΘ rsa he ἢ 827, 939 bis, 940 
ΣΤ ΣΝ Ct ies POs 08) 
ΘΚ 430, 576, 1024, 1027 
8:23 ", (7. 4587536, 593, 865, 1041, 
1123 bis 
δ 0805-706, 120, 9 es 
S320 3 0. wise, © ee eed FALL 
8:26 . . . 328, 602, 608, 698, 703, 
792, 1205 
8:27  . 374, 877 bis, 991, 1118, 1128 
3°25 00ee ΟΣ 
8:30 ΣΑΙ 916, 1148 bis, 1176, 1201 
ΘΝ ΠΟΔΊ 62s: 800, 938, 1010, 
1021, 1022 bis, 1214 
ΘΎΣΑΣ ΤΣ 715, 968 
$334" ats pS re ey ee ae 748 
S35 eee Ὁ 367, 474 
8:36 602, 748, 974, 1094, 1171 
ΒΘ ΣΎ een 578, 597 
8:39 Aln 2s. foe eee 349, 479 
S740 8, @: _ 218, 593, 6438, 975, 979, 
1060, 1074, 1092 
OSS te ς a re ee 216, 507 
9:2 . . . 190, 482, 497, 1018, 1041 
ἀνε σου Δ ὁ ὁ 538, 1072 
O24 CUE WAS Sage ate 506, 1042 
934,00 ΣΝ ΕΑ τε αν 762 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


9:6 . . 318, 729, 731, 739, 1044, 
1045, 1176, 1215 

0:6, 3405S EES, Ca ee ee 310 
Οἱ ene 2421874495 472, 5062529 
OFS ΘΟ ἐπ lah. gies 1213 
ΟἿ ΟΛΗΝΗΣ RV ΘΕ ΤΟΥ, 1138, 1172 
GOLF ΡΝ ΤΣ ΤΣ 910 
ΟΠ χει ΠΝ 702 
QPL Ds ο LOL OU4 ΠΤ eee 
QRS Bika sin ig eee ee ae 484, 733 
ΘΕΙ͂Ο. 496, 704, 1179 
D5 ΛΕ coca cea Mertens 716, ‘721 
ΒΥ Me ee 559 
ΟΣ ge ΧΕΙ eee 698, 885, 1034 
9:21 . . . 699, 769, 860, 905, 1107, 
1108, 1123 

9:20) etd 1530}: SOL ΠΡ 226 
Doe rede ah Sirat ee eet ee eee 820 
Qe ZOn τ cea tee tice ee ee 1128 
9:27 9 2 o> 244,367, 1035, 1042 
DiBh Read ect eee 524, 607, 787 
θυ ice AM εν ΤΥ Σ᾿ 1085 
οι εν ἀν 1048 
GOAT, Bamee TBI. ΤΡ ῊΝ 866, 986 
OBO HE RS πα ae 269 
ον ες 714, 716 
G233 get. Bak OU, 505, 538, 568, 640 
9:39 ~..°47). B11, 529; 542/732, S10 
a A LE ae ie eee Sl phe ly 607 
LOS LE δ. a ρου σι χιλιὰς 258 
ΤΟΣΟΥ͂ τς tls tie ee eee ee 112 
FOSS τ Bote ee eee 471, 864 
ΤῸ oR Ieee te ee 609 
10: OE at Tie EE Oe eae 615 
ΤΟ CRE ON Bares ee 272, 892 
TO: 9 Aa ete ee aes 538, 793 
LOA OSE Εν ον 623 
LO PT TINS © eater eee 315, 603, 1213 
LOS TAP as are eee oes 702 ube 
ΤΟΣ esa oa ate 396, 1202, 1205 
10:17 . . . 579, 602, 890, 910, 938, 
940, 1021, 1031 

10:18 . . . 1043, 1045, 1105, 1107 
LOSI AOL 2 ens lcs se ee 1108 
10: 20st he aoe eee 571 
IDs2 Egg AI es ie ee 735 
10 : τ νὸς Rae a 561, 614, 1179 
10: ον ee ee 833 
LO REO Oat PR A ce an 809 
10:25 . . 98, 398, 996, 1002, 1040, 
1048, 1059, 1060, 1065, 1068 

10: θυ 3 ke tee aes Pe ΔΕ, 686 
10:28 . . 314, 665, 967, 1032, 1036 
TO: 28) S45 fur RPh νον 1045 
10:29 . . 212, 739, 1043, 1044, 1113 
10530 oe aa bs ooh 471, 645, 793 





i pr ee ee co ee 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Acts 
SALE a hee Pe 233 
KES VARS a 399, 792, 794, 1105 
10:33 861 bis, 990, 1080, 1088, 
1115.19] 
"ὦ ts i ak π᾿ ΠΝ υ 1108 
ΠΝ τ ν΄ 438, 718, 723 
πε ννος 413, 458, 607 
RAS Ty Fp ae 219, 533, 1032 
OR eee 339, 1113 
Ve ee eae 537, 794 
10:40 f. : 1095 
10:41 ἜΤΟΣ 752, 960, 979, 1074, 
1162, 1163 
1 ΣΕ ERS ley a mi er Are 833 
BUG eee Cisse Sk 419, 1035 
1} Be elias τ ὸὺς 1036 
10:44 anes 891 
10:45 : 578, 782, 897, 1181 
10:47 231, 728, 960, 1061, 
1094, 1171 
ΠΟ τ 1084 
ΠΡ ρου 4-8) 608 
lo ee ΜΠ] 
ΠΕ ν αὐν εν ΡΟ 599, 766, 885 
LU fo er Pe ee ee 1102, 1126 
ih Se eee 315, 498, 639 
Mees ie Parked 2 oe 4 787, 838 
The aes ee ee . 1042 
11:11 . 188 
a petcetn sy ~ 1032, “1041, 1049 
AY τ sok. Δ 402 
POCA ΟΕ ete 566 
11:17 . 658, 736, 968, 1008, 1181 
τ Oe eta a eee 1190 
11:19 605, 657, 696 
Be LSet oie doy OF aoe oie, hen a 1107 
1 Oe Ng Ie ee ih Peg Aan 643 
UE REL aS (ee eee eae 530 
ΟΣ 405 
11:25 yee Pe ere Δ 990 
11:26 : 160, 192, 298, 659, 774, 
833, 1043 
11:28 . 253, 410, 603, 728, 877 bis, 
δὴ; 891, 1036, 1082 
1D RSAC at σον το oP ORT OOE 
UES Υ ται ρον ἐοὲ 714, 861, 862, 1113 
PAY te δε τ τὴν fees Sb 578, 608 
(SO Ty en rr 533, 534 
ie eet hs. ws fe ee 411, 454 51 
OD SEE Any AS ae 8 629 
I Ose recede, 408; 620, 621, 878 
1 weve tony ik: 310, 328, 559, 597 
12:8 . . . 314, 807, 811, 855, 950 
WOO Ao ey eee AL Me. ?: 855, 1153 
12:10 . 477, 550, 728, 762, 777, 794, 


1107, 1213 


1311 


Dee aa le ao ok oad 339, 772 
ΠΥ Peete aires. 255 
15. 990 
14 231, 319, 358, 580, 621, 908, 
1036, 1039, 1040, 1081 

15 . 695, 1036, 1084, 1186 
ΤΌΣ : 601, 1102, 1212 
ἸΣ ἃ 224, 411, 484, 736, 739, 916, 
1131, 1177 

1 Oder raven a Pern bers Ary ee 1061 
δι ΕΝ isis. ΟὟ 235, 906 
21 +i roo 22008 
25 : 235, 431, 835, 859 bis, 
862 ter, 1099 

ἐξ κα hoor nest. νν 608, 1107 bis 
UP Was facts 566, 816, 1149 bis 
al aetna tare SAR MR as et 682 
Sie Mee ee Pe, at σ᾿ 862 
4 440, 686 
: δ _ 214, 258, 269, ‘480, 828, 885 
Ay. Poss er, Pe LS bee ee 639 
ΡΤ ΡΣ ΑΝ ΤΣ δ74 
ον ΜΝ δ: 279, 433 
Εν. : 734, 761 
ὩΣ ς 264, 330, 463, 464 ter, 791, 
874, 917, 942, 1157, 1162, 1193 

UO oe Ra es OR 639, 800 
eee ee ome ate etc ty pees 218 
1s Sas Sakis ΚΟΥ an Pema 620, 766 
1 Fe Pally τ pains ah aT tar 836 
ASS i= Say BE RA eae: 234 
ΤΟΣ τ Pe UP, ee 1107 
ΡΣ κα a ae wr, EVE ety 611 
LSBs ce ey. 165 bis, 219, 528 
OA tel ew rr Ment or 523, 527 
22 . 458, 482, 501, 780, 
1114, 1136 

a4, 5 th: Wi τς . . 94, 621 
Ὁ (20,100, 7358: 010: 996, 1036 
26 pee. Cf 
ΣΙ γα 608, 858 
pia >, HOFer Ge 1085, 1086, 1129 
Lancs Cte eee 429, 602, 728 
32 . 423, 474, 488, 1035, 1107 
νἀ eee 861, 1113 
3) Pear Sayan Ue on 392 
BG Wee fare. tw, cel ee, ἢ 560 
ΠΟΎΣ Tat ee cue cane 1153 
Sf aA ce Teas lan ὦ 706 
σον ἀν ep 566, 720, 721 
AD SP yr oy 409, 430, 933, 996 
ἘΝ . 597, 849, 1019 
742 313, 314, 409, 594, 645 
Le er. ey Ce it ee 990 
AD ey eas OE, lls s eaee an 261 
AQ BP Mt seca ΤῸ. ἡ 810, 965 


2 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Acts 
Pe ey ae Se ae ahr te 221, 482 
ΤΟ ae a ce Jind Oia 582 
Sect uae ee ἡ δα . 578, 788 bis 
LS eo bate ete ass fe eee 
ED AS ΟΣ 502 710, 789, 1000 
DS RL: vr Ae ΟΡ aie 649, 833 
ΠΟ oa? Reena eC ED Cf 695 
TATOO ΝΣ ees 424, 628 bis, 1052 
A ἐκ. ΚΝ eat cee cure pues ΟΣ 
ΠΥ ue ἘΜ Σ᾿ 257, 521, 523, 1096 
14:9 . . . . 1042 bis, 1066, 1076 
41004 423, 549, 656, 659, 789, 838 
14: 1 ee ae ae te ae 28, 104 
1 ord (Gs Site ar ἌΝ En a ΛῊν 428 
᾿ πα σὴ Pee. ce kl ie 258 
TAESLGUG. Wen fetal ee, mach tee oe 621, 1107 
ἡ El Papen Phe br ee aie eta. ἢ 212 
14:15 482, 736 bis, 738, 789, 1036 
VERLAG τ Gees as Pe Bet 
14:17 . 204, 210, 300, 1129, 1154 
14:18 . 606, 800, 1061, 1094, 1102 
14:19 _ 319, 489, 859, 908, 1080 
1039, 1040, 1081, 1216 
ΤΊ ον sles rae) sea 475 
Lac 2ity Gre nee ie Re. 892 bis 
14:22 524, 562, 1035, 1036, 
1047, 1113 
LASS Sb steel oe Meera a 905 
ΠΣ SOMES ted anes ce ene tee errs 905 
TZ (iW Ny w shat aad BE Maceo ae 611 
ΘΑ ΤΥ 224, 1205 
Leis be ον eee 530, 780 
ΤΟ Se iets ΧΑ meats 760 
15:2 515, 788, 1084, 1205 
LOOM hak © Sa eee 787 
ΤΟΥ ΘΟ Dt alta in yt 696, 1191 
ΤΟΣ pie eae 788, 818 
LOCA 90 oes sae Sie eed renee 789 
15263 CRN SOT Rete ashe Rieu τον 788 
ΤΟΣ i ey 475, 1035, 1041 
LOPS ay ΧΑ ΟΣ Aree 861 
ΤΟΥΣ ROUN ν τ oe ee 1113 
15:9 _ 219, 282, 580, 645, 750, 861 
LOSLO BE REO Mr ἀ Ων 1089 
LO.2 ἃ Leterrier 487, 531, 718 
LOT es eee ἐφ eee ee ee ee 834 
Lot LS Se hse ema 834, 857, 1074 
10 ΠΤ. 968, 1045 
1610 ah, Ae nde, ye teat ae 529 
ΤΟΎΤΟ Ps ον era ania 1219 
ΤΟ ae ae 683, 713, 723, 986 
LS OSH ον at go epee ols 
15:20 . 518, 788, 1068, 1078, 
1080, 1082 
15422 ΤΙ ΣΝ ΠΣ 173, 214, 628, 808, 


1039, 1127 


Dot aw hd enn 413, 439, 655 
DO Ng AM Oe esas ea 1084 
:23 . 582, 649, 696, 787, 944, 
1093, 1205 

DAT) hops divas cages copes 897 
S426 ΟΦ ΤΟΝ 432 
BRM IRS ΝΣ 1039 
27 . . . . 686, 891, 991, 1128-9 
28 . . 186, 187, 518, 646, 1059, 
1061, 1078, 1085, 1187 

29 . 212, 299, 318, 330, 360, 364, 
808, 908, 962, 1121, 1160 

ΤΟΜῊ A: POI aro 349, 686 ter 
Bho Lan ne eee _ ATT, 655 
SOR animes: 546, 714, 1149 
ἀγα ΑΝ Reo ee 565 
ΒΨ ΑΜ Ν, 857, 884, 1081 
$a τ ἀκ ΝΣ fix ater . 576 
BOO aa ie See 1000, 1091 
A1 PARIS: eS το αν 788 
Lise Sky eee 863 
ρου ee 566 
ΡΥ ΑΝ 394, 428, 801, 887 
1029, 1035 

“4. . . . 311,476, 562, 788, 1214 
ids ae OL eke 524 bis 
:6 . 788, 862 bis, 863, 1110, 1113 
EPRI re Μ᾽ 781, 1156 
EP ee tric 2 863 
Gib AM. SEES τὰ 561, 581, 1065 
10:60, 92) 0h ie ee 1034 
.11, 159, 244, 257, 367, 652, 1202 
ΑΙ hig 263, 412, 497, 728, 
729 bis, 954 

15. τ ον Sie ae 792, 1039 
ΓΟ la Ὁ ἐν ἐγ δῖ. 498, 1036 
ΤΕ ne eee 537, 1009 
16 728, 810, 1043, 1128 
16 £.'0 08 ey ee eee ee ae 442 
Ee ae : 578, 884 
D1 eS AL GRE 1039, 1084 
:22 212, 609, 618, 628, 883 
Osi Sy HO MED ae 861, 863 
DEO TL Me Siem eet eg 278, 710 
DB tals. ail ich ne Some 507, 608 
αυτός ΗΚ ΝΑ 262 bis, 367, 1213 
27 . 431, 909, 1040, 1081, 1213 
Oath ΜΕ Φ ee 299, 484, 688 
BOE ITE ok ae pen 880, 924 
Bi anil RO meee 402 
Baht Οὐ Μη 518, 576 bis, 771 
Ra LO 170, 453, 530, 1122 
Ros. Lhe ee δὰ 336, 993, 1219 
37. . . 339, 530, 653, 659, 686 
1120, 1187, 1190, 1213 

30 CRIES Che oe . 578 





Acts 

SUELO Oh hee weet, sso ae oh a 1126 
17:2 408, 576 
μα ak Acs, o Kea ᾿ 449, 1034 bis, 1035 
17:4 . 224, 669, 1108 
Mae Miia 7. nee 165, 885 
ΝΕ: 572, 1035, 1137, 1172 
Mere We πων 6. *, 258 
PRM ieee eet ss oo ye se 639 
ED τ A ea | ee 763 
ESS ES ως, 313, 728, 760 
Me OBIE arse ess ce ss Dagl4 
lS ΡΝ ee 487, 890 
Ug ρου το ρυς χΣ 1151 
OS ow), (Ones 2 aan rr 760 
Meads ees ita hee ἢ 643 
L515 | 279, 313, 316 bis, 339, 488, 
669, 760, 968, 974 

17:16 169, 224, 408, 613, 760, 
885, 1041, 1123, 1131, 1204 

17: 16-34 . orem 91 
17:18 _ 201, 529, 695, 787, 788, 890, 
938, 940, 1021, 1025, 1031, 

1044, 1082, 1085 

τε τω 187, 701, 785, 879 
A) te ved dF ands 559, 736, 742, 878 
17:21 . (49, 751, 773, 1087 
bre 22 . 187, 399, 464, 665 
17:28 362, 561 
Mico ee, 18 
17:26 : 772, 863, 1113 
PIT eG: . 244, 327, 508, 939, 1021, 
1027, 1030, 1044, 1045, 1086, 

1129 bis, 1138 bis, 1139, 

1140, 1148, 1149, 1190 bis 

17:28 .195, 422, 608, 694, 1200, 1215 
ΠΕΣ ἐὰ τς Ὁ ἢ 7s Dad 
RTP SOLS oe ek. 487, 629, 1084, 1152 
25 Ὁ ΄ 550; 589, 500, 716, 860, 963 
Od) OE re 333 
RMN a eels | onan See wee « 187 
18:2 . . . 236, 459, 487, 530, 909, 
910 bis, 1040, 1047, 1049, 1116. 

18:3. . . 367, 471, 486, 1039, 1215 
ID Se se ieee e eae gs Og 885 
Et ee 529, 808, 1037 
Σὰ ἀρ τον 810, 1202 
OS a νον τρος, 263, 529 
Se τ ὺς | 2. 453, 884 
Pere τς οὐ O83, 792 , 890, 1173 bis 
TONY Sy ae 477, 1002, 1090 
OT 8 OE Ses og a Ν 672, 833 
erin totes ΝΥ s,s 269, 510 
18:13 ta a. ee Oe er δὴ 616 
18:14 τ 368, 877, 1014, 1015 bis, 
1153, 1193 

18:15 . 110, 608, 686 bis, 766, 1038 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


1313 


INNIS Pa Seiad 256, 539 
ΤΟ ΤΥ ἘΠ 00 342, 1127 
L520 Ue ere te Re ge , 1131 
Το: 1136 
18:23 ; 788, 891, 892, “1113, 1136 
18:24 ane ΝΕ 7; 189 bis 
18325 : 488, 524, 619, 816, 1136 
PSs ZO Εν | 665 
Lee Aer ee. 818, 1036 
18:28 Sie nolL 529, 582, 1036 
LOPaT APR et 189, 233, 260 
19:1f. . ΤῊΣ 1047 
19:2 _ 207, 234, 537, 816, 916, 1024, 
1045, 1113, 1179, 1186 

19:3 . . ¢39, 1179 
19:4 399, 416, 993 
Το eee ie) FG SIL: 773 
WOH PNY ARs ee 431, 811 
19:9 Phat =; 891 
ΤΟΎ ν 253, 1138, 1139 
ΡΟΣ . 1205 
19:12 oy ΟΖ 
19:13 _ 475, 484, 617, 759, 762, 791 
19:14 Hoe wos 200, 11. 
19:15 ΟΝ. {Ὁ 79} 
19:16 : 252, 559, 560, 607, 745 bis 
1 ΝΑ he ne τ 418 
19:19 F . . 674, 828 
19:21 ; 310, 476, 688, 787, 1074 
Lit Re oe ees 586, 593, 800 
LOSS ar cahtas. het on ~ be 22t 
1 ἡ eh ice Se 224, 810 
193235 620, 710 
19:26 295, 494, 643, 697, 701, 1035, 
1166, 1187 

19:27 , 219, 253, 257, 410, 518, 750, 
1162 bis 

1h Ae ly Res ca ee ae 395 
TOR τι 1202 
10:20 Rete μον τ, 510 
LO ΒΟΥ ἀν i. | ase 423, 885 
19231 hia) 512 
19:32 301, A25 ΒΑ], 665, 692, 747, 
898, 1029, 1176 

Lid MeO nee ea) ἐκ ee 515 
19:34 ... . 436, 489, 1130, 1200 
19:35. 68, 253, 260, 653, 726, 892, 
1041, 1128, 1159, 1190 

19:36 212, 375 bis, 881, 909, 
1119 bis, 1120, 11380 

19:37 yale eZee bis} 257,740 
LOC MOTUS πὰ ce te Ag hes 541 
LOSE Pah il, area Valine 
19239 sree 2 545, 618, "1009, 1154 
19:40 REO oA. 547, 815-16, 820 
DOs Leste Ora. eee be ed eo 1074 


1314 


Acts 
20:3 . 497, 1002, 1060, 1068, 1076 
ΟΡ ΕΟ eo AS ΧΗΣ een τὴ 877 
20:4 =. 173, 205, 235 ter, 236, 501, 
529, 639, 813 
DUD ea ΕΗ ah el be tt one St OD TRG 471 
DOP Oat Fei ve ἢ Volga gee tee 475 
ZOE ONAL ae, Soy ete aes 657 
2080 eal. δι 290 , Oboe Olas oe 
Pi Ried Sy pc: 8 τὰ . . 969 
ΟΣ Bem, & 85: 579, 580, 835, 891 
SD SL tote ρου τς 1140, 1179 
DUTY Sieh ee iain τι ee 116 
ZO ALS! ACLS ATS ep arr coca 235, 1140 
20:14 . . 199 
20:15 - 199, 214, 221, 505, 573, 638, 
"653, 748, 1202 
2071643 470, 472, 613, 905, 986, 1021, 
1030, 1058, 1085 
ΠΥ ee Bele here ee 508 
20:18 . 299, 312, 334, 561, 566, 717, 
721, 773, 793 
2520 ces oo eee . . 10382, 1094 
20:20, 27 1061, 1102, 1171, 
1174, 1205 
20:22 . 3/4, 523, 765, 878, 1118, 
L172, 4203 
ΟΣ Me OE ens oe eee 262, 646 
20:24 . 480, 499, 811, 990, 1089 
20: 26 . 015, 576, 765, 987, 1035 
ΕΤΟΥΣ eee . . 807, 1089 
ys Ved Re ie as 480, 510, 589, 810 
USO) Wise xia Ἐν 687, 689 
0: 9 Lee a chee Cee 419, 1035, 1041 
20233 At Vee ee τε 282, 474, 508 
QOS 34 Fe re eee ee ae 441 
20:35 . 573, 663, 666, 679, 
708, 1034 
PALES Y ον ΤῊΝ ΤΠ ee Pe erOLe 
20:38 . . . 488, 659, 670, 716, 905 
PALE ca bert, 235, 260, 263, 522, 547, 
653, 836, 1038, 1202 
20:2 PCa Le Pee eee ee 891 
91 ΤΟΥ aie 299, 486, 548, 817, 
883, 1115 
yA he: eT Oe a At 1046 
1 Sy UE Adel ee eae 548, 643 
21: Pe) alae, Si ee ne ee 691 
ALi [ath ere hee Oe ee eee 205, 582 
1 5, ΑΕ ον 999, 014 
21311 . 289, 690 
21:12 . 1065, 1066, 1068, 1085, 1088 
23 593, 657, 1077, 1121, 
1162, 1181 
SULA Beare tee . 862, 863, 1214 
21:16 . 393, 502, 515, 519, 599, 614, 


719, 721, 891, 955, 989, 1202 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


CLS oh. ois he eee ok: ee we oa 561 
CSS 20. 4s se δ. θὲ ἐν ῦ 313, 314 
SLO WO Ace en elt ae Ome 746 
S20 ἘΠ ne? cee ee eS 741 
21 . 482, 521, 524, 773, 950, 
1034, 1046, 1082, 1084 
ΣΕ ig ak om eS 310, 337, 356 
23) go. τ ee ee 1127 
24 . 201, 324, 342, 412, 720, 
809, 816, 984 

ΟΕ clea «are anaes 476, 483 
τσὶ es Gea ee oe ee 522 
DC hates Plas 339, 1218, 1220 
728 . 330, 526, 769, 783, 844, 
894, 897, 901, 1107 

:29 . 323, 362, 375, 883, 905, 906 
POO Gas ΒΥ Oe 774, 1179 
231 . 213, 256, 774, 879, 1033, 
1132, 1202 

OL he ee ἐνὶ 835, 1126, 1127 
33 251, 375, 736, 938, 1031, 
1044 bis 

934 SVN Pee ee 692, 747, 884 
να Tk pe 392, 10438, 1085 
736 . 404, 407, 412, 655, 1104 
τ Fonte: sa tees 915, 916, 1175 
738 769, 917, 1157, 1176 
PSO peice . 1151; 1163, 1208 
ΟΣ eee att ὟΝ ὟΝ 104, 770 
1 PARES Roe Ce eee ee ee 507 
Ὁ  * 4°32. 98 bts, 29, 104;1542, 
653, 1029 

OM gh vee me 495, 497, 615, 1105 
ἃ 22 AN Pa eee 639 
ΣΤῊ lt phar a oa cre 299, 374, 548, 877, 
1118, 1128 

>6 . . . 536, 539, 560, 617,620; 
792, 1085 

ΡΩΝ ie A 506, 1042 
ΔΝ RPI hy So 255 
τ ee en ee 449, 472, 506 
SOG cae 716 bis, 795, 1084 
SDL A Cann ce eee eee 580, 1159 
ee re tree ho Fn 763, 1033 
ΤΟΤΕ a es ~~ 120 
16 . 329, 332, 808 bis, 1110 
LUMA eae 1039, 1085, 1132 
IS oo. ee 784 
£1092. Be So a eee 608 
ys | aa i a mer a 213, 1220 
DINE! Clos aaa eee 469, 593 
1 2Oe ©. oe eee 393, 920, 1014 
ΒΝ 799 
Ἐν τς 308, 718, 726, 861 
863, 1084 

BOR re sot 258, 533, 916, 1181 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


ΞΘ ιν ea ie τ 1029, 1038, 1034 
:30 . 615, 766, 815, 820, 1046 
ZS pale, Ὁ 314, 340, 616, 678, 
1201, 1216 
LP a ee ey are See Be 473 
τῷ . 234, 422, 478, 484, 874, 
1041, 1200 
eo a eee 511, 791 
CO et tt Aa eee ΝΣ 8. 
ee eee 745, 1094, 1189 
22 ee 582, 10238, 1203 
LOW τ tes: 564, 995, 1214 
11 . 221, 593 
12 _ 53l, 802, 1040, 1046, 1048 
Lea ese oe - 666, 802 
14 ; . . 473, 531, 689 
15424 490, 546, 659, 978, 1061, 
1068, 1075, 1077, 1082, 1141 
ify? a eae a πῶς 231 
LO LO mee es Pea ee 1087 
USS eee ΟΟΥ 696, 1151 
ΠΟ του ar 736 
Pee rer a 738 
20 . δ47, 968, 1002, 1066, 
1068, 1141 
YAN A STs ae 474, 517, 579, 976 
So Zire . 235, 442, 1047, 1113 
522, 25, 30 . higtes ARR: 
δ. 168, 239, 742, 793, 1047 
ΡΥ rhe RO eae AAD 
LE δος eee νὴ 1179, 1204 
DOM ve. via, sae . 944, 1093 
ΣΥΝ τ τῳ: 999, 431, 438, 778 
1035, 1099 
AAG TL, Ve eae On eg τος 243 
ΣΟ το ey Eee a ae 511 
30 . . 330, 594, 603, 846, 877, 
908, 1040, 1049, 1082, 1130 
“AA ey ee, DO TSH 
7 δὸς ee ee ee 578, 740, 1035 — 
Ἔν 434, 861, 863 
igh pada oe ge Oe 607 
CARS 9 Oe ee RS ae RRP ae 236 
ὌΝ ae ἐς 300, 530 
ΠΗ πο. 182, 1185 
Ny) | 20a ΠΟΥ Ὁ ΤῊΝ 288, 438, 724 
ΠΟΥ Se νον τὰ τς 1181 
ὌΝ ALL ok. e's 319, 705, 1084: 
:10 . 597, 619, 811, 892, 1041, 
1103, 1115, 1123 
511 . 666, 714, 717, 877, 978, 
1111, 1118 
τ Wy ae Sa 374, 991, 1128 
RCN TS Ce Opens 1165, 1189 
ΠΕΣ τες oa 511 bis, 720 
PE πον 699, 703 


24: 


1315 


ΤΟ τ tas 877, 1039, 1076, 
1082, 1179 

τ 208): free SO) 700, 705 
Ligne 7 535, 581, 594, ‘877, 1118 
1 Seer rae, te 30s 578, 612, 1123 
LG meee 235, 920, 1014 
1021, 1022 

20 ον 439 
ΞΟ 848, 863, 701, 702 bis, 716 
S22 235, 580, 619, 665, 1128 ter 
> 22-25 ει 610 
OW od ae _ 540, 828, 861, 863, 1171 
AES 470, 487, 547, 551, 800, 1109 
ΟΣ EL 
:26 ᾿ 284, 529, 546, 637, 638, 
665, 1139 bis 

δι ΟΝ os > Gane ee 221, 265, 1123 
LEMAR Son Rey cet ie eer tLe) 
SAM ess . . 995, 1046 
Dee ΡΣ 586, 593, 1036, 1098 
ema χάδι in 234, 534 
πῆς ΝΕ ὦ AG dese cae 742 
ΟΣ ἡ aks 295 
ΟΣ εις 000 
ΤᾺ ΤῈΣ 3, 477, 619, 655 
at, (ert τὺ" Bae Rep 1028 
Oia te: Sets 265, 603, 878 
S10 277, 362, 375, 482, 484, 603, 


665, 881, 895, 1116 


Sabin ἘΞ 472, 511, 720, 765, 809, 881, 
896, 1059, 1066, 1078 

12 85: ἄν 429, 816 
[9 415, 812, 861, 862, 863, 877, 
979, 1113, 1128 

14 . 197, 234, 542, 608 
Vb SS Ae ee ee rela 1048 
{1 LO EWES Es Π GENE oon cae 1048 
ΠΡ τ τε 787 
Litas can e429 
16 Aran. 792, 939, 970, 977, 1030, 
1035, 1091 
ΠΥ τ τ τ: Se ets: 
1 ee 619, 718 bis, 719 
20 472, 890, 940, 1021, 
1031, 1045 

PAV 5S Ae Ae 580, 976, 1039 
Ὅν teri ts. 394, 886, 919, 923 
Zoe. . . 254, 424, 608 
pv. eee 233, 404, 530, 1036, 1047, 
1085, 1173 

oD . . . 908, 1036, 1040 
26 742, 743, 760, 875, 879, 
996 bis, 1030, 1045 

De ese Tee at, . 1039 
Ἰὰς s age | ἐπ 367, 885 
ΕΟ τ tive 690, 811, 895 


1316 


Acts 


8 ποτ 6 439/490;-008 SiSU 
Air 910.) 143; Woes (oan ΤῸ 
ΔΝ OM ede eit ον" 1107, 1152 
Pe ΕἸ τα ΤῊΝ ΑΘ, 280 bis, 670 
:7 , 463, 465, 522, 550, 718, 763, 
877, 1082, 1213 

MD Lime sey. 430, 614, 1024 
°9 . . 231, 688, 1038, 1039, 1049 
1085 bis 

10) 2358 ee ee eee 714, 1113 
10.--1 Δ oe εν δ he ees 432 
11 τ or oh pees ok ἐν ὙΠ 885 
13050 ΕΝ ee να 714, 780 
1354). ne eee 550, 633, 775, 864 
ag OO ea ae 28, 104, 506, 1042 
[167% 427, 700, 720, 724, 819, 871, 
1048, 1078 

16:18 5: > eee eee 432 
VALE Seas ech υς 559, 713 
ΤΥ aaa ery ἐν 566, 1088 
ER eee, ee Or 272, 537, 962 
:20 585, 1047, 1135, 1179 
BLURS ti 200. δὶ ἰὼ ee τον ΤΩ. 183 
22 . 520, 640 bis, 720, 1188, 
1139, 1179 

a . .o@2 bis, 656, 1024, 1097 
724 . 418, 420, 656, 661, 683, 
774, 789 

SOD ELE ema. ὙΠ 233, 812 
τ 219 313.020, (50/905, 2094. 
1162 bis, 1165 

DY ot) rae dc ae ate 538, 915 
28 192, 653, 880, 1079, 
1081, 1084 

29 . 291, 566, 646, 653, 660, 710, 
732, 854, 886, 919, 928, 988, 
1021, 1025, 1162, 1182 

£30 ki ck ae 314, 529, 786, 789 
“9. . . 886, 887, 906, 909, 920, 
“1014, 1015, 1016, 1080, 1081 

<b re 256, 311, 459, 7438, 1002, 
1060, 1068 

1 Ee Ve Reem en tes Sacer ane 342 
LUT, Sekt ed et 210, 223, 469 
Oca Va AT Octo Lame Cee 
SO ΟΣ oF) eer ane 476 
GA Sh th dio hal ean tes ac ie eid We Wee 1039 
TAS ED Wes ok Birra yg ae eee 469 
Sg i] ak ei eet ΑΔ ΜΝ eke 634 
:5. . 257, 263, 476, 563, 608, 787 
Ooty Ma ie reed ta cr 235, 585 
SANE) . 477 
ἜΝ 186, 214, 538, 568, 613, 640 
he eye 884, 909, 1071, 1081 
510 : 162, 438, 877, 1036 bis, 


1047, 1082 


A 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


12 . 244, 608, 792, 1021, 1024, 
1027, 1030, 1044, 1045 

Le DU is dea 
or ; 235, 634, 665) 909, 1060 
sera WY oe ee 09 
rae. 166, 606, 702, 799, 834, 1163 
An PORN ee ad si i Pehl 
ὉΠ : Maat, te 312, 572, 1214 
:16 211, 263, 477, 618, 634, 834 
1 ieee : 235, 314, 633, 995 
17,°26,-29" Στ fan ΣῊ: 802 
BBs gis. Vs oe eh See 855 
ah! Ror στε dt 212, 886 
20am 224, 618,7765; 100} 1076, 
1179 Ὁ 

᾿ξ μυ δὴν αὐ 464, 886, 920, 1014, 
ΤΣ 

D2 Tae. 475, 517, 886, 1204 
LO ie poll Ge ated 479, 724, 758 
BIA oe oye lath ag Whe Aa ἃ 1058 
ODO NAL 4 εν eee a ee 487, 718 
ent . 184, 284, 550, 581, 648, 
7 70, 1036 

Ὁ ΘΒ oe eee eee, 672 
ἀλλ Ae See oe LN YE 231, 800 
:29 . 244, 266, 886, 919, 995, 1173 
730... . . 256, 476, 996, 1141 
Bebo οἱ 219, 244, 282, 471, 877, 1102, 
112171173 

ST ees oe 451, 517, 570, 623 
OO ESL: Lace ee eee eee 367 
BO? tle: «hoe alle tre tea oe 508, 519 
BT ee eae 773 
DOWNER τε eee ", 508, 810, 818 
BOs de ii ee Se 940, 1021, 1031 
AQ Se ya Rann 157, 265, 309, 638 
653, 1140 

41. . 145, 232, 256, 264, 580, 885 
ὑπ 2. toc’, ΣΌΣ ΩΝ 432, 828, 987 
243 . 212, 318, 518, 797, 800, 835 
SAA OE ae ek vy te 601, 604, 696 
OD Wena cork ΟΣ ον 339, 1205 
aes Ae eI ee ie 2 5.0 
rales 27 γκ. 365, 579 bis, 697 
Li pre Sy es ha 210, 233, 318, 1036 
ΡΥ ΡΥ Ὁ 516, 617 
18a. ΑΞ ae 162, 257 
OLEAN νος a ad a 199, 235, 613 
L116 4.08 8. ae ee ae 836 
13 189, 200, 298, 550, 657 
14: οὐ RBA ee RE, Seats 1115 
ἀν πο κατ ἡ αν ων 528 
TG ine 00S 8 ae eae 167, 258 
17 . 562, 789, 1107, 1108, 1132, 
1138, 1139 

Oa Fo aha Gas 1140 bis 


μι μι μι μι μὰ μι μι μα μὰ 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Acts 
28:20 . 316, 485, 562, 613, 815, 816 
28:21 428, 752, 1139, 1164 
OES. ie. etalon ἈΝ Faia τήν ἡ ee 
ΘΔ) Ὁ, weet. ΠΡ 4 548, 792, 892, 1116 
28:26 ΕΟ Π0 
25227 204, 819, 988 
PUG tes sic ον 774, 833 

Romans 

ES ie ΤῊΣ ee 263, 496, 793 
EF ΠΥ Ὁ Στ εις 432 
πολυ te 
FR gd by Renee 407, 500 
ΟΠ ὦ " . 604, 516 
1 "ae i por CaS 396, 504, 781 
ih a ae . 583, 629, 1152 
πῆ oreo. Ὡς 089,-1082; 
ἡ ΠΣ. 603, 1024, 1027, 1030, 1090, 
1145, 1147, 1149 
hl ἀπε} 983, 991, 1060, 1071 
S12 . . 244, 682, 700, 705, 1059 
1213 . 242, 547, 968, 1031, 1181, 
1182, 1183 
| QE A Seg oe ς 537, 764, 1179 
ἘΣ 221, 480, 608, 654, 678, 
687, 766 
UTE lege ae geen meas 472, 773, 1152 
ΠΕΡΙ cg ον, ἃ. 499, 514, 599 
DEO ον hae) a τ ν " 199, 000 
Del eye . 654, 763, 964 
1:20 272, 606, 654, 763, 787, 1002, 
1038, 1072, 1090, 1182, 1201 
ΠΝ πρΠΕΖἘἔδο τ τς 1188 
πιο 1129 
| SES SG ae 319, 457, 489, 891 
1038, 1084 
eee ee ee GS 3 te hie 
1:24 ' 585, 996, 1002, 1067, 
1076, 1087 
ies 396, 561, 585, 616 
BERS Ed an tele se, joe 960 
26 . 496, 561, 585, 651, 1179 
27 iro 
28 _ 968, 1041, 1086, 1087, 1138 
28-30 Tee CAE, Fame oes 1155 
29 . 510, 583, 794, 1201 bis 
ΟΣ ee re 427 
UO τα ἘΝ ΣΕ ΚᾺ _ 232, 629, 794, 1201 
ΟΕ ὙΠ. 1201 
ΙΕ τ. 372, 1097, 1201 
32 τς, 710, 1166 
6} - 402, 463, 464, tals 748, 978, 
1107, 1193 
2:3 402, 459, 464, 678 bis, 699 
σε οι δος 1177 


co 


WWWWNWWWWwWWWWW 


NONWNNNMNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNND NW 


WWWWWWWWWW Wd bd 


:8 , 234, 319, 678, 763, 1028, 1033, 


www 


1317 


PACES Πρ 654, 763, 880, 1035 
GY φῆσαι uate ass a Ge 497 
OR acre oy ui cata is fv dn cops 714 
ΟΠ ars Sra, She 441 
Sele ΤΟΥ | te ais! tie ye 500, 1200 
Fa PS er γον 100, 599, 764 
Cree aa 549, 757, 1179 
MMe ΡΝ auc ches 1106 
LER ng RU ea Seen Oo) ee RS 598 
19 ᾿ . . 424, 757, 796 
14 ‘ 537, 704, 778, 796, 972 
ΤῊ eerie Σνς 311, 645, 728 
ἐν By ee Pi) ΟΝ ὙΣ 1097 bis 
16 590, 718, 721, 763, 971 
ie betes cas Se eee. 341, 796 
Ἰ ἔοῦν τς ἘΣ, ν ἀγα eae . 500, 764 
ἸΌΝ 489, 801, 1088, 1082 
1 ΟΝ Ne eres Pad ae 915 
OREM i. 712, 796 
Phas eee ἐρίου, 796, 1019 
ἌΟΡ ene te 481, 683, 819, 1019 
Likp WALES. seas 583 bis, 718, 182, 

1022, 1129 
Doe lee File x eee 590, 962 
odin, SERN Es ss te oy ees 766 
hia _ 395, 408, 763, 1198 
LOU a eal αν Say 739 
Zr 1s 413, 485, 659 bis, 816, 1152 
3 A en : 395, 739, 1190 
4 ον. 193, 986 
46,31 . . . 940, 1170 
5 aa 315, 761, 876, 1108, 1199 
πον: 005 bis, 1022, 1025 
πο τις : 678, 739, 1145 
(AG τς Oe OR RRA a 433 


1036, 1039, 1047, 1049 


9... 391, 419, 423, 621, 812, 
816, 1036 
Tee eee .ὄ  . 751, 1164 
1 5, 764, 1106, 1216 
(ae οὖν 187, 643, 751 
13 _ 336, 243, 635, 1213 
15 1062, 1080, 1220 
LMR) τ νοι. 500, 639 
ον τὴ 771 
ty oly ea a οἷν ΤῊ 752, 962 
21 . 523, 781, 1062 
OW ind 2,8 4h. 500, 567, 1184 
23 _ 476, 518, 814, 537, 847 
ode Mi 175 A0L ΧΟ 82 
25 . 154, 401, 480, 584, 589, 595, 
781, 784, 810 
Rite Keay) δ 567, 600, 624, 783 
26 . 547, 599, 766, 781, 1071 
VAT degen 498, 582, 740, 780 


Rom. 
3:30 301, 1025, 1027, 1154 
eed ew the cache cheers 307, 316 bis 
St Wale ΡΝ ARE TS tat A Sy 1175 
rN et Be Vad pater ed tC 739, 1009 
eS SON ΤΟΣ ον ΠΡ at oes 393 
ANS TESa? ARR cite Sule ee iets “ἢ 458 
ἀν ΟΜ Se 523, 609, 757, 759 
ONY Fug ssc lcs Ie ele ee ves πὸ ἢ 258, 274 
BO UE Ob tees ETRE ieee 394, 722 
BAY. Pek core 367, 720, 724 
Beery May seit ewe 394, 1202 
ALO MRA ta hat tec) cts ae ae 1198 
ACR AAR, oo oceu sas 498, 780, 781, 782 
AVIS LG ghee tac). ta seen eee 1066 
APRS πε Ye to as 423, 521, 548 
ATA Ler se ἘΠῚ. 423, 1095, 1162 
A215) Roll oe ἃ 400, 499, 796, 1059, 
1078, 1188 
SS Fe δ eared Be ly 599, 766, 1023 
Δ ΤΣ ΣῊΝ 5 644, 717, 719, 1028 
AIRY iicsients ae eee 2249616 
AAD tae bole i Ole 207, 215, 299, 674, 
1114, 1146 
AZO AIA ed ae 334, 532, 594, 861 
4:21 . 724, 816, 964, 1095, 1114 
ἀν ΦΈΡΟΝ ΘΝ πον 002 
ὌΝ 200, 583, 598, 823, 850, 859, 
889, 928, 931, 1192 
Ea eae Vai es tte ae ἫΝ 224, 900 bis 
ORE hea hens cs hepme Mead Saeies 394, 1187 
Se DSO AION SS, o/s we sk he oo Meee eS 1200 
a yh ΕΝ eS 499, 500, 583, 896 
BEGG cate eo kale. Pe, le ie ke 567 
BPO Eiht a ee eee Chee Maes 632 
Beil, «fee eOoU A002 .O0old Oomalo 
5:8 . . . . 815, 594, 784, 964, 1034 
HEOLS cea STS Wa ee 518, 659 
HELO ht ἀρ εΎ eo tie eae os 529 
5 Eee oe cet ee eee 394, 1134 bis 
ae 348, 434, 4388, 604, 773, 
833, 963 
Hx1S GY ae steal ees . 842, 796 
HUTA Υ me ee cee tates 605, 833, 860 
BAG {ΣΤ ὦ cabs ὃ 948 
Pa Wey Gere ἘΝ Υ tr ἀν ὧν ἢ 774 
τ ἔτ ἢ 1159 
ΟΣ Οὐ: ΡΝ 000 
δι ΣΧ ers 860 
5218 . 394, 488, 458, 1190, 1202 
δι θυ oe ee ees 394, 969, 1201 
Οὐ αν 613, 722, 998 
Osi, Pie ie ake 850, 876, 934 
Got ite cor, eee ee Ga stir ood EE! Ys 
6:2 .. . . 539, 728, 889, 960, 996 
Ol 2 LAY Tre eee Pee eee 940 
633° tii 2a eee ee eee 784 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


G23 fe hela P a eee eee 592 
6:4 . 493, 496, 651, 850, 969 
i Sey peers oa ΠῚ Aad) 528 
6:6. . 496, 699, 990, 1002, 1067, 
1088 bis, 1128 

ΟΕ ieee at ice ee ee ees 529, 872 
OF OVINE. τι ἐν Sete ὙΠ eee 1128 
ΟΣ ΟΣ τ τ 479, 541, 715 
Προ ee 539 
6:11 ~. 4 481,037,583, 10se 151 
OVLT 8. eee oe wh ce ae 587 
ΟΥΤΩΣ 1090, 1097, 1192 
6:13 . 689, 855, 950, 968, 1140 
δ 16>.26 eee ee Pie ἐν ἐγ 
ΟΡ os fac w ane 793, 796, 889 
GPL Ὁ ἐξ πο τ ν ere eee 635 
621485520406 oo Aen eee 207 
Gil beaee Me, ECE ec ee 850 
6:16 720, 1150, 1154, 1188 
Gab et aed, τι 461, 719, 721, 792 
GalS OA ee ν᾿ . 618 
Οὐ cath. Meee ee ee 537, 650, 856 
65208 tee ee ee olor solos aA 
ΟΜ {14.721 bisa 
(EN Bit PT Ae ΝΥ 602, 733 bis, 978 
Ceo eee Par a 500, 529, 1019, 1190 
7:3 . 425, 515, 876, 996, 1002 bis, 
1087, 1090 

7:5, 2D) Hope, = νον 1190 
χρυ 539, 1071, 1190 
δ ea EN eng POA ate gy yO 312, 782 
7:6 . 721, 1091, 1095, 1162 bis, 1164 
7:7 . . 768, 874, 915, 921, 940, 1014, 
1016, 1192 

Clee) ΧΟ ee 402, 678 
La ees See eee es 341, 1160 
7:10 232, 398, 539, 680, 698, 782 
rin Vara τ kl oe! 1152 
7:13 537, 550, 609, 1102, 1121 
ye EOP R OE ite ero alee ta {Ady 158 
TLD a Aen Ta a tie ceca 1158 
E510, 19) 2%. POE ee ee ee 1158 
CELE ΡΟ ΘΑ LAs ee ae 698 
C63 ae ΕΣ ae ee 319 
TELE NEVES CURE Oe 677 
fot ke: . . 234, 399, 416, 431, 705, 
890, 1058, 1059 

GIS ΝΣ ia eae eo ee 158 
BELG atte” se) Ow eee ee eee 718 
C520 7 is ΡΣ ie ee 683 
7:21 . , 539, 778, 1035, 1041, 1190 
ESOS OEE ἐς ἐς ee 529, 780 
4225 . 295, 530, 551, 748, 780, 
796, 1109 

7:24 . 461 bis, 497, 518, 706, 1203 
7:25 . 287, 537, 540, 770, 780 bis 


oe 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS | 1319 


Rom. 
Pe ieee Mer ioe thw, + a 425, 1190 
Mero chs at ot Ὁ 402, 780, 784, 788 
8:3 . 372, 419, 459, 491, 618, 654, 
763, 780, 784, 978, 1096 
ΤΠ ΤΡ πον τὴν 778 
re EE Mic os. ΡΝ ciate 767 
eM aes, a me eo 780 bis 
Peet ΟΝ ele el aks ene 962 
Titel. suid lice ee eet eee ae 540 
8:9 . 234, 589, 698, 761, 780, 795, 
1008, 1154, 1160 
RUT τον τιν τ 1186 
Ἔν a 584, 1009 
$712 ~ . . 841 bis, 537, 996, 1067, 
1076, 1087, 1095, LiG2 1192 
EEN 2 Ie ae a π " 533, 698, 732 
ΠΟ ΟΣ ΙΧ . . 29, 465, 595 
ΤΟΝ See ee 529, 1035 
Pie a ek 395, 1023 bis 
218 . 535, 626, 661, 777, 875, 877, 
878, 1035, 1107, 1191 
BA Syo oe Re) σε τῶν τον 1191 
ΟΠ τῆς" 224, 298, 349, 550 
1100, 1139 
ΡΣ ἡ ΣΉ nutes tis 503, 770, 780, 904 
Lee. έν Con ERE, Be ee Cae 639, 772 


ΓΑ 498, 503, 577, 687 
:24 ὁ, 448 581, 533, 543, 742, 1105 


COM οοο DHOOM 00 00 CO OOH MH 
bo 
ων 


20 . . 529, 560, 565 bis, 573, 029, 
722, 739, 766, 770, 967, 1046 

Oil 5 A εὐ ἐς 609, 1046 
RMR Ne pe ΣΡ 477 
:29 . . . 480, 504, 528, 621, 841, 
991, 1071 

ΠΟ ee es 837, 841 
ΦΊΛ ets τς 630, 1192 
ἘΝ το τι 7 (APE ce Ἐν τον 1198 
ΟΣ το ΡΟ eke 432 


8:32 . 244, 291, 424, 509, 623, 724, 
725, 773, 812, 960, 965, 1001, 


1148 ter © 

8:33 , 504, 607, 652, 764, 779, 795, 
1118, 1175 

SSG ise Sot a πο ον τὰ πον 916 
8:34 . . 652, 781, 878, 1119, 1199, 
οι τ 798, 1188 
ΒΟΥ τάν, 481, δ01 
ΟΠ ΠοΠ δον τ. 629 
ehiate) | λα Reg τον gies ον ares 895, 1118 
ΡΠ πόθ. 5. 427, 1189 
θυ 749, 779, 782 
9:1 , 434, 444, 588, 886, 1035, 1132 
9:3. . . 867, 575, 812, 886, 919, 
1038 bis, 1148 

A, tS cel 409, 427, 986, 1182 
GATE she tek eh ts) os So's. 124) DOS 


5. . 486, 604, 608, 766, 795, 1108 


9 
UcGm eee. O98, (24) 732, 094 
Ute (IR ete Me eI BEE RA ἃ 207 
OS 5S Meme Se se Toure 701, 1158 
Oe nS. ιο τ eR προς, 394 
OS] Orme oo νου 394 
9:11 .. 425, 484, 566, 782, 1173, 
1188 
OFT τ; 218, 277, 394, 663 
δα νυ, ΡΒ a, a's Bs 760, 967 
ἀν ως 876, 917, 934, 940 
ΟΠ τυ ae ARS τὴς 4 474 
UE Kv | τε 342, 519 
OS Varn La 686, 699, 705, 986 
OLS τι ν᾿ ἐς τ eee 342 
Oi OMe tes ak te na) he me 739, 812 
syed eZ beets pice 2° a. ocean eee 423 
9:20 . 402, 464, 545, 678 bis, 1148, 
1149, 1151 
ΟΕ τον. δ03, 693 
OSD oan ee 496, 654, 763, 1129 
LT πον ea a 438 
2a tare teat te ee ee 713 
ΟΜ κα det ne Saag one 718 
ORR yokes 438, 1138, 1139 bis 
1156, 1163 
ΟΣ νυ ie 1042 
PRA EN  ρον 166, 474, 632 
ΟΡ νυ Re ee 367 
OY a MO eee in ee Je 782, 1184 
WES Mio ok hs a a a 965 
Ler See: ow Get ee, 685, 1151 
ΠΟ τος τον 500 
ΤΣ ΠΕ cee. τ 781, 817, 818 
RDS Tp: 0) ee, a 1035 
TOS Cee περ ν 499, 606 
ΤΟ ac. ν 394, 505, 649 
LUGE sete SU Sue ts 1123 
ΠΡΟΣ ee eee 392, 820 
ΤΟΙ ie 514, 594, 687 
10:14 . . . 506, 648, 706 bis, 720, 
721 bis, 934 bis, 1106, 1158, 1200 
0] τὰν ΠΥ eee 820 
10:15 . . 802, 395, 741, 917, 967 bis, 
1032, 1193 
ΠΟΙ ΟΣ ὌΠ τ ΑΙ 752 bis, 753 
LOS abe. sk cx 1169 
10:18 . . 425, 506, 652, 918, 1151, 
1174, 1175 
Tee Oa wast 2) on. tae yee 1158 
10:19 . . 355, 657, 760, 1163, 1174 
OSE atin sae teak Gis 551, 820 
Lie 910.917. 108.}1170Σ 191] 
DSCs eats lean eke eens 940 
ΠΝ ΡΟΣ LOO 108 
ἢ αν Ἀνά ΩΝ τ ἐν τ Α > 634 


Rom. 
11 8.7: το τ μα eee ae 254, 411, 789 
WEG Baits. eh Oe ΡΝ oes 1159 
1126. 29% «, ΘΕ ΟΣ 1025 
See EP ia Sa ek lee Re 509 
VES, ΣΝ oe nts ORs 1061, 1076 
VILLA 5a Abs cea see 262, 1061 bis 
1 ΠΝ... 998 bis 
DUE L2 siete ae ik ane eee eee 218 
LISS eee 440, 602, 1151 
11 τα ais ee 1017, 1024 
611. δύ τ ΣῊ. 411 
1] ον 395 
US Ls ec lee ee ead 2p 181 
LG Rog Wea ed 402, 418, 678, 1201 
ΠΡ ιν ae ee ae ne eC 1158, 1204 
eR eae ie tn Mil ee ες δὅ52,1199 
ΠΟΥ “600, 1012 bis, 1160 
Ne Na A A 9 ὑγὰν 441, 524, 965 bis 
ΘΕ Fae eee ον. ate 418, 524 
11:24 524, 525, 559, 561, 616 
LAZO Pe Ee TT, DOO 91 
LULE26 wae ok coat cig Sakis 324, 559, 772 
{1 (ree eH eh ae 615, 704, 782 
dR Pee tee ee ΩΣ ὙΠ 532 
ΠΟΘ LE ES) ΟΝ ond ok ott 532, 685 
11232 627, 773 
11:33 "302, 395, 461, 463, 795, 
1032, 1200 
ἘΠῚ ΟΣ ταν re 432 
11:36 . 567, 583, 595, 759, 773 
LUA S By aot in be MP SSB > 5 444, 583, 1205 
AOE. ee ea eee 443 
1232) he eae aee 530, 609, 891 
12:3. . . . 562, 583, 616, 629, 633, 
1003, 1072, 1090, 1201 
AY: a CS epemaroe ἢ 967 
12:5 . . . 244, 282, 294, 450, 460, 
487, 568, 606, 673, 675, 692, 
766, 774 
12:06 . . 439, 581, 946, 1134, 1135 
L236 LR Ais ea ee ee cal cbr ee 433 
ΤΡ ΟΕ eee: Be ie 758 
T2US vf We ceeds eee 561, 609 
19: ΟΣ Seeh a es, ee oe 396, 1133 
12? OTS crinse eee 439 
τ pee eee 946 
12: 0-13 7 eons 523 bis, 1133 
1 1 1 a ee υ 1172 
V2: 12 ΤΥ cere: 524 
126 14. Ou Pa een eee 439, 1133 
12:15 . ... 440, 944, 946, 1092, 
1106, 1201 
12616) ἀν αν Δ ἃ 440 bis, 594, 614 
12317) ah ee es 440, 573 
2A Sia era ces 486, 598, 611, 766 
33120, Se eee 342 bis, 484, 1019 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


OU ie ae 534, 763, 881 
WBrinctes “ah Mee 395 
bie LOG PR 444, 579, 1108 
eee AEG AE 807 
REE nay ay , 201, 204 
TE τ΄ 763 
πότ το . 1019 
. 1084, 1162, 1181 
SAT an 705 bis, 941 
At ee δα, . 758, 1202 
243, 748, 897, 898, 
1066, 1078 
:9 . 288, 688, 748, 758, 766, 874 
11 298, 640, 666, 705, 1059, 
1076, 1134, 1140 
Loui li ig) oe ΟΝ 901 
Bats (ease 261, 792, 850, 1140 
Distr ies 695 bis, 1060 
ἘΣ ΠΗ he τς 810 
4 . , , 402, 539, 541, 678, 694 
ἢ 10. Set eae ee 423, 738 
Ἤν mee ones 290, 616, 695 
Rae Ne eee ese. 539 
(et) ae Πν. Ὁ 539 
8 201, 1010, 1019, 1027, 
1179, 1189. 
οἵ fue Scere 699, 834 
10:82 ΡΥ ΝΟΣ ΘΝ 678, 694 
LBs rk. ROA ee 1034 
13 OEE OF Πα! 1059, 1078, 1094 
14a ical ae ae υ 588, 743 
15223 a ee 317, 708 
115 ΚΑ ee ante ee 419, 784 
LOU es Fee 325, 767, 1176 
WD! ey oat t SERBS VAR ee 
21. . . 268, 706, 721, 858, 978, 
1059, 1066 
D2) ΚΌΣΜΩΝ ok eee 721 bis,1175 
Ὀπ ταν Ot. SORE 897, 898, 1019 
ἜΣ ey Oe ee pees 1096 
A AEE Es 746 
BUNT. ss She eee 1191 
A SALTS Metis etn ee 563, 685 
ον μέρη τος 326, 1214 
ἢ 15 hae ee 939, 940 
νύ ΜΝ Ps 872, 809, 1181 
8 . 400, 632, 757, 909, 1040, 
1049, 1060 
aye so ee ee. 686, 909 
15 298, 583, 665, 846 
τοῦ Ee 474, 498, 587, 594 
16:16. ARE Sea ER Ae 681 
ΤΣ ΧΑ SONY 486, 626 
8 ΟΣ 720, 1158, 1164 
LGA CS 644, 645, 909 
DOR eee ae 710, 748, 1162 bis 


ΨΥΧΨΨΥ eo 


— 


15 
eye 251 as ea 129 
ΜΘ oe 367, 502, 528, 782, 891 
Le a Aiea uae Sah ter ets 1009 
epi seh Oe Rs πριν 582 
Teles eee τε τς; 589 
Πρ οι πος 688 
eee σου Ne ee) 166, 783 
eA. eo a en 529 
AE Bes a π'ὺ 396 
ia) Ee eae whe ‘315, 782 
ΠΟΥ ὅτ: 505, 680, 687, 718, 721 
VEO Ms Ww ha τ τὴ τ᾿ 633, 728 
UST MMe pur tl ees lok chon ws x 200 
Reyes ον δου so Σ 728 
ΕΟ Πρ πὴ 488 
PSC t es ey. : 442 
in (eee 172, 337, 622, 728 
Lhe 2a ge & | a a i re t72 
MEA Pe eek es : 236 
πρὸς Liz , 255, 759, 783 
BIE Boo tn : : 259, 274 
ΠΣ De aa Ra eset eae 
UES E ot At on 172 173, 230,200 018 
ΤΟ Ny oh. eee 173, Tio 
fal 1.22, 016,57 58, 778, 783, 800, 954 
ΠΟ. ery he! we FL aa 
ΤΟ ΟΕ 2.221; 487, 605, 818, 919 
1} ΟΝΥΣ 1}: ees LLL 
Wik 24D < ΡΨ Αγ 
ΠΕ νον εος ..200, 200 Dts 
HERS Te Sites = viele « 230, 527, 696 
LAD DASA 6 i a ee a a ee eT 
ECOG ie os ΑΝ, mes 439 
ΤΟ tae ες." tite: 
ΤΟΥ De So 437, 438, 776 
1 Corinthians 
Uy) BL aed | τρορΣ 459, 760 
MAR ay ct ΑΓ ΤᾺ 235 
SSM Or Pee att (V5 & valor s a8 08s 765 
MELT ΕΟ Oe ans (xp? 
un Va Ea a aA ee ca 500 
ee Rer ES teri kG ΑΝ δ» 792 
Po eh eae gy ae 583, 782 
eet ee ε 20D, 360, 419, 983, 
1046, 1186 
ΤΥ σελ) πλ 265, 267, 502, 1035 
1:12 . . . 255,401, 497, 699, 1153 
UTS A ae πες 129, 916 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS yal 


720, 1159 
:22 . 470, 487, 762, 765, 774, 884, 

996, 1061, 1067, 1089, 1094, 1171 
:23 0. 152, 996, 1061, 1067, 1076 
:23-28 . Rey tain Be: 
Pawnee εις το ΤΟΥΣ 


ΠΡ RP ΤΑ νον ois ae ans 235, 953 
SL CRN Ure a0) o51 ot body c Leite 744 
Our. . . 178, 255, 488 
Nog Wha ieee _ 418, 987 bis, 1162, 1163 
1 ἀπ ν ἐδὺς ὁ δος 500, 503, 537, 780, 827, 828 
EHis, 750 539 
HORE RRR cae et τιν το ᾿ 356, 1218 
LPAI ΜΟΥ cco oe ἀντ 757, 104 
17 WS) COUN, ORR TIT GE Al 965 
αν παν ΒΡ ὙΠ ΡΟΟΣ Lise 
IGM wore x ee . 174, 1186 
Leos LAM es: yak tsk Aa Secs Oe 539 
1:24 686 
$225 654, 663, 667, 763, 962 
IeZO thes Sere. μον δ". 1200 bis 
E26 962, 1163 
eas Tia, re en nee ιν μι 1207 
ΤΩΝ 411, 757, 762 
PEAR iste Ft So 409, 763 
ΤΥ Is aati Att: . 654, 1109 
Bae bites) od chs Tant Ol, 0S07 VOLE 
Piel Pee Teh 949, 985, 1202 
OM corte cli es ΤΟΥΣ 677 
Dee SR eb IARC ioe τ γν ἦν 116 
AS NE Gin gees ene Rae eae he INT Lat Le 85 
ἀν he Se ae f 1181 
CET SAE TA ΤΉ ΣΙ 157, 566, 1206 
ee ee so del 1 ck Saks BOG 
2°60). [80 
an “418, 586, 589, 621, 784, 1107, 

1110, 1117 
Εν τς νυν Rew ech 724 
a CME SA A ΟΥ̓ αν Pe a a re 1015 
Laat Bee e ale stn a τος 782 
ὙΠ oe is oa Vee 325, 510 
ye Os ee Bs 504, 516, 654 
entrees bs)! IEE | 2159 
SO RMA GSU oS ἡ ὐς 159, 208 
ΘΙ 0 3 ed CN Fal ae 724 
EMR Reis tc he ra Cee ee 158 bis 
Ce Ae ka eas 8 . . 484, 1201 
ΟΙΟ re 108, 159, 267, 1186 bis 
ΟΝ Pee) AS hog Ὁ; 743, 750 
ὌΠ θην kh kd νη: 583 
POA γος Δ} | elke) ΟΝ ΟΣ 838 
ΕΝ τς aR Rate 743, 1189 
has Coe an re ge 691, 786 
ὦ ων Os ee Si Lares gs ἢ 616 
See ie ses soe Jey OOO) 55: 6178 
Galo ere tise O90; 731, 732 bis, 1176 
ALM Ge A cn ine yale ae. hae 233 
ΠΗ͂ 53 PN ele) fone Ge ale . 1008 
MLDS eet on a ais get OU δ. ΠΛ 
SSVI roo as, 412, 728, 729, 960 
Selon Moree eM eee 658, 10388 
SLO wets hems WY ees ee 474 


1322 


1 Cor. 
Seed] aren = ees 497, 685, 949, 1000 
Seo diy Στ eo, ae Be 793, 1189 
EPA Losey Yep Ue OP gente ΤΕ Nir 2 1027 
7 Ss ΕΠ ΣΎ ee, δ’ 481, 710, 968 
ΑΛ ae. I . . 992, 993 
4:8 . 458, 537, 670, 992, 1186 
ΠΝ Cd wees ate 319, 627, 688 
4:5 NL. ene ΠΟΙ (λα 
4:6 203, 260, 325, 342, 561, 587, 
607, 630, 675, 721, 749, 984, 
987, 1202 bis 
ΔΌΣ ΑΕ ΕΝ ΤΩΣ . . 341, 1184 
4:8 . . . 428, 529, 818, 841, 923 bis, 
1004, 1148, 1149, 1199 
AG Bey Oe tae 480, 481, 769, 788 
AS ΙΕ se nesses are 148, 191 
ASL De PP ti tra ae ees 1121 
42:13 εν Oe ee ie 618 
ΔΝ Soe 845, 1138, 1139 
4:15 . 2338, 283, 582, 1018, 1187 
4: 1 G sah ee ea ee Ὁ 632 
4:17 . 483, 712 bis, 724, 782, 
960, 989 
2 Ee I Tale Ae At URNS Sneath 2 1 356, 871 
κα Μὰ ery So ee ee ὦ 1202 
4:21 .. . 394, 456, 534, 589, 737 
ΠΕΣ eee. wet LO et, Uc oUa roe 
ΤΌΝ ΣΝ 705, 1152 
CFE So ea Beat oo ad I a ke sg tn 628 
ΘΟ ete ey eke eee eee mane 776 
Vhs ee TO ce ey 219, 349, 399 
Fea ye bee. ieee ane ae 498, 931, 955, 999 
5 OBrien tte 757, 811, 1047, 1170 
BOG" live PS aan eee eee 423 
520, Tae eke te eee ae 317, 846 
5:10 . 272, 887, 920, 947, 963, 965, 
1014, 1026, 1162, 1163 
5:11 232, 1047, 1060, 1185 
ΤΣ We ane ee 547, 736, 944, 1202 
SSIS LR co oe ee ea 689 
οὐ χουν 603, 811 
6:2 ... 233, 504, 516, 587, 652, 670 
ΟἾΚΟΝ 751, 1149, 1173 bis 
eae: PCHRD Vie nist) ogre 423, 698, 941 
6:5 . 232, 313, 409, 561, 648, 718, 
726, 1001 
ΟἾΟΝ rue A NS RT SOD rg 460, 705 
6: ΟΣ rare Be oe Veh 610, 816 
62625 Gil: baer bce eer Ὁ 487 
GO: ( 5.63 te SONS Foe 218, 293, 690, 808 
Ms PU ΤΡ yi ὅπ 704, 705 
Οὐ ΝΣ 947, 1160, 1164 
O5410 AC ee es 1164, 1189 
6:11 . 308, 411, 654, 701, 704, 
807, 809 
Ἐν ΝΣ Ἐπ re LBS: 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


1S jah co calc oe ee 703, 704 
La Ri ces ete ee oe 582 
1 hse hee fos os ΝᾺ 860, 940 
1G ea Se ea ae eee 233, 1112 
LS oe See ee eee 471, 640 
LOA Sire ole eae 497, 716 
ΟΣ 511, 1149 bes 
LRAT ee eRe 619, 720, 721; 722 
Dr RE Seay PUR te 408 
+ MRE ROS PRA Sac L999 
5 . 597, 751, 1010, 1023, 1025 
TON ei ie πα 000 
7. 645, 688, 695, 923, 968, 1181 
Gi SAE oe eee 218, 1012 
TOs Στ 518 794 bis 
LAB ae ee 232, 680 
13 yee yee eee 440, 442, 724, 956 
TA! ie Sed SR 587, 1026 
Ἰ ἐρν ον ΤΑ πεν, ὑπ νὴ, δὲ δ, ἢ 429, 948 
ity RAR προ τὸ, Ὁ 264, 462 
LiPo oe Oe Le 1025 
AS Eick seen ate ee 740 
TS fee, hee aoe aes 1198 
10 ae cts aca eee 394, 654, 751 
20 Bah aa ee sa 716 
YATES. DS a a te ahr aieha ik, ἃ 430, 1023 
Dae iilecs 54 MNO «lass at dc 795 
τ shes ΟΝ 429 
ZONE Raa? 1128, 1140 
26 . 320, 545, 1059, 1205 
δ ot OP te eee 432 
28 536, 710, 846, 923, 1020, 
1022, 1027 

DO tele ties ae 319, 487, 994 
PAY Deg Er ah Le Ree By: 1127, 1140 
31 : 476, 477, 5383 
ne ha aed mere ee MP ἢ 767 
SAP Ges stan eee 523, 993 
35 . 287, 504, 537, 546, 547, 
687, 689, 763, 1109 

OO Genel ΡΝ 489, 629, 1204 
BY file CSUR ie See 440, 549, 656, 700 
Fite pies Sepa gia hy ie. a 218, 299 
39 . 291, 716, 720, 788, 897, 
1076, 1080, 1082 

39040 iG ek ee συ “ν᾿. 1019 
4 als DAR ee 435 
ἀπ υ Vek ον τς 1038 
bcd POET tor ge er at 2s 698, 845 
sae Στὸ capecaccuncls Un: ape ee 424 
ie 793, 1025, 1026, 1181 
'OG. Vie. eee eee 440, 588, 724 
RA! 24 Eire per ΤΕ 500, 532, 743 
UF apa ore a tg eee an ἃ 537, 995 
10) BARKS Petter etna 778, 1072 
ον y. eerced. eee 317 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


1 Cor. 
REL cake Shr eres eee 268, 962, 1154 
Teak, ee ee ws 364, 587, 917, 1157 
Deo ssn eee ἐς 244, 537, 1012, 1148, 
1160, 1187 
LEST. ΤΥ aps UR Cah a τς 537, 703, 704 
ESS tc iy ἈΕῚ I ae ee 1158 
ee re are go AG 1169, 1174 
Oe ce tee Sh Pears te 918 
ΟΣ Une) cna 477, 480 
ΣΟ eae 402, 1068, 1164, 1177 
Unie CNRS EN oer 478, 532, 770, 1147 
τ 208, 917 bis, 1158, 1174 
SEED ec χὺ collage πους 508, 541 
DEM Sg Savke + τὸ: ee anges 
9:10 224, 996, 1061, 1067, 1076 
9:11 681, 1009, 1017; 1022 
erence er hw ἢ 500, 081, 1187 
Ὅν πο Alt Doo 
Fa ewe. Sse έτος 521, 542, 623 
ΟΠ eR et ok ou os ic 598 
9:15 uke 439, 587, 704, 845, 984, 
996, 1058 
See IS) Oe NGA i ne? oe 70 LOZ 
9:17 eee 488, δδ0, 810, 1100 
9:18 . 477, 656, 759, 784, 984, 
992, 1076 
9:19 . 516, 540, 597, 660, 665, 
775, 1129 
SUE ES ie ot ee ας 539 
ee a ees Poy ts) ee 1917 
UE ΣΡ εν, ΜΕ τ: 843 
ΟΕ τς ; 239, 399, 504, 516, 1216 
LEAS il Le poe ae 742, 773, 1199 
ME ἃ ΚΡ γ τὰς tet sis. j 504, 843 
9:25 . . 148, 478, 707, 880, 1153 
9:26 ᾿ 1127, 1138, 11389, 1140, 1154, 
1159, 1163 
gd a ay ον gee ΡΝ Ὁ 880 
0597 201, 244, 6383, 988 
Teed Me Re 1 aie beat tee oy 419 
VIO. Po | pos dae Ἐ᾿ 808 bis 
De eee ον κα ce os ne oe. ws 776 
HO So: Peele seat ce 883 
LOM ae ae 201, 339, 418, 838 
Li) Sa Pe ep eth. et Ne ys ace 418 
TOGO τ ΕΚ τς PS! oo, 704 
OO OR eo ik ag es ΔΈΟΣ ἐν 931 
1 ΞΟ WA ee ic’ 403, 1185 
τ We tere as 317, 635, 1218 
1 θα i eS 189, 967 
10 ὉΠ τ Syne 404, 626, 703, 707 
a ie 320, 430, 933, 1000 
10:19 . 598, 632, 996, 1060, 1067, 
1076, 1087, 1088 
DE 2, ie 9-3) ee 471, 1154 
10:15 , 488, 718 


1323 


16 . 429, 488, 718, 880 bis 
1 SO fe 509, 773, 774, 962 
Nel) ae ey An een es 760, 783 
19 . 233, 234, 743, 1035, 1036 
DANY oO Se Gre ORE hat Seek 886, 1214 
PAC ON" af Feri fees a 509, 791, 1183 
ἘΜ ΝΥ CRS 5}: 325, 516, 923 
NOP CARs IN ah iy “Ago les, 394, 1203 
ΤΑΝ ὩΣ Δαν τ νν ΤΑ ol CAA 263 
NA foe saa, and SANG Ν pNe ΤΣ τὰ 1018 
PUM cies + tele 688 bis, 694, 739 
30 . 402, 509, 580, 609, 632, 
678, 720, 721 

τὸ ΠΑ Ca eth oat 1189 
99. 479, 487, 504, 652, 660, 690 
Ὡς . . 479, 482, 487, 506, 881, 
895, 1035 

COMME COL oie cccie ite. 769, 781 
Ae SS ek es See 477, 606 
75 «6, 842, 530 bis, 656, 687, 789 
76 . . 342, 371, 809, 948, 1012, 
1059, 1218 

TURN UEP αν νος 793 
aM LN, ΧΑ BRN Uns 565 
SNe Ler ee a cay ον 584 
ὌΠ ΜΗ ce 8's 1187 
δ ἐν ἘΚ Bees tet etc 565, 552, 1172) 
3 541, 687, 689, 890, 1086 
PRA Se Oman Ae et ον 686 
ΤΥ Δ ak oe τον" 574 
1 AA ee enon pln 218 bis, 663 
18 . 174, 487, 550, 585, 803, 881, 
893, 1042, 1103, 1152 

ΟΝ ΣΝ ee oe 234, 562 
DU ea ae: Ae ue os ir τ τ Toe ΤΟ 
palite ts ts 8s 1. +042, 695, 854, 580 
+22 . 918, 928, 934, 1072, 1090, 
1169, 1174 

7:23 . 190, 312, 561, 579, 838, 1214 
SO eee Le ae ee . 1049 
Ate ΟΕ 234, 595, 685 
SAS Ag ree a 612, 1074, 1181 
DS Tae TM are Pi Pk Red 974 
DOE RACE) ee: VU 880, 975 
ας epee ace 504, 787, 1188 
tet, A Ge ape BON) Ea Oat Sr. D19 
AAS? OIRO a Aiea ea 880, 1028, 1129 
OA eee Pe Bae earn er AALS ne Ἦ 1201 
ALP ogee ig αν λυ Geet 880 
OTs MA να Ue A eda 1015 
Say μεν ees ἀνά Rae ὁ 1000 
DO Anais Sot yay te eae nae 562 
a Rn DRL Rae 7 ΣΌΣ 01 071 
:2 =. 407, 412, δθ8, 922, 974, 1033 
ΝΥ a Ae lets, ome einige τ . 1034 
Onl Lat. caren. cha, (aan are 476, 773 


1324 


Cor, 

LQ Baier es eek. te Pee 696, 770 
DAES ALO YS ARN stan eee 746, 749 
SEAT τ oe chs), ty oe tay gan 747 bis 
PEGS Pay Sik eer es 758 
Lt PhO eee, fasts as 166 
ΤΠ τον eae ὖς 530, 580, 653, 1199 
ee ga Sk FAI ΣΟ ΩΣ oe secant ee 419 
ΤῸ ha) acest 485, 757, 1189 
TRIS 28. ass Soke ice ae 793 
Wein, See ee ee 550 
10} ὄν πὰ τ τυ Se 610, 1164 
19. 1 τ δε Δ ΧΗ: 1015, 1023 
122220 PN 2 663, 664, 777, 1107 
123 28 We ete 22" eee eee 668 
1 ΣΟ ΟΝ ΡΤ Μὴ Ὁ 1179 
12227 AON eek ie ἃ 550, 597, 792 
12:28 . 300, 488 bis, 574, 696, 1152 
12220 ee A ΤΩΝ 757, 774 
123-3 1 es 3.5. 311, 551, 777, 784 
15: OR BRO ARE et 358, 1105 
13216337 να {τ ΟΣ 
1322) ο 10 5] 8; 609, 220) 70. 
772 bis, 1090, 1163 

1S 201, 324, 484, 504, 764, 876, 
984, 1216 

δον so ee ee ae 148 
13a eee ee. ἘΞ pte ne 1178 
Late See wlan. isl. dhe Ove 758 
Lise We: cat) his noes 476, 477, 774 
LE geet fcr ee es Ol ak ee 907 
ΤΟ ΣῊΝ 766 
13210 iat Pe Re ae 900, 971 
13:12 . 208, 564 bis, 582, 600, 625, 
649, 792, 794, 827. 

19:15 Siete ce 281, 405, 668, 758 
VAL Sh i ee νυ: 993 
14:5 . 548, 640, 1017, 1039, 1188 
TAS OF eS eae 483, 1188, 1189 
14:7 » 99 233)857,,423; 581.6778; 
1109, 1140, 1155, 1188, 1189 bis 
LAST Dat See: kee oles ne 871 
LA s7 ΘΟ ΤΗΝ ite steers ee 876 
1428 ela) ΡΝ, 807 
14:9 .323, 3538, 582, 889, 1110, 1115 
14210 τ. . 392, 1021 
14:11. eee core. tae 272, 588 
LASTS sisal: σοὺς 950, 955 
Δ ΡΝ, ee ee lee 533, 874 
14.915, 198"). Ae eS eae 261 
14:0 ee “460, 691, 759, 965 bis, 
1026, 1159 

ΓΤ τ αν Ste 1152, 1153 
14619 cast eee 233, 661, 792, 1188 
14520 παν 524. 
TASB) Sh, ee Seas 207, 591, 748 
14a 224s che oo Re eee 458, 537 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


PAPAS EP, MEL ee Pe hats gina 1157 
LEO Tie TANCE ics ake 427, 917 
LANDS) Sk SiS ae oc aes 546 
ΤΟ ΝΟΣ ne, ee 626 
14:27... . 170, 279, 470, 487, 550, 
571, 670, 791 

RASS “ete soa are oree sti 166 
L429. ea aes ee ee Ti 
PASSE Ee ΠΝ ἘΣ 606, 608 
TA. ΘΕ Sodas tee iyoks 497 
T4034 SE Ae ee eae ee 1220 
T4035 TAA ees. PM ea ees 792 
LE TORRY & We ahead conte ee 845, 1038 
TESS Ah tee iret eae ae 948, 1011 
14:39 765, 1059, 1061, 1094 
ΤΡ A! SRI few, 427, 724 
Lied 2h CER ie ca eee 954 
15:2 . . . 425, 530, 640, 738, 1008, 
1011, 1169, 1188, 1205 
ρους ΓΙ ΝΣ 525, 550, 1034 bis 
Rp τ . . 844, 894, 896, 1182 
ΤΟ ΟΝ 511, 548, 642, 666, 674, 848 
Tote OR a ae ee eee 820 
15:8  .233, 516, 669, 969, 1025, 1154 
15:9 . 279, 658, 669, 713, 779, 962 
15310 (Sey 41 Gb4S Ti ei ie: 
791, 1008, 1166 

oA is Sane eee : 707 
yd 2 . 658, 820, 1034 bis, 1085 
15: 8. 1G) (one ee eee 1008 
162161 5-17, owe eae ee 1012 
Tel aye ΕἸ fae ak on eee 1008 
1 ΕΝ α 607, 1154 
16; Laas Φ o-Ps Supe Datel a 
LASS Fee We ee, 244, 783 
LET bid cele. se ον: Γι 2204 
1 1 ον 395, 794 
Fi. Ne as oe ah 587, 827 
ον ee) coe elven? sau beeen ΤΣ 
LEDS ean tan Scere decent 767 
LOR A ees, te eres 312, 851, 1214 
ΤΟ ΠΥ eee eee eee 870 
15:27 . . 244, 395, 658, 1034, 1106 
15:28° 4... 367, 657, 809, 819 bis 
15:29 . . 630, 632, 963 bis, 965 bis, 
1012, 1025, 1180 

ΤΌΣΟΙ, an, ae Re eee 876 
Το ὦ 470, 677 
ΤΟ ἘΣ 487, 685, 827, 1150 
LOZ Aa. αν 539, 869, 931 
IRS fa 385 er ST bs | PLY 207, 422, 1200 
1664 UO Lea Re 626 
LOGS! ΕΣ gee 740, 1022 
L536 ys ον 264, 423, 463, 678 
15:37 . . 374, 878, 892, 1021, 1106, 


1119, 1187, 1213 


— 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


1. ΟἿΣ: 
15:89 . 687, 747, 749, 752 bis, 770, 
1153, 1168, 1187 
eS LAL Die 0s! i 747 bis, 748 
BOLUS Cert ae os . 748, 749 bis 
1 Eat alt De aa a 794 
Ped eee ae ears, ΤΡ ON » 9902 
ΤΌΣ.) ἢ 429, 800 
15:43 f: νι Δ Πίος 
15:44 234 bis 
15:45 : 669 
ΠΡ SO al cal 429, 710, 731 bis 
15:49 200, 349, 678 
T5700 : «. . 405, 699, 1036 
Loe! : 334, 423, 753, 819, 1212 
Uy 392, 587 
15:54 . 429, 778 
£5754 T: 2 2508 
15:54-7 eu 
ἘΣΘ Birt a eke. ae 1106, 1116 
ΤΟ ak eae ane 594, 619 
16244. 197 
18) Fak nese ee 325, 343, 672 
Dies ete ere τ eV 29 
ΤΌ es . . . 408-9 
hope as - 992, 996, 1059, 1061, 1066, 
1067, 1077 
AEE E eR ol og ire . 434, 869, 882 
16:6 . .-. 488, 490, 551, 722, 969, 
1109, 1121, 1127, 1130 
Weep ho aes, Bee eee sae aes a 877 
UO ἘΝ τ ee ae 364, 800 
16:10 pe va. 0) 955.993 
Tye | ; 544, 853, 856, 933, 948 
eS Wage 235, 243, 423, 619 
ΤῸ ΠΟ et ae ees 488 
ΠΟ: 173, 1034 
16:16 : 233, 627 
16:17 : 173, 205, 235, 288, 685 
ὙΠ Del) os ine id τ ; 685 
16:20 ; « 26902 
re 1)», or 416, 496, 685 
ον: 313, 939, 945, 1012, 1160 bis 

2 Corinthians 

DY a ee ee 774 
1:3. . . . 396, 785, 945, 1133, 1182 
i SS A) eee Gree fry C16)-772 bis 
ΤῸ 4 3.44. O00, Oo2, O85,'784,°787 
EE ey at aaa eee τ 04 
ΤΠ 518, 632, 765, 996, 1061, 
1067, 1213 
1:9 . . 325, 360, 498, 577, 687, 897, 


900, 908, 983, 1186 
212, 710 


EA EE Pe Se ee ee ee eT Bee, 


bo bo 


μι μι μι μι 


μι μι μ oe μὶ 


NONWNWNNNMNWNWDND bb 


WWWWNNMNMNWN Wd 


02 0) OO ὧδ ὧν ὦν WH ὁὉ ὁὁ 


Οϑ ὧδ ὦ ὦὁ ὦ ὦ ww 


1325 


:12 7 . . 297, 659 
ΡΠ τ 476, 643, 823, 1187 
15a τς ες 662, 886, 919 
17 _ 547, 614, 765, 1150 bis, 
1157, 1176, 1177, 1190 

18 1034, 1202 
i) \ Se eS ee eae eee 236, 424 
pat, ρος πὸ ΗΚ ME ΜΟΥ ΟΣ 
23 . 602, 678, 1033, 1034, 1035 
BAM fet, oe 510 
:1). .-. . 401, 589 bis, 700, 886, 
1059, 1078 

5. a SD 
:3 . . 686, 699, 705, 706, 720, 721, 
887, 920, 1014 

34,9 f naate Ne SA6 
ΤῊΝ 423, 583, 598 
Duties ΡΥ τ ete 1008 
Gg hee, Wile. PALI ARS TD 
Theta PAK _ _ 208, 532, 1090 
Dia aun . 194, 699, 1045 
Lveaetere yy Seething be 720, 956 
Kier. τ τ ΜΔ iba. hiss 
ἐπε ον ΠΡ 15: 505: ΠΡῚΘ 
13 , 235, 490, 532, 586, 688, 
765, 900 bis, 901, 966, 1061, 

1091, 1171 

Pe ΔΑΝ αι; 474, 498 
14-7:16 407 
15 Dee bay, 
16 272, 626, 696 
WM oe ceed Ban 644, 881 
PN Ens any 992 
νει ss 307, 816 bis 1175 
2 _ 560, 778, 828, 1120, 1201 
Brae! ΘΙ 
8 _ 404, 658, 1034, 1085-6, 
1163, 1166 

5 ne FO Pee eee 423 
ἮΝ ae . 367, 480, 1213 
ee, Go xe τ en 1204 
etait.” νἀ 1186 
Cay, | aaa eee 949 
TOE sah ¢. 3b elco ce 1109 
| a aa ae ee 583 
ΟΣ 532 
13. . 318, 394, 883, 1003, 1075, 
1102, 1159, 1171, 1208 

Ui Se ABP AMG PL’, 244, 729 
Ti DRO ΚΣ ἈῊΡ 602 
ΤΟ ΣΉ ene Ree 300 
15, 16 971 
16 207, 392, 617, 618 
7 oe ἐπ e769 
18 _ , 486, 503, 530, 789, 810, 


820, 891, 967, 968, 1154 


1326 


D>? D2 D2 D2 D2 5" δ" DDD D δ" GT σι OV δι δι ST ST ST δι δι δι δι δι σι δι δι δι δι δι δι τὸ PEE EE EEE PEE PE 


“J 


“JI Ὁ OO) & OD 


ΠῚ τορι γῶν; Ὡς 1128 
Εν cl eet ase 316, 338, 771, 810 
Seite eps » 204, 087 
1. Ὁ Ae ee 503, 779, 1094, 1171 
δὰ ade ee ene ook Shee 584, 1187 
Ga BR Δ ΕΣ ee 764, 962 
WE Pee rs. cs Ue ee 497, 514 
Ae TE eR con, fey. 596, 11388 
RT aS" ee Ree Oks eee Eaters 1201 
ΘΟ bak co ed eae 1139 
LES suk ee ΝΣ 1134 
LG ee: oS ἐν 522, 681, 750, 766 
gee ea see 297, 551, 654, 763 
Sic. ae), ΑΥ τ ee 891, 1132 
:1 399, 418, 498, 762, 779, 882, 1019 
De ee ko oan ena ot ee δὲ 600 
aE ai ER Ae eee 244, 563 bis, 1027 
1 aa Seeger Aba 604, 722, 762, 963 
ὌΝ . . 498, 596 
ΟΝ 474, 560, 11385 
ΟΠ ὙΠ, 440 
Go Sia icky Sa ΤΡ κν  Ὲ AWS 
ΣΥΝ ἀν ρον seer 625 
BAT ee Pee plants inca eee 582, 773 
il eee Sark ἵν. 500, 877, 880, 909 
1D. δέν ἀπόντων 316, 439, 626, 792 
15. Sth ste a: 394, 539, 845, 1203 
Ady hese sae 499, 699, 833, 1035 
55 517,539, ΟΣ 
7 ay kek kas oh Re ἊΣ ΠΝ ἢν 654 
LS GRR ΡΥ ee 774 
ΠΟ Ὁ 683, 964, 1033 
DPT 2, ΨΥ ao ἮΝ Τα 1140, 1141 
DS Brice PU ge CN. Peay 497, 507 
Ol Jar. eee eae, ΜΝ eae 440 
ΡΘΕ ag nats ap rete colon 442 
Δ At emis mee! 316, 454, 481 
AERIS Be phasis oc) reea Oa eae 591 
2 al I i ἈΝ ΣΝ oe fe 442 bis 
Aittee See. Oren Doe eke 
Oo ΤΥ. 827 
ΘΟ Ὁ} eta 442, 1136, 1140 
10: ee, Bee ae 523, 828 
ΠΡ ge Peper Be Ey ok ad! Mabry, I. 895 
19 480, 487 
14 880, 376 bis, 528 bis, 529, 
625, $90, 1051 
15 00S oes ee ae ee Ν 217 
(ESR bey Re Td helen Wea 1184 
1G) a ae en Ὑ 216, 528 
17 ise ieee ee eee ee 853 
LS oe δι eae να 458, 595 
| AES Mo | τὴν 576 
3 eee packs eee I ἢ 415, 439 bis, 897, 
900 bis, 1135 
ΠΣ ΤΥ re eee 665, 1091 


Cc ὦ 


COMMHMMHMHONNNIY τ NAA 


20 
222, 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ne ae se a aa ey 1027 
ea ee peaks 962, 1008 
dic es |, 599, 834, 1166 


: 427, 481, 523, 686 bis, 700, 
705, 741, 1038, 1059, 1078, 1215 


12 225, 429, 641, 846, 1060, 
1073, 1080, 1091 

LSS ri ere eae 663, 1205 
Toe eh fle See. 603, 632, 968 
15 Ey Sie On 612 
10 sae cea: are 217, 474 
Πρ τς 587 
ΡΣ κος μὰν Ws ΥΤΝΣ 262, 607 
Bob ga aa Ch ie 434, 609, 616 
ΟΕ 1152, 1159 
0 eee 968, 1003, 1072, 1090 
(ON Re PES 195, 598, 933, 994 
Tet τ Te τς OS 
Of. ieee. _ . . 708, 834 bis 
10 . . 221, 425, 523, 703, 1059, 
1158, 1162 

10: fers rei, ae rere ΜῊ 1066 


1 . 395, 600, 996, 1061, 1067, 

1073 bis, 1076 
ΕΣ meh renee 957, 967 
13 Senn eee saan 395 
ἌΡ ean eee . 707, 986 
‘Ube 660, 763, 774, 1202 
16 gcd Maen etigres 396, 585 
17 . . 657, 665 
18 562, 582, 770, 1134 ter 
[Soest 433 
19:f en eee 431 


_ 431, 699, 1039, 1134, 1136 
_ 488 ter, 530, 659, 664, 1041, 
1103, 1123 bis 


OSE ΨΥ ws) oe ἐπῶν 395, 441, 504, 632 
OA uae ta.) ened ane 946 
SR Os . . 782, 1059, 1066 
2... . 221, 261, 475, 548, 550 
ἜΝ Os ee ΟΝ ΟΣ 375, 983 
Στῆς 988 
Ἂν ον ean 988 
ἜΝ Re Pe oie hots ἢ 1199 
Bit eee 996, 1086, 1182 
δον ip eee 295, 604, 1202 
ΝΕ 394, 597, 1202. 
Rig iN ay eee 1177, 1201 
9 nj aac, hasan ae 272 
10: ort, et eee 799 
ΠΝ ΡΥ ἘΣ 946, 1136 
L1ayeoe ΠΕ ον τ 
12 . . . 323, 375, 435, 439, 536, 
565, 881 

iso ee 781, 783 
πος eee 562, 605 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


2 Cor. 
BREE eA ΡΣ 605 
10:1 407, 424, 457, 474, 686, 688 
ΠΝ ek: ΘΕ: IH WE 
10:1-11 Ce a eae 407 
10:2 . . 401, 407, 474, 481, 490 bis, 
519, 743, 1035, 1038, 1059, 1060, 
1083, 1123 
1033 . 407, 792 bis 
ie ke Sele eee 537, 626 
RUC) ee hs) % 500, 593 
UAT os τ ΕΣ 407, 497 
ΤῸ ee LM PSE ch} «Paces ΕΝ 699 
LV ete yeh Ce ayy. Ue ee ne νὰν 407 
Ἰ0 1 aie hee 716 
10:9 407, 597, "959, 969, 1025, 
1040, 1091, 1095 
ΤΟ ΘΟ ei cae 233, 392, 434, 1206 
10:11 . 291, 407, 678, 710 bis, 731 
10:12 . 315, 401, 529, 687, 1201 
10:12, 18 ne 510 
0 19: eae 5 407, 719, 1078 
10:14 477: 501; 629, 1159 
10:16 "244, 297, 517, BAT, 550, 
629 bis, 647 
Τα ον 815, 707 
11:1 368, 486, 543, 880, 923 bis, 
1004, 1186 
Pele ΓΟ Leto wee. πεν 1199 
ΤΠ} . 261, 349, 1088 
ΠΥ tee At ain Hh κ ς ς 782, 995 
11:4 .. t47, 748, 1151, 1186 
ΤΙ . 297, 519, 548, 550, 629 
PEO te cee hee 129, 395, 1202 
MER Pet ee ΠΛΉΝ: 219, 1165 
ip UB a Od SR τον. 750, 778 
Lea) eine τ τι 1034 
WAST o ee; és) ey AY 
ΤΌ. 208, 234, 743, $53 bis, 933, 
10238, 1025 
ἘΠ tee at sy 8" . . 1199 
Pe tok oA os . . 606, 802 
1:91 434, 963, 1033, 1199 
Ug tae ee 0" 1198 
ἘΠ 23 “244, 293, 297, 450, 551, 
ΠΣ 558, 629 bis, 1109 
eas le oa en A ς 442 
1M COB Te el: See ιν. 784 
Ἵν oe οἷ: 615, 635 
ΠΡΟ την ἢ 2, 833, 897 
Πα ee a Ae BA 793 
ime wre cen, ves. τ 501 
πο ae 258 
11:28 . 244, 587, BAT, 646 
ἘΠΕ τοις 677 bis 
ΠΟ τ τς wee? ἀρ», wp 470 
ΤΠ ιν τ τύ δος, 255, 258, 498 


1327 


TOE Tee eee 1092, 1130, 1149 
22 622, 778, 793, 1035, 
1041, 1103 
1 es, EG eames bee (et 1045 
183575) ape ace teed ie te 349 
ΤΉΝ ΝΥ͂Ν 710 
1 ae: 212, 295 bis, 491, 881, 1139 
ΠΟ τε νον τ Ψ  ΟΡΝ 519, 988 
12:7 . 408, 532, 536, 538, 629, 
960, 985 
12:9. 488, 541 bis, 602, 664, 670, 
879, 897 
LLU ΡΝ lean ate: 279 
τ χει eons 973 
12:11 478, 920, 1003, 1014, 1160 
5 eet ἀπο 408, 757, 772, 1151 
12:13 . . 218, 341, 479,.512, 1025, 
1199, 1216 
MES a. eae: 702, 1077 
LEAS τ plaid ne deal ia ea 218 bis, 277, 596 
tea cote Saad. Sag 392, 476 
12:17 . 436, 474, 488, 718, 720, 
744, 893 bis, 896 
1 τς To 461, 684, 770 
1 ΠΟ τς 297, 644, 696, 879 
12:20 . . 267, 408, 534, 539, 731 bis, 
929, 995 ter, 1159, 1161, 1174 
12:21 . 193, 475, 621, 716, 910, 
995, 1117, 1173 
ey ee ae ee eee 478, 674, 702 
ΤΠ ὟΝ μας by 674, 1035 
ΠΥ ΕΝ 598 
13:5 . 751, 1011, 1025, 1045, 1169 
13:7 . 394, 423, 656, 763, 886, 
919, 1162, 1173 
Pr Meee) ok Lae ρον 698, 703 
Preemie el). at oT Be te ς 699, 845 
IV a eS ae bs 773 bis 
Galatians 
ἀράν τὰν ΚΡ, ΜΈΣΩΝ ἘΣ 567, 582, 778, 795 
ΤΌΣ ΝΣ 773, 780 
OBA lee ΡΥ ate 778 
ΤῊ ae 232, 515, 618, 629 
1 LU Niet Peeve Ra RR Oe Re aie ren oe 408 
ΤΟ ar eee es 748, 749, 879 bis, 965 
6. ΣΦ rile ps 747 bis 
| hy bea ore 764, 778, 785, 1011, 
1107, 1169 
1:8 . 313, 402, 406, 1010, 1026 
ΠΑΝ αὐ ms 616, 939 
PEO RMN Sec eee 483, 968 
LEO carne τόν ν τὸν ee 1015 
els toe ee tte mee tes ee ee 474 
Leer ΝΣ Sie een 582, 1189 


1328 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 
Gal. . 

EIR a eh manes ae ore 783, 885 | 3:23 857, 878, 1074, 1075 
ΤΙ es ae i 298, 620, 633;.779, σον προιὸν ap 635 
i ha Ei ta ARE RN B87 ble Neo Sek el | eee 318, 419, 558 
(Ny bo MNP CLA BU Re BOL co) 45 Lice ae eee "ὶ 733, 751, 757 
URS ps Regen aesaamaiiian Ris 2941025 ΑΣΑ dee geese ee πα SOO 
Kole 18) ie Aaa igre, τς 538, 1054. ᾿Δνδηρῦξ cree aes 395, 960, 987 
ΜΠ π᾿ 878, 1590 τ δι ΝΣ 26, 231, 395, 465 
1:22 f 412-888 A G hese ee GiGi eye Cae 441 
1:23 659, 892, 1115, 1139, ΝΣ 395 
ΝΥ RAS, ὀρ fel ΡΟΝ Ae BO ee er Ne eer) meee ame 1172 
Σὰ Rani ears Tae es 255, O85. GSip AOR ΤΩΣ ἈΡΉΤΗ ἡ τς 879, 1111, 1199 
PA IED RE tie na te SAGs atari oe eee 613, 810, 922 
9 - Vaden iare ease ae 542, 988 bis, 995 ze Reh tea τ ΤῊΝ . 995, 1169 
PAY. GS dae a ὩΣ ΟΝ aire) 613, ROD? σα, ist Osaka: Ὁ i ee 482 
Dee Ses EL. Aa 367,488 4:15 πὰ 841, 991, 922, 1014, 1048 
Dade Ley lave Saved ραν ae ere 56... 7 Δ τῇ 203, 325, 342, 984 
ΠΕ nan Ne 438, 731, 732 bis, 743, ASLS sou tus. atten ee 18691162 
ΠῚ 1115 4219 nc tee eee ies 27130 O78 
Di OHO pastes soho peat Hees sede eh alg pende Ol Lie ene 368, 784, 886, 919 
2:7 . 208, 485, 540, 546, 550, 937, 1199 
816, 320 4:24 . 704, 729 bis, 760, 881 
90" 13042 10007 1085: 1202 41 20k 5 4 at eae See 750 
2-10). 3708, 744, 719, 723,933, 060i As 242968 a: et py: 
ον 608, 816, 1118 4:28 254, 398, 411, 530, 547, 
PN be GRAB ΤΥ C= 579, 978, 1075 759, 766 
2:13. 4 $34, 530, 638, 1000 bts, 118le* As Ohta ene τ. 760 
2:14 Ὁ 2A, 626) 580, 1055, Τῦρο 4226 sae τ τὺ . 898, 547 
pr ED RP ee tenet Ne | UVP DSO nodes Var 663, 892, 1138, 1139 
2:16 ew 75, 190; LOSS ΩΤ 4.50 κ᾿ ΛΟ 
Sal 282-016 bs, θαυ 76, Oster eee 399, 482, 484, 816 
A Ee de iene 316; 402; 480,645.) ΠΡ ἀπ ἢ ee”) 1062-0076 
Ded Eanes mbes a ἡ 397796. | ἄν eee 518 bis, 562, 880, 960 
Da OU wit hee ATO. GSA TER 270. το ει, ee Se BSB 
PEO ΚΑΤ I Sa Cee TRG: 1150.0 Ge 7) eee ee ee 1094, 1171 
Di OF OS alte Meet eo ta ence 978. ch wae ete τῶν: 540, 727, 746, 957 
3:1 349 °4A73 50087 O21. (20 me eee ee: ΤΩΣ . 1008 
792510 O3> anh + lena teenies wee 809, 819, 873, 923, 
=O Vii RP anata ie 579, 1060 ° 940, 1004 
SAS tin Wt orate ke Pa he tn 710 5:13 . . . 605, 692, 1202 
ΠΡ era a AP cep ΎΜμὲ ΜῸ 394 5:14 _ 288, 419, 688, 766, 773, 874 
B27 ces) SR se 698: 5s15 πον τ 933, 996 
RENO Tene ter tn hcl Lah BS 967... ΌΤΙ. eee ah theeeate cae eee 834 
3:10 . . 562, 598, 631, 720, 744, 5:17, 698, 850, 957, 994, 998 
778, 1067,. 1086, 1088." L596) 5319) beaks eel τον 404, 729 
δι ty ose heey eee ree ae 205...” 520d λυ ον ieee ora a 265, 267 
ΟΥ̓Κ ΡΤ σον ἀντ σι 317, 631 bis 5: 20f., ον ae hg το τ τ, 704 
ΤᾺ ΚΌΜΜῊ Weiler eC ν Γ Ἐν PAL 104020 eG lea ΟΣ ΝΎ ee 290, 771, 1035 
Be εκ i eee 4931155, LSS pean me ane eo ae eee 428, 1178 
Si ΤΟΙ cee ieee 1342, 604, 71, Bid ΟΝ pee ook ee ee 767 
3:17 . 'B80¢. 672,699). 1003.0. Baeiaeere cee eee ee 1009 
1072, 10002 τα ΟΣ ee τα τ ee ; 541 
3:18 ERB Ss 8) δ. τον λοις 439, 995, 1027, 1180 
3:19 | 221, 349, ἍΤ 647, 736, 6:3 9411 7143. 781} 14 oF ΤΣ 
974, 78. ΘΑ ἀχνὴ τ ΡΥ ΤΡ 690 
5. ἢ) Mie aE mh oy. aes 0 tenia eee ee ἀρ νὸν 889 
Ri Bde Gane eae 77737785940 5101 A) GEG iaeanas meee a eer ee 486, 773 


ee ae 





sn 
uy 


we 


μι μι μι κι μι. 
See eee ο Ἰσοι ὦ οϑ καὶ 


~ 


DIDS Be 5 9 RY SO OS Ὁ Ὁ Ὁ Ὁ ΘΟΕ Ε ros 
Pe μὰ μὰ μὰ μὰ τῷ 00 “ὦ ὧι σι ἡν. Ὁ Ὁ μὰ 


Se ee 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 1329 


οι" Ποὺ 779 
. 1023, 1102, 1121, 1129, 1170 
. 658, 670, 762, 763, 968, 974 

292, 533, 734, 741 ter, 

846 bis, 917, 1045, 1177 

. . . 148, 201, 325, 532, 698, 
732, 880, 885, 985 

ΠΣ Tee 401, 796, 854, 940, 
1003, 1170 

ree he, 234, 743 
ae a. 295, 495 


ARR ne ag way 582, 1107 
ἀν oy kia AM 5 780, 991 
ἊΣ ΟΣ eee 396, 763, 781, 785 


Bi os Ok toitriae fhe 's 990, 543, 540 
SIR ARE fe LS Στ}... 713 


. 309 bis, 326 bis, 327 ter, 398, 

933, 940, 983 bis, 994, 1214 
DET ον 411, 1072, 1087 
AC ars oe 778 


ἫΝ 418, 629, 647 


yp a er ΩΝ 632 | 


ΜΕΝ μον eal εν νος 497, 651 
. 419, 497, 503, 530, 788 

478 bis, 482, 584, 833 
ee 529 


ee aan eae TAA 
ΣΥΝ 605, 681, 716, 776 
Ay BRS Αι TAT TTA 185 
vanes. 398, 516, 658, 782 
by re μὴν ene 1115, 1139 
. «sss « 480, 498, 769 bis 
πότος 433 


ὧϑ ὧδ ὧδ ὧδ ὦ ὦ ὁ ὁ δ DD bo 


AAP ἐν ἣν ἐν EERE PEPE PEAR PERE ἐν ἧς μὰς Οὐ ὧϑ ὧϑ ὧϑ ὧδ ὧϑ Οὐ ὧϑ ὧϑ ὧδ ὧϑ ὧϑ ὧϑ WO 


ΤΟΥ Σὺ as 589, 769, 783 
ΤΡ τς ee. Sear 483, 547 
Sa) ot |e ον Ἀν ΝΘ grey 745, 769 
ΣΟΥ BC aks 498, 560, 787, 1131 
FAD os Sp A ἢ Sows ἐν δος 12 
ES ta ΠΝ aoe ok ake 505 
Fe LP youn! UE T 8 ae Ms 435 
ΕΜ ἢ 424, 1045, 1148 bis 
ST ER. doin obi Wnt? SNe al soe eRe 845 
ES EOE Eo ack car FRO au As 783 
aL ae Bete nee 523, 787 
Ck SY a at ee ee See ee ee 1089 
Aaah ΟΦ ιν. δ ety τ eit 1078 
τ, 278, 439, 483, 516, 663, 760 bis, 
773 bis 

Bae LED No ven ἔσει cee cae Ota ee et Re 262 
DL EOE. een rte be toa ΝΎ, 724 
1 IPRS Cs UCED ees eae ep ae 784 
ΤΟΣ col Ne ae on (3 412, 728, 729, 784 
ee Luks da AN a kcvhisl τορτε ae 435 
cig og MD. Ee Ce ee 433 
Fite eee Laren ee 772 
ΟΣ ole 309, 327, 593, 766 
ACS. = AOS gia ee eee ok ae . 1086 
DAR Weck et oe fame 1087, 1090 
Ἐν 212 
Ἰοὺ νει πὸ τογστον τρὴν 787 
BL bri ice Fe ceri ls 401, 519 
20°. .. .. ..b17, 548, 629, 647 bes 
PALS ΠΡ ane ae . . 408, 660 
ἸΌΝ pada 478, 716, 783, 1201 
Lee eee cg. sae chanhy wate 440, 807 
OE i: SIAR SE ye a 946 
ΟΣ ΗΝ SS, Sh SA eeu 567 
PESO | Sa DR aan a negro air 1D 746 
A. ee ee 392, 479 
‘Ol... «278, 208, 499, 665,,667; 
735, 766 

ἌΛΠΑ τ tus 297, 550, 647, 806 
ὙΠ το ἐν 424, 694, 1152 
IAL "DY eee aie een eS Aree Sy, 624 
1 | πρνις 503, 778, 975 bis 
ELMO oa pi Tei oak «κι; ἐπ cae 719 
ΤΟ ee aes ον" 589, 745 
Lie ee tle tens 700, 1078 
ΕΝ post A γυνγὲς 405, 407, 412 


718°... 412, 518,.523, 910, 1117 
:21. . . 507, 545, 588, 1027, 1148 


22 . 280 bis, 283, 662, 1038, 1089 


τ ata a ee cE 746, 854 
οι Caen eek td 605, 949, 1173 
EPR AEG: etd a ahh acl! ake 892, 1116 
ΣΟ το ων, 626, 753, 994 
ΤΟΣ Nir ile etme ert} 594 
Ti Eau es τατον ἊΣ Deo τιον 946 


1330 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Eph. 
Bid wat et. 714, 887,920,1188 1:11 . . . 483, 485, 510, 595, 694 
Bib he. 819, 830, 360, 406,418, erear) led 2) eee ee 608, 665, 766 
7360800 τἀ ΟΝ 262, 1091 
ΠΡ ΒΡ ΡΣ SOM οι pe Δ, 8δι ΑΝ ee εὐ. 279, 540, 784 
Bel x Meike eee eee 529 1:18 235, 265, 743 bis, 750, 1153 
ETI Pepper OE 4 580 Tid sk ae ee ee. 1200 
Bid 1 Le e810 3282 422, 948, 1100. 1516 sa Ae οου. 1153 
Bebe ie ee ace 1179" 1S ΟΝ A ee en eee 538 
ΤΑ λυ eae ee ee 440 1:18 . . 487, 530, 646, 703, 871, 
Reps (eas eee 533, 854, 890 889, 1186, 1187 
Belo Cee ΡΥ oe eee ree 690" LE LORS: my, an eae eee re een 787 
RED i acest ee es ae ee 500 EDO ΣΥΝ 787, 794 
oy ee ΑΝ 308-U7548046) 12 O1- wie ee ee 1065 
523i 1509. 4167 8 7 ΒΟ 794 172124 00) ρρψρορὁοἷ«νμ πιο . 1059 
CAS) My meray brie enn. ἢ 804% 7047/91: 220m eae 537, 698, 737, 810, 875, 
6305 ΚΑΤΑ, Τὰ ene er ee 757 1023, 1183 
δὰ δ ait mane 21, 784, S11, 1028 | “teagan 130, 278, 442, 488 bis, 532, 
ΡΨ a Cee ae 687 546, 628, 664, 858, 1072, 1076 
5500 eR Ree ORE eRe ae 1147) 41293°20 5 ee 1066 
BP 20 wince he ee ae 260 1205 Gal eee ee 613, 787, 828 
Beg iat Comte Wee 560, 574, G23" 1206 igh ey ee 588, 783, 784 
hey ae J ΖΘ 27 το 489; 505 1520 nba ree 
5:33. 330, 746, 766,769, 033, 9 1p aS ae 412, 537, 729 
994, 1187 somes. ae 487, 632, 777, 1162 
δ. Cae So es ae 757 1:30 . 414,439, 530, 731, 1135 bis 
Gio ee Ae a eee 793 “25 a 130410 4G 
δὲ hen ee ew 299,875,084. 7252 seks ek cee τευ 992 
Ged YN et aT Re Mapa (hiya ΣῈ 519, 690, 692, 1123 bis 
δ et HA ae T5TMIS2. Cees Ga ee ee 292, 746 
OG AUR ePID ae a eee πο Sa ee eee . . 699, 703 
δέ. cit Det ete cere eee 355 2:6 . 152, 407, 546, 1041, 1059, 1066 
δε με cs eee 315, 502.) 2x7 ave a Ὁ 1114 
δ Leo ee ae 5502 Θ᾽ 12:19} abet ee pee ἦτ 523, 645, 1122 
6:11 to) 60209151 00301075. δε eee 629 bis, 632 
ΠΑΝ os eens 566.651" “2310s 220) 0, ey ee ee 503 
61130 Cee gee BGS ter Te Le a ate ee a 188, 795, 1034 
ΘΙ ΣῊΝ a ee  ρ αν ἀπν νεν 409 2:12 . . 564, 606, 634, 1162, 1173 
δὴ Hew, | Ok eee as 589, 605, 652 2:13 . . 560, 564, 632, 769, 1059, 
Gal7. tte hae ΔΆΝ τ 412, 712, 954 1182 
6218 fie ee Set ees ee 618 2:15 .. . 488, 505, 550, 644, 713, 
VEU amma tih δ εν ΟῚ ΤΣ ΝΣ 1000. 714, 775 
Gi DL Pee Me θ ν G08, 8785) το ee 550 
BBD i ern Ae Sate aoe 699,1846> τ a 787, 828 
met 231'7. {05 Hie, σεν ae 627 
PP OTS Som! Sole ee oe 207, “487, 535 
1:11, τὸς SA 3040628 0763 752 200 meee eee 960, 961, 996 
152 τ τ RES BOY RIO ROR ht DAN ok De eae ee ΠΟ 767, 773 
153 1.5908, ee ee GOL 72 (te 20 ae oe ee ee 441, 1199 
Le Bi Le I aes αν ee τῶ 8 9 635 Bl Μὴν 224, 620, 687, 974 
1:6) 42. 478" 686,705, 77048800) eed | ee τους 895 
156, 2504) a eras 699 -OeD5 mL se ter ἀπ τς. 172, 418, 502 
1:7 A91,.504,.566; 632, 658, 787) Δέον. σον. 888, 964, 1120 
066, 1151. 2:27, 20, iia eee 505, 601, 646 
τι δ ieee ee 1032 2:28 .. . 297, 298, 545, 665, 846 
Τοῦτ cy Aa ae ee 633.1609 > 2:89 τ akg) oe 480, 481 
Us10 |. Be Pe ee 594) O01 1071) Zena ea wees 184 bis, 503, 781 


Sli — 


CO δέν νυ παν “2: νυν. προσ. ὧν ἐλ. σὦ χω, ᾿ 


ie) 


ΤῊΝ 


— μα 


ΙΞᾺ 
ὩΣ 


ae] 
μι 5 


ws) ὧθ ὧὠθ 020 Ww Ww WD 


Co ὧδ ὧδ Oo G2 Go GD OO oo Oo Oo OO 


ALR ARR ΝΣ 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


. 420, 487, 546, 650, 890, 1058, 
1085, 1146, 1153 

2 . . 471, 949, 1100, 1178, 1200 
Pied Genera Re 190] 
iT ice θὴΣ _ 540, 769, 785 
4 1129, 1138, 1139, 1154 
ie ee 523, 598, 657 
oo SO A eae LC 261 
7 _ 396, 480, 481, 584, 898, 
"704, 1041 

:8 . . 396, 481, 485, 504, 652, 764, 


812, 983, 1036, 1109, 1145, 1148, 
1151, 1186 


:9 . . 588, 598, 685, 782, 783, 784 


10 . 150 bis, 990, 1002, 1067, 
1088, 1200 
JEL ASS Rage iO. On eae es mele 
12 . 605, 811, 812, 845, 901, 916, 
1017, 1024, 1030 
13 . 472, 489, 506, 807, 1038, 
1060, 1202 
(153585 ee ee “705 
14 εν 146, 547, 608, 656, 782 
15 oie 395, 749, 931 
16 _ 329, 944, 1081, 1092, 1187 
17 ὙΠ] 
18 478, 718 
ἘΠ ΑΝ ae ES Mark, 413, 1107 
20 : 714 
Aor 496, 528, 996, 1061, 1066 
1067, 1076 
ER EME Ne Gee Komi τ Κις BoD 
eM ead As hal τ : 612, 728 
ὌΝ a ee ee cae 548, 703, 1202 
7... . 477, 499, 629, 800, 1183 
fon. .. 098, (24, 733, 765, 812, 1146 
EO eke, . . 698, 724, 1182 
mm Oi: 4, 348, 476, 487, 604, 963, 965, 
1049, 1059, 1066, 1147, 1212 
ἍΠ1 7 677, 687, 721 bis, 835, 845, 
1038, 1041, 1060, 1103, 1166 
WES 9 ον ea eee OO 
ΠΤ νοι ἀν τς 117, 349, Ὁ. 1. {181 
ΠΝ uaa ass Ps Sort eS 
INA: 0 geet Sa τος ‘1121, 1178 
ΠΣ een ae er ae 183 
ΠΥ ἘΣ a ero a el ον: 594, 1166 
is) he A ne PO ee ie EY 
τ τὸ 262 , 586, 783 
ΟΣ τ i ἢ et oD 
22 548, 599, 670 
Colossians 
24.) ς εν, 185, 408 
:2, 6, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 26, 
27, 28 ay eg ie TM aS ate 243 


DNNNNNNNNE EB ee ee eee eee 


fe μα 


WNNNNNNNNNNNNMNN WD 


Foil tae ἈΠ LA, OM SAE Oe eae, 1128 
OD WARES A cp a sre neh geek 860 
ΔΎ ἀν a δς νοις 782, 783 
SAD Na tases, We Soke wy, 498 
ΣΟ a. eee 881, 968 
SOc Mmm mam nurse dP Daa 717, 978 
v6 172, 2557781 
Speers One 764, 779, 859 
79 i 483, 485, 576, 600, 731, 784, 
993, 1049, 1102 

UT eee aye hae ee eee ΤΕ 
9-23 433 
LOD fee fee ee 1086, 1087 
10. Τ- ape et ZOU 
13 : 212, 496, 497, 503, 818 
15 233, 234, 772, 896 
ον τσ ον αν ere 
10 “. δ07, δ89, 588, 654 bis, G72; 
763, 844, 894, 896 

τ 2384, 534, 622, 679, 774, 896 
18 c . 248, 375 bis, 890 
ZU) ave ; Bee Pd 
21 ε 375 ITT, 910, ΣΤ 11] 1117 
AAS oe ok na See, ud) tse AF 
De. : 437, 496, 644 
8 : cae 9.71. 1148 
24 pLODSDO 5, 574, 712, 784 
DA, O8 fF. τὰν 724 
ΡΟΥΘ a Sle Ὁ Pp ee 1135 
ΟΥ̓ (CAG Fe as ἡ ο νος Pp RIBS 
29 714 
eRe 5, kee toy ts 337, 364, "733, 908 
Ὁ ον ἢ : ἘΠ. 
PANT 4 Nee ane 243, 262, 439 
χ᾽ εὐ a mie eee le 243 
EER ANE oh eo ate be 987 
ye ΔΥΌ Rb Ὁ 651, 1026, 1187 
Tt. Sr ane 
hee 764, 787, "933, 995 bis. ΠΟ 
1116, 1159, 1169 

oe Ie Pe a SOs ΠῚ 
ΠΣ νι νῶν Κλ ΝΣ 712 
Ter iy tsa 51 ἮΝ Σ A area: 
petal. 35 galhvek ΑΝ 152, 529 
es τ Bee ae ae 560, 789, 1205 
Aes ΓΑ ches, 3 Pook sae ΚΝ 658 
14 . 524, 528, 634, 648, 783 
15 . . 226, 474, 589, 805 
ἸΌΝ τς . 204, 460, 1182 
ΤΈΣ 91) Oh < me Can ivan ea, 112 
Leet 65, 164, 477,500, 551 bis, 585 
19 478, 479, 715. 1195: 1139 
ΟΣ Εν. 559, 576, 792, 807 
Ὄνος δ e 714, 789 bis 
23 _ 375, 626, 742, 881, 1152 bis 
Lear ate cas a renlo. hc teers 529 


Col. 
ΦΌΡΟΥΣ eine alae 547 
Be CEPR Ni pee ee 881, 1172 
SB: CS ene . 588, 628 bis 
oD 727, 728, 758 bis, 960 
Sap ENS a ee Ὁ 971 
RAR Orr Oy masa a 4 854, 800 
8.1 ee ον ΛΝ τς 657, 712, 1188 
Hh . 508, 690, 692, 742, 968 
Ὁ 411, 605, 713 
Ὁ Aes . 499 
3:16 me 440, 560, 690, 946, 1133 
SEIT ee, oe a PSE 729, 957 
ay hol eee ee τ: 393, 807, 887, 920 
ΘΗ δ cele. Se cena 7017 
θεν PRS CORE ES γα 550, 1140 
δ Sb oh, Pea eee Ale | 498 
SPEO (OAS ak eee eee 355, 1217 
ΑΣΑ ee ee 788 
4:3 . 407, 638 bis, 1086, 1090, 1140 
Asa Weak ces , $625.7 810 
4:6 . < . 269, 396, 439, 880, 1045, 
1090, 1208 
4 Orr rire eye 699, 846 
cD aed Bee aan Gy (bor HI ΤᾺ, 355, 547 
Bed ea ree ie 9 Aide. ore tek 255 
AAD ΕΣ seh! Υς 172, 630, 772, 994 
ASE ALEY sO S.eals wa liene 244, 257 
Oe aie ey Rg A Bad 172; 608; 256 
AO By sib ee Jerr ΣΕ 172 0951} 008 
Berl ΉΣΑΝ bk 600, 1204 
cA ER apt Sa MON ehhh 2 343, 983 
Bool 8.5. Ribs“ sity ts email he ΠΣ 685 
1 Thessalonians 
Sr oe eee 119. COUNT OU 
eS Rei pe 498, 503, 779 bis, 780 
Lie hers ye 566, 731 ter, 1045 
Logie: ΣΝ ΟΣ On 
IBS: Ge Ce Sees: ge Raves 
1:97 2731, 732; 779.5795, LOS2a1177 
181 0 ahs coy ceo τος 475, 778, 1107 
2 Je ean el Me ABS igh ee τ we 1077 
ἌΡΑ CORR Sade Merwe s Cec Winey Ca 598 
ὩΣ Oy 485, 1085, 1108, 1139 
Za Oy Ae Σ bi 505, 968 
2:8 . . 164, 198, 206, 225, 508, 522, 
1162, 1215 
229 ce Fp πὰ 593, 1003, 1075 
2210) ΟΝ eee 537; 545 
2:12 . 787, 997, 1002, 1072 
Ah1AZ0 yey Gage eae 545, 560, 791 
27a GAS AON, Cee ee 530 
οι LUPO ee eee 1205 
216 = (SRR CS eee 1220 
2947). os eee 559, 665, 778 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


2118 }2 ΡΥ 407, 1151, 1152 bis 
BAS Oe ER EG eve oe 587, 1188 
ΘΕ See MA) Fie PA eS ΠΩ 
SEES ERROR A cee ed he Πρ Σὰ 1066 
St) ee Ady se 186 bis, 686, 1059 
3:5... . 458, 988 ter, 991, 1071, 
1088, 1169 
ΟΣ oN Oe Cereus Bs rate 1139 
HOM LPR Lee. ΝΣ ; 5, 787 bis 
ΕΘ ΤΥ se. LSS, 879, ie 1010 bis 
329.9. Sar Bee eos. 10 
320 297, 629, 647, 1002, 1072 
Seat NA eee 327, 785, 1092 
Sed Die. Ce ie eee 854, 943 
Sa eL Oe vos Geet 90) 
bl ΠΡ ent 327, 940, 1181 
4:1... . 489, 560, 739, 766, 1046 
A Dit Tih. AF oe Lee oy, Ua ithe 
46 EGE Pit 400, 518, 698, 1059 
4-3 f° 20S Oe ee eee 1078 
ARGO CTR © aes 1172 
4:6 233, 338, 629, 1059, 1078 
ἀν 605 bis 
4:8 . wei . 1154 
4:9 . 686, 997, 1003, 1071, 1072, 1097 
A<1 0) αι Ss eee ee 774 
AS10 εν ἐν ee 1066 
AYULT ΝΑ αν 1060 
Ἀ:Π| Glan ΕΝ cee ee 751 
ASESE OU LY, GO re 985 
Εν Ἀπὸ ἀν at re 355, 817 
ARLD Poe oh OR a ee 618 
r Soll bi 7 OR eR ee ee 778 
ASG FSA ee Cee 589, 783 
ΡΝ yar 357, 528, 628, 638 
νας αν oe ee ee 550 
Hatt, PAs ee ieee 225, 267 
Ags δε, Εν 998 
δ ΓΕ ΕΝ 496, 497 
ΟΣ ΝΣ . 497, 931 bis, 1200 
SiS? Soe 1 eee . . . 497, 498 
5:10 - 534, 628, 638, 833, 1017, 
1027 
OFT ee een ὉὉ 293, 675, 692 
HLS PTR ER a eee 319 
ΣΤ Titel ale eee ee 171, 647 
DAT he. a eee ΕΟ 625 
δι᾽7᾽0,") 309 bis, 481, 573, 692 
933, 996 
DREG Se a0 OR) ee 947 
δ ΟΞ εν 800 
ΤᾺΝ Tyree kee eee cae ee 218, 318 
δ: 22%: Sy) eee: co ee 518 
ὄν 940, 1003 
δέ Tee Mo eee ee ee 619 
Beit ΟΣ ee eee 484, 1085 





Ww οὐ. WWWWWWWWHWWWNNNNNNNNNNNN NNER καὶ μὶ μὲ μὲ μα μὰ 


μι μι μι μι μα μι μι μὰ μὰ 


ew Od 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


2 Thessalonians 


ΟΝ gh Σ 629, 693 
ne OF 287, 687, 689, 716 
Di SS oll 
Coo a ΩΝ 497 
Bete. σ΄ ee 787 
ΠΟΥ a! eee 334, 485, 818 
Ce OE ; 511, 714 
as is ΕΝ 786, 987 
ΘΕ, ΡΥ δ 632 bis 
2 . 261, 582, 964, 1033, 1072, 

1140, 1189 
3 . 497 bis, 856, 1023, 1173 
SUR Te 0 es a a 1202, 1203 
4 ο 234, 311, 562, 1034, 1105, 1139 
OW ie at ea ς ὦ 409, 411 
“LUNG. ΝΡ ΝΡ 792 
MS WERE eke ol igs τ 1212 
EOS ONS ra 499, 500 
ναῷ Εν τ an 532 
‘Cae “aie 339, 366, 501, 550 
EN OR, SS χορ 714 
Pine. εν, ὗν, 485, 816, 1045 
if AAS 940, 948, 1092 
Beret te MNS a” 5) rie . 1205 
ποτ᾿ 956, 961, 1219 
Ἔν Seeder . 540 
ΠΣ Rg, aaa a 500, 1092 
5, 16 940 
Ὁ. 336, 560, 1047, 1172, 1217 
πριν. 880 
ὅρου δῶν, ΝΣ 904 
δ ρος ΡΥ ΡΝ τ 1008, 1075 
ἄς es BGO 
2. . 699, 950, 1012, 1028, 1035, 

1046, 1047 
11 . . 564, 617, 1042, 1103, 

1127, 1201 
Berea ot Tika. ΝΣ 1046, 1047 
CONS og) RGR fe Ae ae 1121 
14 . 317, 329, 529, 698, 944, 

1047, 1170 
OM pO A eee 481, 1123 
A ee 309, 326, 940, 1214 
Ore 493, 685, 713 

1 Timothy 

2 OGL ἔνςς, 235 
“hs BSH GE GBs ear 561, 968 
SED jel he tad GF Sn 439 
ὁ AR A iM 152, 782 
ΠΥ ale aa aoa 518, 714 


τος 825, 726, 737, 1045, 1176 

_ 341, 342, 533, 762, 1201 
185, 539, 699 
427 


Ree NOn δ. “ἃ να 9“ 


σι ὧι δι σι σι σι σι σι σι σι PARE PARE 


WWWWWWWWHWHWNNNNNNN PHP μεμα μὲ μὰ Βα μὲ μα Βα καὶ 


Cr δι δι δι cr 


1333 


. 224, 749, 776, 777, 1106 
485 


629, 782 
652 


Pore CO. CIPO 6) δ ὁ "ὁ Se 


δ ἘΠ δια αὐ 6 Oe Ὁ. “ὁ τοῦ Δ seers 


490, 573, 631, 770 
242, 401 


Ne τ “oie eae et es 272 


876, 1172 


Ce ST ke Ce ee ee 
ἜΝ Ss Oe | OB fh erate, ἃ 


Vee ee Sy ὺ πὸ δι. οὐ ὁ Φ :,.κἥὃε 


. 729, 880, 983 
. . 242, 295, 401, 422, 428, 
534, 546, 551, 713, 793, 954, 

1109, 1199 
499, 518, 668 
518, 785, 1121, 1201 
1022 


‘OE ptae wae, o> ὁ 


ee δ ὁ φΦ'΄ @ a, Ve 
Sie 6: νύ . © 
Cee SS 64, 6. 4Φ ἘΦ eee ΔᾺΝ 4} 8 
oe 8 ee δ᾽ (4. «ἃ 
Ὁ 4 eS Ce 

ὌΝ αν 6. 6. 6.0 ὦ Pepe) Or ιν νὰ 

ὌΝ δὲ Ler pe te” WO) αὐτὰ 

Ὁ ἤρα δ ΘΑ ek Bere δὸς 589 
Ser @ 6 τεσ “8! 6.462 6.4 16 @ 
o) ears Δ᾽ ὦ 4οὃ Ὁ O } es Nese. 4 
να a er edie) eRe lca σὰ 


LT ee ee ΠΝ δ᾽ a ee ek hee | 


302, 547, 565, 623 
509, 516, 691, 1012 
218, 277, 488, 666 
163, 800 
512, 972 
. . 232, 278, 477, 617, 618, 
638, 1040, 1103 bis, 1121, 
1122, 1172 

919 
284, 511, 654 
223 
. . 251, 603, 640, 1025, 1188 
621 


ον ae a ἢ 4 τ | 


OO ΙΧ δι δεν" 


} 
1334 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


725 . 185, 309.b¢s, 327, 565, 983, ae 


5:22 ese ΜΡ με  ὰ file) sc te 890 bis 2 
δ 779, 789 988 bis, 989, 996, 1044, 1214 | 
Bt OA ig ne O35. θυ Rabe (eee ee. ae a 707 4 
Miike. ae BOS fel... Του 699, 769 
6:3 arin Ge oe τ. 609, Ὁ, δε... τ ae: oe ee 162 
ΙΝ eee ee 167, 267, AG: 9.1, eRe hie te 661, 663, 666 
6:5 vsus aes 166, 4880486, 5198p 582 maces vem eee tee ie 148,155 ἢ 
BT ed. oy amu 1191 MBE CUT ἈΝ 1173 } 
Ge Si cus nan | B34 8714880 lp 3 15 Aa le eee, 255, 486 
ἀν... BADGGIT ἡ ΛΟ ΒΑ το 707, 708 
Ged +. ἘΠ ee! 476, 1186 Bt Soa ΡΝ 212, 731 bis 
Bad Bike he se eee Ora ATS GSA tik cue vin oe ee 721 ae 
6213") 3° 08 Re ee 603: ΠΡ 15 Ant) he a eee . 8379 
6:15°" . . . 405, 528° 660,691,785 προ... 272, 772 bis, 1097 | 
τι κεν licks ae ee 776 ΑΣΑ ut. Luh ue Ὁ. 484 
6:17... 163,498, 496651, 783,908 fe2aan 0 π σνε- 328 
Gr lSaunt. wuetcdict ccs Reeves 04. cdede ΝΣ ku eee 895 
Bel) ΜΉΝ, τὴν 186/261, 8:0. 566. eee ΠΡ 498, 903 
Geol ae are tw tee Ree 715 Πα 0 1205 ἡ 
ἤν ΑΝ τον δ το 589 ὦ 
2 Timothy 4:10... 172, 184, 255, 547, 858, 861 
AS ligtiats oe ee τὸρ ΠΕ a viele ee 172, 535, 549, 1127 | 
Te hit eee ees 963 4:13 . . . 186, 221, 235, 255, 614% 
DB ohn Pi ae NORE eae ASS! ΣΦΕ 1 ΙΝ awe cr . 419,949,955 ἢ 
Leip, ebcancakeede ae δ" ASS 7182720) ΑΙ 779, 854, 939, 940 
πα δ ΔΘΑ ety os 662. ΠῚ) pee ede eee 212, 818 
TGR halts heck Fo ye Wah ATONGIO 2iAc1 9) ae ee 1204 
Tes fae tek. eine” Mas ae W107° 2 4a aes ὦ 235 
Tel cs eta Ἴδη. “Δι 235, 255, 621 
ΤΠ ΕΣ oe re 166, 594, 658, 718 
720, 726, 1102 Titus 
Te13 ats feb τὰν, ΟΝ σαι ee 224 
1.14 oa.) ee 613, 558. ghd ΑΗ ee ce 441 
1:15 es τ DI4 85: 260 472 ΛΒ. 1 oe ce ee Ὁ ῈΕῈΦΟ 234 
485, 407, 772. ρα Sate queen en ee 1172 
12161.) cet Sheen are 235 502. ur btak Ls perk ie eee ae 774, 962, 1169: 
1:16, 18 309, 326; 8547.939;. ΤῊ Wiese τ τ 273, 422, 1200 
940, 1214: ied 3 (sree (pa: ee cee eee 955 
χὰ T isc oe poe cee B65 CLA Wes τ ee ee 472 
L318 εν 877290 AS86665 tls ee 362 
329.1 ie a 583. 698, 856 - Usl6 aaa sea eee 1036, 1038, 1103 
Dak | een tae ae RGGI ἌΡ CEM eee ae lie 166 
Oo ae aa Menta 850, 1019 bis, 1027 Beh eee) 203, 762, 943, 985 
D2 8 © Mer st ΡΣ ΚΟΥ ΜΘ να τὶ 481: 1041: 2:75 saan ae - 480, 690, 811 
PE DE RN) Se NF gy 1008 0238 Faetgee 7 eee 652, 1087 
Ὁ ἢ Sue ΤΟΝ ΡΥ hn ake vhs 10} 220 Se wae a 691, 944 
POOTE hiatal einerig 1641. 605, 944.0474 5 9:10.05 2 Sie 311, 780 
T1G2shis Ch 163 0m oa ee een 272, 527, 653, 656 
2215 πο oe ee ee $56; <2alO gas 91 0 eee Si eee 
OG. ci haem ck ee eee S160 ον ον eae 82, 786, 787 
DAG. 22; fale er eine eh eh Ue ee 800. Ded eal Fa eae 518, 618, 632 
ΚΟ ΝΟ ie”, 935) νι ς 483 
Ts 1S hee hea yt at, 6205908 3:25 τ eae er 311 
PEA Lee ΜΕΝ, ᾿ 962, 1154 5:3 ες pa ΒΥ 1202 
2290: ii. hha ee ΡΥ ΟἿ 1183 3:5) nen Mae or 261, 681, 715 
2521 ni cede a ee BOT: 8:8 oe Sy bin | ee ae 716 





INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Titus 
Ξε Veen ee 224, 707, 779 
3 SN 2 AR eg PU 509, 537, 764, 812 
= A). SS ...Ὲ 265 bis 
9 1} ΕΚ Aa, eee «6687 
Ἔν fee. . 4) 235 
Bele 172 bis, 255, 260, 1217 
τ τ, i 1041 

Philemon 
eS. 2 iy oe 215 
ὮΝ. που υ-- . ᾿ 624, 1200 
1) ORD. ae »-.-..; 201, 710 
UU) τ κα τ σε ἡ 718, 718 
π΄ ἀπο oy 846 
GA oe TAGS. er 416 
UR” 3 Oa ee 399, 631, 919 
NE aS a ΟΣ 886 
τῶ ΕΣ: 550, 763, 994 
SUPER A EN ee 699 
LEAS NS “ees 491, 632, 663, 670 
LSS δ τὺ Ὁ i et, RAZ 
li νον Ὁ 623, 685, 846, 1199 
20. . 310, 509, 784, 939 bis, 940 bis 
ee ent Mees a a eee ae 638 
ἜΝ GD se a 172 
PREM Te) EE Os oc a ca 172 bis 
Hebrews 

συ ne a ear 545, 546 
| oh Rs πὰ ρει 422, 
ΡΞ re . 432 
| > gee ys. 408, ‘480, 671, Ho 
155. ὅς 496 bis, 586, 651, 781, 792, 
845, 860 
τρῶν CY A el! sre 422 
1:4 . . 218, 420, 532, 615, 663, 667, 
710 bis, 733 bis: 966 
a USDA © ee 420 
ΠΟ ἘΠ A τς 773 
oA ae ea ee 626, 1202 
Re τ π rg he, move 465 
Uy Gy Nite τιν τος 483, 528 
ΠΕΡ ΤΎΝΕ οςς, 234, 792 
MT PRM eG le τς 1099 
BAe ; _ 212, 279, 298, 350, 613, 996 
τ ie on ee 583, 1107 
De er ae Ὁ Ν 432 
7.3.9) ΤΑῚ τως 710, 828, 1023, 1129 
ΤΙ eA σι ee ς 151 
ZrO. . 234, "299, 411, 736, 742, 781, 
1001, 1146, 1219 
ΘΕ 484, 485, 602, 616 
ΟΕ eee τς 218, 743 
Oe a " 1073 bis, 1153 
2:9 . 473, 485, 632, 1041, 1123 


2: 


WWWWWW & 


σι δι σι δι δι σισθι PP PE PEEK HS PPPRWWWWWWW 


σι 


ιϑϑϑιϑιθϑιθ bb 


Www bd 


1335 


10 . . . 530, 565, 583 bis, 861, 
887, 1039, 1084, 1086, 

1114, 1128 

11! pie)! Fer Oe 718, 1179 
{USE AO ots eae 863 
Oe, i ek a ae 216 
18. . . . 323, 361, 375, 460, 906 
πο 8) 419, 509, 687, 7.5 
Στὰ 582, 1052, 1060 bis, 1070 
16 ἢν. 590, 1146, 1149, 1200 
17 £5. . 474, 486, 530, 658, 887, 
920, 1072 

5 ἘΠῚ. . . 721,722, 963, 1128 
i ἀν ontea 722, 785, 955 
Ὁ ΗΝ ee eee 661 
3 . , 244, 511, 615, 661, 667, 722, 
733, 967 

ES he ie 742 
Ac We 374, 878, 1119 
Bee ere ROT ke 413, 789, 792 
i ea eee 722 
Oe i ρος τ" 717 
11} . . . . 916, 968, 1000, 1024 
Ἤν 2 830, 496; 504, 872: 
1073 bis, 1169 

18 . . . 608, 744, 745, 974, 975 
ΤΟ uh oe 1027, 1154 
1s eR eds eer eee a 439 
i Als: Pie cele 233, 583, 613, 917 
PEt ον ai Peres 
ins: "3 on 877, 1032, 1082 
Oey. Saeeees 1035, 1183 
ἘΣ τς 814, 996 
2... . . . 520, 903, 967, 1154 
:3 . . . 132, 778, 968, 1000, 1004, 
1129, 1140, 1154, 1202 

ΦΨΕῚ ὙΓΡΆ shee. .}}: . . 1024 
ἀν UHM ES, 8 575, 653, 1129 
Sti, Na ees ΣΝ 518, 800 
Gre A ek ee 474, 1058 
nae pa fsa i eR ee ae 1015 
GAs RO WORE LOE LF 9 541 
LEP ty Sabre ae 744. 
12 278, 504, 580, 633, 667 
1 ater fa . 625, 1153 
i). teeta eens Lat» 530 
TORRY RSORCR τ Aare So nae 261 
TON ALE τὸ 315, 486, 630, 762 


Da | Bi. a ee 316, 485, 541 
Clikey ha Wane? Velie peed 618 
ee ee er 393, 762, 968, 1154 
ty a ΡΥ Bes ee a 1089 
cS ee eee SOL ΤῊ ὁ 580, 598 
:8 . . . 720, 721 bis, 1027, 1115, 

1129, 1140, 1154 bis, 1201 
LOS ORL 8 FRE AUBERT AYN 485 


1336 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Heb, 
δ: ot wee epee, 1038, 1076 61 
BI. δορὸς cet 1082 
5:12 .. 233, 375, 482, 490, 584, 
740, 908, 1039, 1061, 1076 
ἐγ} Gs MS aad ou. 395, 516 
ft) Sen _ 497, 514, 580, 584, 757, 
789, 902, 910, 1108, 1117, 1122 
Os ΣΉΝ. eS, 498 
6:1», On ble δου 407 
ει, coh ὺ ΕΥ̓ ΕΣ 501 
Oro, weeks ΣΎ 1027, 1154 
ΟΣ τὰ Sa Vee 473 
δ᾽ Ny gg ae genet ON oh 58) 449, 507 
Gea heh νυ ὁ 474 
Gat ocine gras icine meh 539, 613 
Obie: OO, oe eae ἃ 584, 603, 708 
iden yi ἐν τὸ tone) . 590, 640, 1134 
Grbac, cee τὸ , 218, 485, 508, 637 
6:10 . . 506, 716, 860, 998, 1001, 
1060, 1080, 1082, 1090 
ΟΣ aD em maar i ον το ον" 311 
οὐ τι ον εν 1153 
Ose! Cave, icy yee ae 475, 1159 
6:19; 10 Ὁ νυν τ eee 007 
6:14 . 192, 551, 1004, 1024 bis, 


SII ISNT OTT ON NNNNOOO 
00 


1110, 1150 bis 
148, 654, 763 
778, 827, 828 


119 . 258, 259, 274, 298, 418, 715 


Le ee cas 697, 701, 1134 
Te ea ΝΣ 714, 1153 
ΟΝ on 504 
4 νων . 258, 292, 348, 399, 418, 
741 bis, 1177 

:5 . . . . 348, 371 bis, 412, 705, 
1076, 1129, 1154 

:6, 9, 11, 13, 16, 20,23 . . . 896 
7... . +, 218, 277, 409, 752, 763 
PRED OPA Rem Gt Li 218 


654, 1035, 1153 


© Dyan ASL οιν 8” ey he 


:9 . 208, 967, 990, 1086, 1091, 1093 
111  . 604, 1015, 1027, 1095, 1151, 


1162, 1164 
Lipa. LB ie be: Goenka ke 748 
i RSS inal ae 1023, 1129 
ΓΟ Ran oon ie rad 580, 721 
ΤᾺ, ee en ee 719, 1034 
10 ΚΜ 279, 659, 663 
Le Gy eyes eat eee 158 bis 
DR ACA CRONE) | leucine’ aaah 763 
Ds dalle sels: gegen 733, 963 
YP cae Pee WME geal eta 425, 967 
γον tha so: COTE, ΜΝ 710 
BO 123% 6h Fe Vat een ae 695 
δ. teem ee . 334, 819 

7:23 . 613, 1061, 1085, 1119 


24 401, 656, 789, 1039, 
1070, 1122 

ας ΑΕ Δεν ς 550 
26 667, 710, 1086, 1181 
Ts AP. ΡΣ 710 
FP A ΣΟΎ, ΕΝ 280, 691 
ΒΡ ΤΙ Se eee ate 315, 418, 480 

ἢ A Aare Τὰ 605, 705, 710 bis 

Da ep ck a te Me LAO ph 1 1075 
‘3 4. .c. . 928, 955,956, 9617989 
ἀν ee Fine tae Me 1 207 
AY tie DT A ae Pee 1015 
Bl 4. wo, Bs 2ad,'092,9 (4,049, 1214 
Spee. tae 218, 728, 733 bis, 801, 
967, 1220 

TO co Salt chara cs, a ner he 708 
ΒΥ ee 255, 475 

eR RN A ὁ 514, 560, 1123 
ΤΟΎΣ ΡΥ Cee ee 440, 479, 11385 
Ear ure Eee 361, 746, 906, 1215 

| RE ae Ae ΟΣ: 260 
ih; Merrie to bee A 895, 1073 

Le, eS bee an eee ee HEL 

ὩΣ Ae tat CaN ce 232, 714 
’) Pere See ye) Sl ee 660 

eee. Tk ey eae 408, 612 
ΟΝ 253 
7:5. . 154, 409, 517, 550, 629, 632, 
647, 792, 1058 

ON Le wr cae amie τὴ 318, 1215 
Of Serer ch eee τσ ον 1153 
DENS. FLD, 10 κου τς Ἀν eee 1191 
S44 wie Bh pant 44.6005, 607570 Lo 7100. 
776, 955 

Σου ὟΣ 700, 1036, 1039, 1040, 
1049, 1078 
920s Sit or. rR ee ae 413 
0210: esd PE eet lee 201, 413 
ee RA Ne ea 412, 416, 705, 1139 
9:12 272, 339, 399, " 09, 861, 1114 
ΟἿΑΙ jaiese hoe ea 355 
οὐδ᾽ ἀρ νον 501, 604 
9x16: Unk. ee ee eee 969 
Ql? if 2... 604 965, 071: 1180} 
1169, 1173 

O30) 4) Aa, ers te 214, 254, 686 
Ga1lOP2 ny es a τ σο 212 
ον τὸ τι τς 716 
O23 tr Garces ees 218, 615, 667, 686 
οὐδ er te Mad oe hf 574 
ἘΣ ΤῊ Phe PY MAY Ὁ 207, 589, 887 
9:26 . 604, 920, 963, 965 bis, 
1026, 1085 

οὐ ΡΟ ae 733, 963, 967, 1058 
ee Fame «| alae 5.1 
10217 ΓΔ. 392, 439, 550, 716, 1135 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Heb. 
10:2 . . 778, 963 bis, 965 bis, 1015, 
1026, 1102, 1175 
Rts eee. ὟΣ 474. 
SEE CS Brie aie δον, ἐς 895, 1088 
10:9 895, 909 
CTC) a ς 719, 891 
er yw, at Ee 617, 687 
14 OR Dy ile oa . 487, 495 
10:14 891, 895, 1111, 1116 
ORES ek nyc! Me a . 909, 979, 1074 
"ΠΟ ρος ΠΝ 439 
OU OL ey Oe ee ee 1074. 
τ aes Aoi 440, 1135 
10:22 Ae? 11. 225, 340, 485, 480 
{ΠΡ Rn et a 362, 486, 1217 
ΠΟ τον ᾿ 501 
10:25 . 124, 532, 710, 733 bis, 
967, 1123 
σον eee. tases woe 612 
πο ρος ἐπ νον 748 
1) le SR ies ane meats 251, 566, 604 
τς ᾿ς 434, 511, 859 
"ον me eee atc Ae ood 4 1059 
Ber We ne cs ey eres Ὁ" 470, 475 
10:33 . . . 487, 705, 1153 
10:34 ‘218, 1035, 1036, 1038, 
1041, 1103 
ΠΡ το νῶν 728 
LEN CEE Sse 998 
10:37 395, 733, 978 
ΠΕ το τ πῶς 497, 515 
ΠῚ... 234, 1138 
ees SEU) cu 1139 
ΠΣ 425, 909 bis, 1003, 1036, 
1049, 1070, 1072, 1090 
fee, . |: ....667, 724, 1038, 1085 
τ νον tee oad 365, 371 
τῆ αἰ Lin WE A a 234 
SEE OE Ce a a 334, 1173 
ΟΣ Στ are a 05 
Mee ed, 262 
{Πα Bie Se) ae ae 616, 686, 793 
11:12 524, 704, 705, 777, 1129, 
1140, 1181 
SCR ek ΗΣ ΤΥ ἘΠ Ψ" δ98, 833, 1137 
πὰ τ ποτ ele vie 1084 
11:15. . 887, 921, 923, 1015, 1062 
UE eee A aa bs: 
OS κι δο, ον 399, 416, 508 
BERG BD, O0b ΠΝ, eh. 218 
Mat ime he. 359, 760, 885 bis 
GIA) ge Age 5 a 895 
ED Ee ee 1034 
τ τὸ es gk ots 818 
ANS GR SS a 788 
1 SM Ca aa 775, 827, 979, 1115 


1337 


ΣΝ ΡΥ “8 Tha) igen oe Lek SA 260, 812 
ἘΣ ΨΥ ΠΤ Mie Reeth Ly the 833 
TQEMO Em ee gs pil 1036 
SDB Nes ite corer ker τες 529 
:26 . 480, 500, 575, 594, 1202 
ToL Vee NO, 833, 1113, 1121 
eds ΣΎΝ ee : 148 bis) 189 
:29 476, 563, 565, 582 bis, 
"652, 800 

ἘΞ Wo aA τὴν Jig we Olt, 99 
TA ce chee 210, 420, 934, 1126 
POOLE aes 477, 509, 606 
ORME MEN leuk te ye hia fw Ἂς 476, 748 
COA PE a alee eee ree eRe the 1138 
ΠΟΥ cea. Sire alc ed alk 749 
LAR aa RCM ie Sec Rank Got 534, 590 
ΠΟΥ saheteetin sn 7, Ww alle τ το Ne 833 
πο «168, 420, 425, 524, 542, 
562, 583, 653, 810, 931, 1154 

(RDS SO ΤῊ Se ee 432 
εν Mie ae a a 764 
Ee) Fear ols Rind: 502, 512, 574, 
575, 1106 

ay ae 487, 524, 635, 1107, 1121 
MOMS STR. Deh a 368, 975 
5 508, 509 
a A ye ee 966, 1184 
iatie Gar Meee Osh cc 8 4 738, 794, 1159 
Se 480, 532, 546, 1152 
OR PRS 203 Se eg τὰς 664 
ΕΝ ne ara ce 625, 1109 
AME os a chs 448, 497, 515, 519, 
625, 1109 
ον eres ark 315 
Pa Sik which Sey cl te 1200 
ΤΗΝ ee ee ἡ ay ee 421 
14. 422, 648, 871 
ἐκ ΡΣ 422 
ΠΟ, p 496, 774, 800, 934, 995 
16 . . 190, 308, 573 
BZ ees: gah, . 319, 360, 611, 941, 
1129, 1154 

Lopes init ἐς 262, 536, 1118 
TSS ak GA Ae a cones a 542, 793 
19a: 261, 818, 1094, 1171 
AE er res ed NEE, Ἂς 508, 581 
ie sk Soin. Aaa 168, 221 
PRUNE Von gh at tlle 6 536, 760 
ἌΝ Qk Se φὰς 792 
Pe SE at ae a 218, 615, 667 
25 . 480, 472, 791, 810, 922, 
933, 996, 1160 

ὩΣ RE ae 766 bis, 1140 
28 934, 955 bis, 956, 989 


2, 400, 472, 475, 509 bis, 551, 


860, 1102, 1120 


Heb. 
13 34 ΡΣ eee 396 
13:5 . . 207, 930, 946, 1165, 1175 
το ssc eee ck 217, 334, 819, 871 
Ἐ5 7.5 ite te ee 514, 949, 955 
1338) (ees eae eee ὙΠ ΠΡ 
15:9. ΡΣ See. 1095, 1162, 1166 
E310 Caesars ee ον : 590, 599 
ΤῊ 1} 718, 719, 953 
besloue aT 20 1154 
eaten tips 108, 203, 268, 399, 524, 541 
13:16 : Jes ΤΣ πα: 
13:17 374, 634, 877, ΤΊ 1 γε 
1128, 1140, 1214 
ΤΠ τυ Σ 407, 678, 1035 
ALO ον 279, 545, 664 
ForOU Mw.) soecn ys yore. UMTS TR RST Tes". 
1 ον her 927, 940 
1 362 Ak, πον eee 583, 845 
τ fester We a 407 
13:23 . 664, 910, 1041, 1108, 
1110, ΠῸ5 
τα ΒΕ 548, 578, 766 

James 

UT Ae, See eee 329, 394, 944, 1093 
|e ye ον Eee’ aia renee 524, 772 
ἘΠΕ De” LF a nO ee τ 763 
eit ip ΒΒ τ ΕΣ 518, 1023 
Me Opes eel Grae 149, 478, 801, 895 
ΤΡ ilens 45265 2 eee 1035 
LS 2 eRe Seles Wie 5 cress 580 
Ve dle 26.8%. ha’ 2 eee Pe 837 
ἘΝ ΟΣ 516, 579, 1084 
ΤΙ se eee τυ 1186 
ον πο eae res 2352 
11 153, 233, 418; 421, 501, 655, 
772, 1200 
1248 942) Seer ge. 742, 1071 
1:19 . . . 819, 328, 329, 360, 429, 
658 bis, 908, 941, 1003, 1052, 
1071, 1072, 1076 
PAPA MPLA Aerts tah: ὸνο τὸ 216 
Ἰ AEN, Py ον ον" 947, 1162 
2284 ie CRS RS 2-4 eo 698 
1:24 . 731, 732, 844, 897, 1177 
5 ΝΣ ΕΝ 496, 780 
1:20 . 231, 272, 1038, 1085 
B28 fo ee ee 124 
Tey. 516, 700, 1059, 1078, 1219 
DeLee a ies Pe Coho weit he tes 408, 503 
YA a) oe et eR ba 124, 169 
Aled, cil Se fe ey Μ ΝῚ 762 
δα aus vase tae 314, 329, 340, 1216 
τα ek AS ee Se Bo E45 
2:5 480, 537, 716, 763, 917 


ΝΡ ων 


Ue RR μὲς μὰ RR ge 09 Ge 29 ὡρ 09 0 OD 09 Φ0 OY OD OV WP ON ἘΦ ἘΦ NNN ἘΘ ΒΘ δ0 Ἐ0 0 δ0 δ0 δ το 


ie 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


408, 510, 763 
762, 776 
. 2 t8%4 
τος 956, 957, 959, 897, 898 
1012, 1166 
162, 512 
. . 395, 1038 
406, 412, 655, 1121 


eo tt Fem ger Bs ee a «hee 


ee” OQ OTe. Se" Fes 
αὐ ΘΙ δ΄ feats Se 2.) 67 eee 


=) 0) δ, τἀ τος οὐ 04-16 


6 Melts 1 ease 6 a ὦ 
A649 + Ae oF lam Ue brs 
oF ὁ Ow ed Oe aga 


oO eyes co are, 


Φ΄ 6 08 tee Del (9.4 e696 8 este 
ee ee oe οὐ έν, ἃ et 
ὁ. 4 6. PSE e! τ γ eye 


ΠΡ ea 1041 
521, 526, 966, 1128 
Ὥς λον ees 423, 1172 
488, 698 bis, 1076 
418 


oe Fe οὐ 40 | Wie" oe 
BRU sa he. ΟΝ, οὐ fe ei eae ὐπὸ re: 


Cpe ᾽ν 6 ΟΝ ον 


291, 733, 737 
A Spee 233, 399 
533, 534, 776, 902 
ann Oe) Opiate yy Be 124, 413 
473, 590, 785 
319, 920, 1220 
786 


δ αὐτο ν ὁ ae ale fue Se 
6) ROE Fe Ce 6 Ὁ 


ΠΤ (a Ve fe 'é: Ye 
oe Sa ae Κ᾿ α΄ ὦ Ὁ 
δα αὐ ὦ," 66" ee OL) eos Beene 
Oe Oe et Pee, en ee τα τῳ 


as @ « 6/8 @” 6 Fo Be 0 Se 


ἊΝ, δαῖτ ἀν ον (6 9 φῦ 6 ike 


273, 424, 1152 bis 
1083 


a AMIE τα OAM? ees) aed 411 
Ot eee eae ce 


561, 856 
Re τος ΣΡ 512 
778, 1107 
. 289, 299, 328, 348, 474, 696, 

770, 799, 1193, 1217 


ιν, Deo) ὁ #6 ae 75 τς 


14a ieee? 728, 735, 740, 767, 
961, 1158 

15 . . 574, 697, 708, 1060, 
1069, 1070 

1 og tee ee ee 710 
17 Eb, CR eae 764 bis, 1106 
1 . . 299, 391, 428, 430, 763, 853, 
949, 1106, 1116 

OF os ae ee 801 
OM yo ee ee 405, 898 
Bee See i ge 769 
Abi oo ae aye 337, 579 
δε GIG eee ans ore ae 757 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


James 
ΠΕ, ΠΣ eee. 201, 652, 856 
A Gar ee Ma Pe Eee ΒΕ 394, 621 
SL ae ee a . . 480 
5:12 . 328, 427, 471, 475, 484, 
622, 853 
5:13 . 450, 515, 740, 1023 
5:14 : ha, 124, 328 
PORT so. So 208, 225, 360, 375, 
908, 1019 
‘ire VE 392, 531 bis, 802, 1094 
Bers cine Sem tS, 348, 799 
1 Peter 
122: 127 bis, 793, 854, 940 
πο ie te ahs. 774, 778, 783, 785 
ΠΡ τ τ a) tal opooo 
sR) - 272, 769, 775, 783, 794 
1:6 . 881, 941, 949, 978, 1119 
- OO GIR wad Fo a . 7124, 954 
ry. 2, 654, (63, 718; 1107 
1:8 127, 224, 531, 715, 1096, 


Bou BoB 9 BON RON NN Nt. NN Ὁ μα Μαὶ ee ee eee ee eee 


1138 bis, 1139, 1172, 1212 


Ee Reap ath aye 597, 719, 721, 778 
10 f. . 963 
1) eae 594, 735 bis, 740, 781, 1176 
12 195, 778, 1029, 1034 
EEA Sees eye 314, 602, 777 
eee CTY fact o> au 1 497, 782 
17 ΤΡ ΠΟΤ 19 
18 ἱ 272, 412, 656, 774, 777 
Πρ τ: 533 
ΤᾺΣ ες ndlpeblae? eit Meier tear a 127 
I RE ence Re ba ἢ 603 
ΟΣ <7 eo] ot 1114 
EPRI Site vec tel «ses 837, 1023 
ρου τ co DO0; 11 
ΤΡ Oe stat ais 408, 773 
ΟΠ Fog te os 349, 1217 
Ὄρος 192, 1035 
ee ee . . 424 
PM eS 6 : 338, 401, 941 
000 aaa 392, 772, 800, 802 
ΠΡ στ᾿ 418, 718 
ὡς λον ΡΣ 714 
eae een xt LOL 597 
10.455 910, 1117, 11388, 1139, 1163 
(ONG μον δ 518, 728 bis, 1084 
ΠΥ a ος ΟἿ 1039 
12 497, 721, 789, 946, 1184 
ΕΗ 2 0 a 172 
on lO. are rat) 
aD ts 343, 400, 700 bis, 779, 1078 
ΠΥ ἘΠ ρα re 127 
18 . 946, 947, 1161 
Uk* ἢ apa Ὁ 500, 699, 704 


Go 


σι δι δι δι P PEP KEK PHP KP HPP KLE KS 


ΟΙΦΙ bw 


WWWWWWWWwWWwWWWH WWD 


Hm Bm BP OO OO GO GO WO ὧδ Go WO ὁὁ 


Voie pe titer bean faa 411 
ΟΣ GEER: cc ota oT, 740 
WA Re: i ΤῊ ah a 633, 784 
DIES ΡΣ ἌΝ aR ai oo 954 
δον re Ἀπ ἐς 561, 723 
Ti AVS ΡΌΔΩΝ 787 
ΠΗ 127 5924} niles 638, 779, 946, 
984, 1026, 1217 

LE as eae 127, 498 bis, 779, 947, 
949, 1161 

Ameer t 200 627 28204; 7120779 
ρον Τρ ot ee rams haa Ne 479 
1b) OR AS, he, SO 1072 
RONG a ees Dae ee 946 
SOR Ge re ee Dt ee 470, 487 
ean τ Ἐπ᾿ ΝΣ 945 
ΑΝ sit te 208, 573 bis, 699 
νος τὰ γον νον 1061, 1171 
Listas S528 ΝΣ 561 
ΠΡ, de A σι 1106 
Tae ἐν es, 127, 374, 878, 1118 
13 foun: Het: 41020 
14 : 127, 327, 478, 683, 1021, 
1023, 1027 

ΠΑΡ cA 5. . 1028 
ἘΠ a ee a ee τ ἢ Ἄν B4AS2 
16 473 ΟῚ 
17 127, 218, 1021, 1039, 1084 
ise 523, 618 bis, 757, 1114 
SPR a | ae a a 432 
19 f. 778 
20 399, 416, 560, G56: 705, 779 
MMS." con tala cyt Ae 714 
σαν Ait Ate et 792 
Pea cd Oe 518, 816, 1071 
αν τὰ ἐπ . 848, 479, 1070 
atte ΤΥ 6} 127 364, 909. 992 
1062, 1076 

yah. ROPERS eee 5793 
ΟΕ S ue seca ec ΣΝ 699, 792, 1031 
Se EE Oe a, ey ies 622, 789 
iB iso; MeN Ge ak Da Re ἢν 946 
οὐ γεν 638 
RPG gla κι ΟΝ 396 
IDE | Sate US Mian Renee 532, 626 
13 967 
14 602, 767, 777, 779, 785 
16 Meee ees Dike gk: viseiea 204 
16 — 192 
17 : 305, 512, "1061, 1076 
Tee ee Say ea ote 357, 763, SAL 
Chk Sect tha ene ere oh 231 
τ τὴν 587, 779, 857, 878 
ἌΣ ΤΣ Oe MLE RR OB 551 
ΠΡ ον σον τὺ 855, 498, 1217 
ΡΝ ΗΝ ὟΣ ὙΥ πν τς 808 


1340 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


1 Peter 
EPA Pore ee PA VR RS ey ΠΝ. 258, 635 
Te PROS th rs 212, 539, 560, 946 
DAS Acumen erica. 740, 795, 1044, 1085 
5:9 . . 502, 505, 523, 541, 542, 687, 
949, 955 
OS O i Bae ee 195, 606, 778, 1126 
56:12 . 178, 415, 582, 593, 846, 949, 
: 1090, 1099 
SS ae Pia honors urs 169 

2 Peter 

Laat 282,127,530, 730,11 80 bis 
Pears ae oe ee cae ee ee Ὁ 786 
ΤΑ ope meee Unie ty i 127, 940 
Fe ate ee a ae ae 432 
SS an, te eee. 101, 127, 5383, 778 
Ue Ae Deen per oe μον . 279, 670, 783 
1:5 . . 126, 460, 487, 686, 705 bis 
1 oa Se eee . 184, 1200 
peo ae ἜΤ PU ad bee . 910 
1:9 . 127, 423, 542, 720, 962, 1169 
LAO ere aioe AS a A ὅν, 787, 985 
Perit 127 bis, 401, 785 bis, 786 
1:12 483, 656, 1129, 1154 
Peis rcs ΣΥΝ Oe a or Oe 127. 
PSUS Aree τ io tae 127, 333, 356 
Τα αν το a 1191 
ἐΚὸ ἐδετ τ. ΤΥ sols eee 1199 
| bed ΣΝ ΤΉ ΗΝ 290, 4388, 636, 709 
$42, 1135 
L518 ΤΟ ae 778, 864, 1097 
bed A! es 4 SL 5 hae e000, 121 
1:20 . 614, 518, 699, 772, 1039 
Ee 2k ΕΟ ee 70 L165 
AUG. anes 127, 613, 1134, 1203 
2:3... . 297, 440, 474, 551, 724 
SEALE: See apt RMT See ng Ba cee 1012 
2:4. LO ae ede Peete cies a eis 438 
2: 0 ΟΣ | 275, 348, 672 
ZO OG εν. 257, 498, 539 
QS ag Sek oe eRe 212, 783 
BID i eee 126, 484, 470, 597 
210 tS eae ΤΩΝ 127, 1122 
A AT Dy PR AB my poe aT Je 205, 665 
PAs VAR tiny. ele Satna 473, 721 
2112 -|Ὸ Ly Pike eh ee 1125 
2:18 . . 127, 355, 374, 485, 529, 
560, 878 
214 ΜΡ eae ies iia St 162, 497, 516 
2°10 Siar AVG ot ene eee 521 
22162) 0 Pn oe ee 127 
O05 WeeRyy ee ee τς 186, 704 
25199 toes Ree Ge ee 533, 534 
DLO FARE CR te oe ane 218 
2:20 . 341, 476, 785, 786, 881 


bo 


bd bo 


WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWwwWwWwbd 


NONWNNNNNNNNMNNNNDND Fe Be we BR Be Bee μ 


bo bh bo ιν 


"21 . . . 219, 597, 887, 909, 920, 
1014, 1039, 1058, 1084, 1094 
Py PRA oo oF tik 8 394, 502, 767, 807 
᾿ΕΝ 701, 714 
| PE Face irl hy 5 127 
:2 . 503, 762, 779, 785, 1086, 1107 
2, 18 ΣΝ Bo TN te 786 
SURI iste κὸν come rer 775, 1039 
ΣΉ ἡ een or 0 699 
AT SO es ΠΕ 688 El ASSO ae ts 
5 . 320, 582, 793, 794, 1035, 1134 
GN Alogi 201, 547 
Boe (ahaa a νος μὰ 281 
Οὐκ a Ce 518, 1128 
LO 012 CU FAR ee ee . 874 
TL OMe eR eee 705, 741, 1131 
TAS Uap cea ee 537, 542 
De A YN, ee eee 480 
τὸ re OU ΟΣ στ 117 
ΤΟΥ ig hey tle ee 773 bis 
ΤΥ ΡΜ Cee 518 bis, 993 
1 John 
tgs hs oe 713, 724, 791, 896 
1332) OY) ee ee 901 
Monet a ee 777 
ΟΡ ΠΧ ees 611, 713, 724 
3) ORT eee CoS 
ΣΥΝ 406, 678, 907 
5 tts tea 579, 699, 1033 
Mid ceo ogee ΤῊ 518 
aE ΡΣ ὐνν; κ4. 961, 998 
1 ; 406 
:2 ᾿ς 424, 441, 618, 685, 1185, 1199 
Si Tee ee 590, 950, 1079 
rN eR RP eect he's!) 904 
τ aa a vb 500, 897 
OF. Ae aS eae 708 
Ges ee ee 1038 
Toc ΜΕ Ὁ 884 
SLE Rt ES 1 os 713, 879 
Ὁ ΠΥ Sie een ee 879, 1183 
12214 ae ee 845 
TBE ey ἈΝ Σ᾿ 694 
1G ον 788, 963 
18 bag SS IAP A θυ 573, 769, 794 
19 ΣῊΝ 758, 906, 922, 923 
1015, 1086 
DLL SOF ἫΝ 753, 845, 1166 
22 1035, 1094, 1164, 1205 
DROS a eae 437 
25 _ 400, 416, 479, 538, 704, 718, 
777, 845 
OT et ae nuk Be 339, 437, 1217 
28 SSRIS Wien ea ey 473, 1147 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


1 John 
OL Tat UES Oe a a 135, 741, 999 
Ὁ} 28 Ἐν... τὺ 992 
ΠΕ ΟΣ ΕΟ εν « 233 bis, 736 
A fe oe RSS Se >) νο τ τ 769 
Str GUA ἡ πο τὰς ΨΥ 880 
πος ιοὁοὺᾺΡὦυ 699, 880 bis 
AO OS Tegel a) Sel || Qe 890, 1081 
8.10 404, 1164, 1178, 1174 
ΙΓ ν | 1192, 1208 
Son ide ον οὐὕὃἧ 699, 1079 
ale . 425, 647, 652, 968, 1176 
πο ORR ES ee 532, 965 
ape TES Oh 5," 586, 1041 
Ny τὶ, Ὁ 753 
ΠΟΥ ct etl in Sk 632, 1033, 1079 
A 8 Ee ee ae 871 
Re) ee TM are eh θα 699 
ΡΟ AAS ee Le Se 512, 667 
RS Ne ES i ole 
eM a tems be ΡΥ ΑΕ. 850 
ΡΥ ee 850 
be ae i ay oo ee 442, 679, 716 
ἀ 91 ες ΤῊΝ aa Pe a (hay 
4:2 50, 108} 1110:1128 
4:8 _ 546, 724, 962, 964, 1149, 1169. 
ORS pe κα ς 692, 931 
πο σα Veo hg $a a 794, 845 
Ἔτι σαι τς 584, 777, 845 
Ἐπ ΠΝ RL Sedat bo Ἀπὸ gt) ans 699 
TUN |g ee a ae 845 | 
DLR PES ἐκ Se 1009 
2) URL. Geel ον 401, 519, 599 
ey be AE re τς 894 
OU Rs LS Eee ee ᾿ 768 
2 Mae τ Πῶς 611, 699 
ΠΣ ΘΝ OMI re et ei cc gt Uh. s 758 
CO SN a eae 549 
OE eo 699, 992, 1079 
De he 4 432, 700 
ee, Oh eae Rea eae 
ΤΉ ΟΝ eles aes τ τς 704 
(SO ES ᾿ς: 993 
ie) νυ ρος ᾿ 258, 409, 698 
5:6 .. . . 583, 589, 657, 659, 1166 
Wo dk Ὁ τὼ τ Ἐ 009 
προ εν, 393, 964, 1034, 1049 
ΟΕ 151 ἀκ τ eo ρος οὶ 099 
ὥς: . 220, 968, 1159, 1169 
Th te ἔρος το; 400, 1033, 1034 
NA pega LIS ΤΗΣ le a me Be 1164 
5:13 . 360, 401, 418, 699, 778, 845, 
846, 983, 993, 1034 
USOT AS οτος 805, 1033 
OS Gos sat ee 482, 805, 1010 
GSA Sa See a ρν 392, 477 
ἘΠ Εν ee cee, a ἢ ὙΝ fe 234 


1341 


BU See ew υ ματ οι 226, 763, 1117 
5:20 . 201, 652, 703, 707, 763, 
776, 984 
ὄν on Be ie 476, 689, 856 
2 John 
LEZ OME ARS 8 he προ τ᾿ 273, 657, 1116 
LER AOR CE ee ey PA Ts 441, 1199 
FER RAN TS fame ie Notes 902, 1041 
Die tsb ke un εν, 339, 1140 bis 
ΟΡ νὰν les Mee a ϑῆςς 699, 992 
ΟΕ τε 702, 708 
7 480, 1036, 1041, 1103, 1107 
1123 bis 
ΕΝ ἐπ να αν ks 408 
ἸΌ Ns eyes 792, 1093, 1160 
LAN er Ab ee ey 368, 625, 846, 919 
Το ER Re ie cee 273 
3 John 
ΟΡ ΝΥ ΤΟΣ 619 
ΕΑ ΡΟΥΘ oe ahs 968 
etna ahs 277, 663, 685, 699, 704 
992, 1042 
i ba! Soe eg ΤΟ ν ν 861, 1121 
ee PC tla fod oo aah ots 633 
ΠΝ a ll 235, 269, 846 
Like Aan cee. 5 1166, 1185, 1189 
Le ie, > Ge ce ie bate ok 635 
1801). oe Sa γε τι 582 
ἐπε By AR Sling ACP cd 625 
Jude 
1 AS 501, 588, 767 
το τοο' νον τον 125 
PROS. Ce aa ΝΟΣ 940 
ΘΗ ree oa? Toes hay coweustl 1106 
ee Ga 265, 341, 613, 776, 786, 
1107, 1214 
Sivan Maes ot: 125, 1032, 1035, 1129 
VERY te tr 125, 263, 486, 748, 1032 
ἼΣΗΣ τς re Seek 125, 232, 529 
LO eee ein et Me Se Riera are 473 
ΤΣ tk. vert Saute cae 510 
ΤΥ ΤῊ ΜΟΥ ΛΕ; 704 
Lee i a etn ne ΤΑ ΩΣ ἄγ; 
τα νὰ 125, 589 
PP ey he ep els aN lier ee 716 
ΤΟ heen cates ny tess eons 439, 474 
POS ear ie Ὁ Coe i Paar 603 
PIV ees ae ar ge PU eae tap 280, 670 bis 
Paha les US τον Mee le 1153 
ον λυ τὴ 696 
POM MN Loe a Gin ete. cet ee 342 
JA tae ae ΤΣ 505, 644 


1342 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


= 


μι μ᾿ 


μὶ μαὶ μαὶ 


bd bo 


ft fe et pe μὰ 


ΦΌΝΙΟΝ ΟΝ μὰ KS 


Revelation 
| GA ee 258, 349, 780, 793 
hs ta er Ui aU ah AS 764, 788, 1108 
7:4 . 1385, 270, 394, 414, 459, 574, 


764, 877, 1202 


ΡΣ 734, 735, 777 
:5. . 186 ter, 202, 414, 458, 764, 
777, 779 

GOR ORR τοι oe 441 
Tae ke RAL ΝΣ 475, 1150 
Shain Sie ee 414, 769, 785 
Did LNT. A ee. ἃ 504, 785 
νοὸς eheearee 645 
Lae gt 218, 257, 263 
{Disa eee Cte eae 257 
113 . 216, 218, 219, 257, 258, 274, 
485, 530 

15 git. dis ae ene 1104 
ΠΣ oe 266, 414 bis, 1135 
17 414, 669, 762, 769 bis 
777, 785 

ΤΥ ΛΕ 231, 265 
EY DU aN pater a 2 ΟΣ 404 
DOR a ae oo ae 512, 715 
ieee 203, 216, 274, 289 
eo en Fi ede 135, 213, 857, 1214 
PEL ies on Phe ar Sia CARNE DN 440 
Bet Sear ane eee 309, 337 
ΓΚ αν ΗΝ 809, 337, 1035 
OSS οτος 800, 337, 1010, 1218 
BELG ie oy ens 588, 539, 1025 
POM PA. 1034 
Teli ae, ne a Lae 203 
T ATONE oe 341, 414, 437 
RSCG ce ah τς ας ΔΝ ὩΣ 218, 775 
GP 0g ae mem ee ot 1039 
10 0s Soon ee ere a Wee 498 
11525) Ear) 599, 1175 
ΤῊΣ ΕΣ a hoe dae 655, 777 
13 172, 235, 255, 614, 712, 969 
1. At ER ae 474, 482, 519, 1106 
15S a Ce oe Oe ne 1105 
1G 02 Cras Marae, 534, 536, 610 
17 203, 270, 441, 519 bis 
185, coy) ee Ἀττι εἰς 263, 441 
ΤῸ Ὁ τὴ NED ες et ae 789 
ΟΜ κεν ee 136, 315, 414, 1216 
ΤΡ Κορ μα, 203, 593, 1010 
BS MM, a) ee ba ee ee 871 
OAS Oa 232, 392, 406, 654 
775, 866 bis 

ΣΥΝ by epee 720, 975 bis 
ΣΤῊΝ Pea Oa 136, 414, 416, 437 
683, 1130 

BS SMR ΣΤΥ ae ἌΡ 901 


Www www 


59 OS? σ9 OS? SH? Or Ot Or Ot St Or Ot Or Or 


:2 . 375 bis, 857, 884, 890, 921, 960 


BEG pclae peer eee 878 
ah ant eee 470, 740, 901, 1045 
5 475, 483, 485, 589, 809 
819, 1213 

OA ONY 5. AG A ee 265, 762 
78. 45. . 94, 186, 420, 722, 1213 
ἐὸν PTI TERE ESOT A11, 824 nega! 
984, 992, 1039 bis, 1214 

10. A Se ΑΣΆΘΒΟΝ 598 
12 136, 243, 414 bis, 459, 
655, 760, 1104 
ΕΔ ee 437 
TANZhG A Mere: 759, 765, 777, 899 
15 . 886, 923, 1004, 1097 
16M He Aiea 184, 857 
17. 204, 487, 751, 769, 777, 785 
18 . 202, 216, 232, 483, 807, 
1036, 1220 

10 TAS ate eae ΜΝ 148 
ἈΣΤΈΡΑ ΣΦ 705, 601 bis, 895 
D1 i AaB 414, 459, 586, 1130 


:1 . 136, 307, 328, 396, 412, 1042, 


1105, 1193, 1212 


eB PE LO RO Re 1135 
PEERS LS Be POR Sy eT Lays 601 
SG Se 211, 272, 530 
“δια hw ae . 644 
‘4... , 266 bis, 274, 485, 1042 
Bin cet soe ee ae eae 412, 713 
6 . . . . 216, 300, 505, 640, 644 
Ti dies aes, 412 
8 . 300, 412, 414, 644, 675, 793 
:9 . . . . 324, 348, 601, 872, 972 
10. Ui wee ee 601 
Ga esa eae 427, 466 ter 758 
Th cone See tet esate ae ee 565 
BP SUM AMUN oo ΤΟΥ. 427 
Sih cy. yar acre 189 
dO TAO (ON: δ αν 1061 
Areal oanee 782, 835, 1001, 1088, 


1089 bis, 1090 


Bh ANN: Ae ΔῊΝ 320, 412, 414, 712 
Th eet CUS 897, 899 bis, 901 
Ress Sah ater Serena 274, 713 
οὐ PO NE ΟΝ ἐδ 510, 589 
11 , 231, 283 bis, 502, 644 
12: PRES SH hae, 427, 758, 1182 
13, 1S ΠΕ: ee 794 
13214" ye ee 1200 
18 05 OR 603, 714, 758 
CAE, AA REC ea 367 
BHI aha ten ace a 368 
ANT Ss, 203, 213, 437, 984 
ΘΑ aa ne 501, 511 
ἌΝ cee ae 635 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Rev. 
Psy BE USS er 635 
MEE ye NS OS .-.-. Ὁ 910, 1118 
oO (eos ππἰ.... 465, 505 
Bot | 201, 213, 409, 802, 992, 1213 
0 έρέΠοΠΕἍἔσπ ΄.- 208, 268 
ΠΡ ΟΠ 338, 483 
OO σ- 152 
SS By NOE Ser a 683, 722, 864, 1118 
OSE BUS ok a 609, 975 
Sere ew es 672 
“πόσιν... τ τ 208 
7:9 . 136, 413, 441, 722, 816, 1135 
τ a 485 
7:11 .-. . 319, 339, 366, 644, 758 
ΝΥ ΤΡ 427, 787, 794, 1182 
ἐπ OO ees τς 349, 899, 902 bis 
ΠΟΥ ae ee ee ὦ... τς 752, 1175 
SE A τέτοιο, co 1104262 
‘ON στ τς 204, 958, 978, 1146 
eM Se ees a 782, 876, 984 
RUE. τ᾿ την ς 529 
SUES ee ae 510, 899 bis, 901 
Mri oe) cee O00, 412, 502; 65597740 
oS Riga) os (2 ee 258, 458, 598 
Bal?  , . . 94] 349, 350, 1220 
ALS: 135, 391, 487, 537, 674, 1193 
1 231, 864, 910, 1116 bis, 
1118, 1123 
92:4, τ 752, 992, 1159 bis, 1169 
OTS SADE S σ-.σ:..-.-. ς. 1159 
SM aie hw. oe ae % 992 
9:6 324, 709, 870, 873, 889 
eM er PA A 339 
ONS ORR Anes 2 eae Ὁ 
ΠΡ τ re 104, 458, 653, 1202 
GT ap, aoe eer 270, 405, 410 
OOS Fe” pe Se 782 
9:14 266, 412, 414, 604, 760 
ING 0 ics νοι τὰν 580 
eA -ς 21a 
SMe oc. Foie oe 203, 998 
UPS Fe eae or 485, 892 
CCA a Pee 155, 414, 828, 1135 
De TE a ὦ... 915 
ἘΟΥ τ κ ἀπ οντο 853 bis 
OUI ON ee, er en aa 593 
ΠΟ ee ae τΠ ς 1034 
YE Oy τῶν... 474, 799, 847, 1215 
US) SRST ee ec ay ee 155 
UPI π᾿... 0... 155, 339 
OUUTUD μας OR aie 155, 563 
OE OO ee 605 
eh eS {00 τὺ 1134 
OE SRG) an | ce a 642 
τ es sk, τὸς 782 
SP SA nth) ees 485 


Lae Ace hem 410, 412, 704, 786 
Ue Soa ae en ςς 1017, 1026 
NTR © Goes Sees) Fae Wan δὲ 974 
ἘΣΤΟΝ, δεν Oe prc οὐ μεν 802 
in Seer ee ge, ate oe, 727, 729 
eS as ee ae 315, 515, 599 
ΓΑΙ εν My ors τῆν ss ee 775 
ΣΡ Sever cota) an 565, 1220 
Lie Lome pe ted ak ae 307, 328 
τ τὰ See te ae Oo 502, 709 
11 ὉΠ ee a: 135, 270, 410, 892 
LA LE eee tee ὙΠ: 412 δῖὶ5 
11.119... ah. 309, 337, 734, SOT, $34, 
‘901, 1217 
Pel Sia eel 26 ent 414, 757, 1076 
ἜΣ ee tee abel ra ὙΌΣ 1213 
£22 Ue Oe τνρύν κι ἐπὶ ν᾿ 485 
ΡΟ 2 ace ν 213 
12:4 . 224, 315, 645, 875, 878, 1219 
{Dab wriwiy Ui 0 ee TG. 349, 413 
12:6 . . . 203, 392, 597, 820, 985 
10 6 τ σον Bie που τς 723 
dM TENG o> sae Rew 1066, 1093 
HOPG MO aene ee tov Naemate 399, 777 
SO(n eer ΣΦΕ es 136, 262 
T2511 ΚΝ ἘΣ 224, 584 
ΤΡ Ων Pe ολτελῦν τ, 537, 1198 
tO) Sahih. oie ς 258, 723 
12 14 ear. foe 407, 502, 775 
FOS | te pee eas ety 8, 169 
TONERS A apiahe os lye oe τον 781 
ἜΣ ΜΉ A Sra ooh 892 
TREO ME A, cll ee Oe, an 210 
POOR yeh ane het sah ae 334, 496 
EE, ΤῊ Πὰν 818 
ποῦς ar ee ia Sere! ye αν 476 
1303.00 ARG το τος 722 
1251 OMe i oh cer 787 
1ST 1th Ss 1203 
12S WO Fe cee. Sia 992 
Pit weeeeere en ae ete 998 
VST Ae x, Wanton ine ee 256, 258, 713 
1S ee oe ee 984 
13H Gare eee, 401, 787, 984 
186. 1 awe AO τε, Ὁ 984, 1169 
ΤΠ ΘΑ EE ote cero 283 bis 
1A 1 A 320, 760 
Weil S fe, Ree eal ae 1135 
ΤΩΣ Side τ NAY Ie pel ac ps 672 
TAR eo ee eee 958, 969 
14: 6.6m Bed ee 474, 565, 799, 1215 
14 6 5 15. (1S eee 747 
Tha aan Sea Pa, 414, 788 
TA Rete CAR tek i ol ah Nie 483 
14D abre SA Choa me eee 565, 601 
ἘΠ ΟΝ ΤΉΝ 317, 680 


1348 


Rev. 
D4 LAN OA oe acl) cae ne 418 
1.4 τὺ ees 201, 518, 597, 992 
14:14 . 135, 136, 391, 414, 530, 
658, 1135 
DAP LO SA Psi γον Ὁ ie ae eee cues 590 
ΠΥ EET πε 265 
1 Κα ἀπέ τον Ὁ Ge Arrears or 253, 410 
1k: Seay | Bg ea 469, 517, 575, 642 
LOL Wake a ote oe cain ΕΝ 106 
LE SEO Boece ae anion , τὰς 762 
15:2 . . . 341, 475, 529, 598, 881 
LOCREPg 1 eee cae 461, 464, 465 
Ae Εν ee 395, 930, 934 
LG ate acs sins! ikaw ao ree 1213 
PE, OPEL lt Pelee ae 485, 560, 620 
DOL Gy ilee os Weer. 339, 342, 352, 1220 
LOPE: fo etscb reer eee 232, 342 
10 νυ oe ceric cies, Oe > 414 
OSG AR ce a ne Ὁ 339 
10:9 . 478, 485, 998, 1001, 1088, 
1089, 1090 
MOPAUS ie vor ae 214, 375, 598, 903 
BOSEDIEE Lo Sea ences « 258, 259 
ΟΝ velco et oh tare 760 
AOS Oe BT oa a ee ee ee as ee 104 
TOG δ τον 221, 546, 710, 722 
731 bis, 978 
ΤΟΣ ΤΟΥ ον ΣΥΝ cde? 458, 503 
AG S2 lee Ge eee <a ie eee 599 
ΙΑ νον ἐς ἢ ne Bem 774, 777 
ΣΟΥ 2 te barh ee 441, 724 
17:3 412, 414, 455, 474, 510 
1054 Gin ιν ire tes ake 156, 485 
Ges Ph) eA at on) tke Ἢ ἌΣ ΤΕ 233 
7 OP arr poy ery or Pt Pe 478 
EY Rete ene oie τὰ Ὁ ἀν 532 
LESS al meant nee 334, 719, 819, 1216 
γε vag dee we ei 683, 723 
PANO eo eee 234, 747, 750, 764 
LHS eee ee 311, 1214 bis 
TCULG 7 ¢ leans Ort ei 590 
1 Ea caveat ewes. 872, 975 
LASS saw Siete eee eee ee 234, 604 
TB ΠΕ ΟῚ ς Fee ae ae are $92 
1532 beh ee 260, 269, 843, 1200 
Lhe hrs Toe Pa Meee, Oe a 337, 599, 1218 
S20 e's a aes 317, 580, 716 
18:0: Leer eos tae cae 1217 
LS 2510 hci ace aa means eee ee 498 
1 Ep ἢ Ὁ Ἢ Τρ Ee 475 
18: 1 ΕΣ 192, 280, 670 
LSS12 fo ya aie ee ee ee ee 441 
ASSIS a) oe. 9s ae ei 186 
eat gee ee RNa 348, 873, 1165 
18716 aRSS oe. ae 485, 653, 710, 771 
18317) thee : rey Pc Ye: 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


T8720 oy Ci teeeees se 461, 464, 786 
AGL OSE ἀν tote te eee ee 753 
LOtZON τ κι ee 341, 349, 1220 
18: 24s ΟΝ See 689 
ΤΟΡΊ ΗΝ ΤΥ eee et eens 205 
EOE 96 Kor ents hes cee τς 1220 
10:3 Ὁ cache weet en 337, 902 
10: Δ Shh pee ἐν eo ae 283 
IO CTY aie ee ee 269, 1212 
LOSSY Coe peed ee eee 485 
16:0: 170) τ 262 
10: 1 ΟΕ τ; tas ton τ δ αν 949 
ISPLL τ τ χε δ ν᾽ 1218 
LOS LZ ee eee 414 
19:13 135, 211, 364, 374, “485, 533 
10; TAN ΡΥ ee, a 2 407, 412, 485 
ΤΟ ΒΑ ον ΝΟ, 503, 680, 960, 1001 
πεν τὺ 660 
10:1 2 τ eee ae Le eee 949 
ἐπ τον τανε Ἐν Se oe 414 
{91 eee 260, 269, 599 
DUET dark UGH SIRS sasha Ὁ 265, 892 
M52 2S ΡΣ Re 414,714 
2053708 Va Os CP ee ee 528 
QO PS HDs eer Ce el 1b eae 975 
QO SA ae ee ae 833, 834 
ον ee (22 
Eg Pak τοΠΠου 349, 714, 1213 
ΦΌΣΙ ΒΑ Saas, 1008, 1012 
OVE) τ Sees oe, ee 394, 413 
yA PR De WL Pe a 539 
1 δεν tLe eee. Ἶ 611 
yA Net: Sa Se ee en ὦ LEE yo 262 
PAS Geer rier ewe cer av ke 480 
ρα eee ee 337, 785 
21 SSD whe ks aa are 712, 1118 
2119... se SL eee eee 777 
ΙΕ ΚΟ ΕΑΝ ΣΝ 150, 280, 670 
SELL fick ime Gaeta . . 414 
DESL SW 4 etree 204, 494, 791 bis 
ZL SLAP Ra: he situs aos en τ ee 412 
ZUT1419 ks oe an ee eee 262 
S116 tas bh 263, 405, 732, 967 
EN γέ δ" 268, 672, 714 
BIS 18, cake ae ae eee 201 
1:18. (21) 3% 2.0 40) eee ae 253 
21.010. νοι sh ee 262 
ΙΕ ΕΝ τὰ 168, 199, 204 
21:21 . 282, 460, 555, 556, 568, 571, 

673, 675, 746 
S128 ey Υ eee 541 
SII 2h Ss 625% ne eee ee 793 
DIS21 i ca ve ts Ore eee 7538, 1187 
22:2 | 258, 300 bis, 311, 545, 1214 
DAS = oe he Oo hate Rem ee 166, 753 
2EIA! ies lee. : a 871 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


OTA 
932, 1203 
947 


ew £8 Oot ee δ''ἃὦ ο΄ δ᾽ .4 


CRC n On δ 8 © ὁ © ὁ 


CV OO a I ed eer Yee, eas: 


ot EA in oe ὁ er ee) 


1345 


(Ὁ) OLD TESTAMENT 


Genesis 
1) TEE νυν τς ay 
eee int ees kt: 574, 595 
τ πος 50 
ποτ τ 1002, 1007, 1086 
OA es ae eer oe 639 
ee Mere See 64s ee.) dos 889 
4:24 Be Cie ΕΝ Ύ ΤῈ 673 
ἘΠῚ paresis, eg tiene 60s 973 
ΟΣ ie πόνος ἘΝ ee 325 
"τ WoL 4) ose Ne nc os 1074 
Π 011. : Ἂν αν μὲ Patek Ἃ 740 
oo UES ERS) 0, gee eee 1024 
tine 2 τὰν eh OE 
ΠΕ ΝΥ ον ΠΥ ΟἹΟ 170 
ΤΡ ΕΑΝ ΟΣ τὸ ΑΝ ΤΣ 916 
OS BGS ORAM ΤΥ: 967 
ποτ τς oe ans 1067 
19:21 : 1002 
ES eee eg. cg aes, bios 1061 
ΕΟ RSs Pe 1187 
πο ie) ese. 1042 
CO TEA! ee 9 CS ee ed ee 1042 
ΕΝ eer o i o's “πΠ στ fel e's: 1074 
ΡΟ πὴ ee se ols 1042 
ee Aa. oe ke ek 696 
eee Oona, ρος 973 
Or WS a οτος 1027 
Προ ie. beh ah δον ue 1042 
ce Ae ese ble ς΄ 1067 
PROM MEM A ain ee gS 1073 
OO ge RD Ae ee ae eee 959 
ele memes) ς 481 
MD ber πο Sa πιῆ el ae 263 
σου ey a νος 888 
Ooo τς See oe ee 916 
ENEMIES Paes Sl. Gs 5 τς, 551 
OTROS oo ie ae a πΠπς ..Ὁ; 973 
ΟΣ κι, ς 696 
OU OR ht ie en re 745 
ὉΠ ΟΣ ρα 907 
OC ee Si ed re 907 
CE Feit ee A 907 
σαι Pee 1067 
RR Re ech a) 5. Ss 661 
50:18 eB ee 696 


Se Ala EN ΕΣ ΡΣ ἘΝ 757, 984 
DOU Es Wek Sean. a ὟΝ, 399, 762 
oe G tea, Gea eres, ae yn 356 
Exodus 
UST eg | oe Mi 7 et 972, 1075 
Pie on RO Ar ree Ghia ao, Ata 268 
el UL A ae te mate Ea Gh, Ce) amy Nak 187 
ὌΠ hers oe wae. he eae oa Ak, 1001 
PE Ae el SE) LER de taal Smad) δὲ ἢ 337 
RTE ER as σον A ek 691 
RES LO Bair cy erry πο foe ee Sit 
ΟΝ SE, πο ae ar ns ee 696 
Oss] COMER ER eR! ΩΝ 699 
EG RSS τον tee ale etnies 693 
Se OM ftir gore Cag bt ore 907 
ΠΕ ΟΣ ben od Rea oa 819 
thal Oras ae ae el ee ee 752 
ee AE) ΡΑδ ce AV Ot a eo ag 1042 
Ue: 9 ἢ 55 Re a Ra ae ee RA A PN ας 1078 
LOCO Mica ss rs SBOE S43 973, 1003 
LS pe RS eed eR ea 253 
Ee PER Neck LC bg Deh tare te ae 903 
0 1 ΑΝ Papa eae 1027 
gy PP ar ee, Fee hei D2 
BOA 7 cen. eee tek Ode 508 
ALE nee Pe ee Ee 690, 691 
ον τον δον OMENS, ΕΑΝ ΝΡ “208 
ΟΣ τον ΕΟ ἀντ τς 822 
ΘΕ ΘΑ ΤῊ τ πο δι τ δ νι 775 
ΘΙ ea ey ces eS oe 485 
νυν ea ke 436, 899, 960 
ον he eee te Te ces Cais 906 
Leviticus 4 
VEAL, Rtg RR an Re SU ark Sth HE | 269 
EN EU ΟΣ εν taAa ep OU AI aeT a 984 
TAs ot 2 a uae ee 500 
J IC a iinet προ TPL Pa τὰ εν τον ty 254 
ΠΕΣ icc ales. ee ee 738 
DEO ce eR an a ee eee 1010 
Dee LOVE. a en aces Stee ae eee 917 
FS Rane, aa τὺ} eke VEX 606 
Numbers 
Lea Cr AS moor he age eter end 7 671 
AA lily ΩΝ Sy ASM we τ 268 
OGL) ee A RT ia tls ae cerns 98 
Sur eet a cot eet. 878 
FO tee eee a ee eee es 973 


1346 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Numb. 
Le 20 ee ties seme Ὁ 938, 940 
LAs ORS Duden Remeron 1003 
LASS τ ee 880 
14°30 ΠΡ σον 1024 
2025) πα ere ἐν Ἀν eae eases 1003 
Pe begs eects) sry nae Ie 903 
Deuteronomy 
fed Deane nr era ea OU 263 
ΠΣ h Oty tester ber te ery ΤῈ 361, 649 
S25 ie nema tees rede 1017 
OSLO Bart i onl eae heehee ele 364 
SrA. iy oe yl i'd go eee aS 637 
eg: Satis ho Pome ae a hae 888 
AAD SLD TA ait thee onto ee eae δ 649 
9} decal ves based, eels tao 809 
DATS? ai πον ον ἐν eo fog τ an gems 669 
DSR LG ele perk ΡΣ 95 
28724 Ilia il ae, Seon eee eae 6 937 
23229 hsb τ τ ste note alike 889 
DOSS ον. 738 
ΘΟ να ie. meee gan 649 
B20 cn sien ΠΣ eae 669 
2 ΤῈ vshlstas εν wees emcees 1163 
BOW LOL irate etek shevkg sas Aen ee 98 
Joshua 
Bee ste va νἀ tengo ait a eae 1042 
ΣΕ aes was ΤΡ weds gle ἢ 437 
TOSLO inate ie retin, ele 507 
ΤΣ eae ἀπ δ ΝΑ ΚΟ 218 
ΤΙ a as a ism atte le πα΄ 531 
ZO BREA τ eae des es alee 174 
Judges 
Dh hoe tele coast ae 888 
SLD He aes, Mceeeeneel Mare τῶν ἡ 265 
GRD PRI nc ice Meters aes Sear Ὁ 1070 
δ τὴν ΠΡ τις 918 
6: 15 aseae eee een eras 97 
8:11 ie See ec a 906 
Ὡς Ἢ πὸ. ee 1080 
O20) ΛΑ Δ id's ΠΝ ἘΓ ῊΝ 8. Ὁ 940 
ἐπ σε ον yd td ic Aer  ο PAS 1017 
LiL το ve sees τον τος ἋΣ 890 
16320 Ὁ τ νου ον abate daeute mee 637 
Ruth 
10 Εν 932 
yeaa K | EMM POS eA ee a Aan 1090 
Silt 5 Cie eee ce eee 1070 
1 Samuel (1 Kings) 
1:75. > nie ae eee 596 
401 4. ΟΝ 1042 
(6-745 Fame een tee ee AP. 772 


ΕΓ Uh cnet Se Pee ee Cee 1061 
Lily ας heey. oc ee ee 1042 
12:23. νον 1067 
ΤΥ δ SO PE ee 1024 
ΦΑΤΕ τ at eee ee 1060 
UTS του wea Ce el 973 
17 4 es, eee ee 680 
18316 eee.) ee 680 
25320 σεν γον 256 
2 Samuel (2 Kings) 
G5 20.3806" 370 ee eae ae 739 
LOS LL ie πα ae ee ee 878 
14°) Bir ee a eee 722 
1532 ate thie ee 649 
LSS13 OR oe oe eaten ae ee ae 940 
1 (3) Kings 
ΠΡ ΡΟ 964 
τὰ ον ee ee 254 
PLS) 2 ἘΝ Ων πον eee eee 1067 
SEBO As ee lees) Gap een le ae 670 
LOST τυ τ eee 1165 
12. LS PAS ie yen eee ee 1120 
1810. τ τὴ εν τ 1078 
LAO ΚΝ ΟΝ 941 
16931 ον που τ eee 1067 
ΤΌΘ hires ey oa ani ee 1002 
E220 221 Se 465 
i Rod Bee Arie prs ee re) 819 
Eo Se eT IM ys, 880 
YVR» OETA PERN) Δ ὦ κα ὦ 1072 
2 (4) Kings 
Sh BS Ve RAE re ae a yds ςι 736 
δ. BS Te Seer ae AN | Ν 1001 
a i: See ie Arathi bey. 729 
1S ΟΣ oP Re ee ee 260 
ΤΌΣ ον ΣΎ 95 
1 Chronicles 
ΑΘ ΣΝ 093 
Dr OF ον τὴν ον 643 
VEO tea. fot iy oh ae ee 729 
PE τ Τ᾿ ο 588 
BOOT Ue estg spel ae gee 588 
2 Chronicles 
OLE. ΣΟ ee 98 
GST, BE ἀρ λυ ce ene 1067 
LBS LG 52 oe Ὁ τ Ὁ ΔΊΑ, ὦ 801 
18: 9 4 τ ΟΣ eee 906 
DSI22 at ΤΊ Ἢ ee ae 966, 1062 
S520 ew ον ὴν 1090 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Nehemiah 
ET LE ok nk a 628 
DES συν. 337 
Esther 
od δ νου he ead 0 (co | ον 964, 1033 
JOSE Fe ue Oy Sy i 938 
Job 
ey aerate.) Cece 198 
UBS) Soy Ue 977 
ΠΟ Gey Oo crs a 1003 
πε ον στον 270 
ΠΕ τος 1010 
UR 15 Pdi νὰ δον ΩΝ rr 691 
ΟΝ Pees) eo, 5 916 
NSE ROR ρον ae A cd ae A ᾿ 1003 
ito Leer toe ee Ye 938 
Psalms 
OE) LA Ca Se 1001 
CSIR ΟΝ ene eon tee OL 
Oe ee τ ἐοῖα 1312 
Sey meee sree esa γα ἢ 367 
ORS MER Gy ng SSE eter ORE OS 502 
Pelee Bee LOL ence ns OA 29, 476 
SPAR Siete Bre Saale a i ὙῚ 367 
ΟΣ LU Peete peers a ee OLE 
ΠΟ ΠΡ ae eee ee 1061 
Law Be pe eee, a 738 
Ἴσον cae 166 
CREME eet ee sed 193, 463, 986 bis 
eee h coe tee vc =< 197 
ΟΣ ΡΟΝ ρος 108 
θοὸν. 1061 
On τ see eee te 174 
νὰ .. 903 
US TENG om | oe Nie aig el Oa 1086 
00 11 002 Ra τ 1008 
ΘΝ πος εν ΡΟ oe ΣῊΝ 1067 
CSR Ly US Sa oe ee 1000 
SY EAU SR os pe Ae ee 1024 
TE Soc ye Se oc i rr 972 
GG bao 0 ae τὶ ,Π 5; 437 
ΠΥ; ete s 1070 
ΠΟ τ ee hie 939 
ΠΟ νι 314 
LLORAS Sa ΟΣ ΝΡ 655 
ECL) DOWNY cere Barat a ws 1004 
ΕΠ ει ρίας aa ot 718 
i rg aD Bn a ᾿ 411 
NR ge as ee 704 
Ne ees Ce ΤΡ gg 973 
ROSY TU ee rs Ls 973 
ΠΟ 110» ss eo πος 940 
ADI SR og ek ΗΟ rrr 1070 
UR τ oh hs na τ 637 


Proverbs 
ΡΝ ΤΥ eer 973 
ΤΟ ΜΡ ees Ae ese NPT Rese 890 
Le Lan ce era yay one sc Peeve 871 
LASS Ch Ro tees ae 268 
24: ΟΊ er cee he wren Lee 292, 750 
OLD Rae Δ TER 691 

Ecclesiastes 
Ae) LO FER cack Sak uk tetera Ce ae 1062 
ON eee Ss ἄν κι να See ee 97 
DLs here c= gta ty eee) 1067 
The Song of Solomon 
UEOME, Wien cede Sate ele ee eee 739 
Isaiah 
ΤΑΝ ΣΦ ΝΝ Bec 487 
Del 2 ares τ ον ἐν πε κοῖς aes 819 
ΤΠ ΘΕ σά ον 807 
ΤΥ LN 765 
μον τ eee 740 
ΟΥ̓ eco As se ae eee Oe a 1165 
Eig Ae gh Se ee Fee ee Εν 1002 
ὍΣΟΙ τ Rats Sorta, γίγε τ 
Ὁ τ ee re etre ae.) arenes 1174 
ΟΣ ΡΣ ΕΝ θ44 
6:10 201, 204, 367, 844, 988 
A ne Sate eos ee Be 907 
ΟΠ ΘΙ ΕΜ eee oe 1042 
ΠΟ ΣΟ ΣῊΝ ον" 903, 907 
ἢ τη εκ τὴν 1042 
ΠΟ Το gene 929, 1174 
1 Ὁ ἢ ate Noh eet ety cre 591 
LC SMe nse et ive cen oe 907 
Ια nee ee ae 637, 643 
2A retain: bie cay a, feet in eee ee 1061 
71 e's LU TOW Real NerWe rn 733 
PALA POR ante Rut he cats. id 312 
ΡΩΝ ΤΣ a Beebe) Lee cir ore 929 
OOS Dies cmr so Ree ee et 103 
Shi Obes tunes oe alae al, 267 
ANS Tae Os ass Uke ots) eee eee A 595 
ANTS se tds om ra totale 837 
ἀρ Ore Rare | BCP BL 101 
ἌΝ Oi eh ae ata eee 101 
ASG Mie ot ede Rie 235 
δι ΕΠ ARE ae aii ἐν eA an by! 1067 
BOSS Go Sirti. ΡΥ meee te 507 
ΟΣ ΤΊ a ee aes eee 853 
DO: GERM yan eaters Lact 1062 
ΟΠ ΟΕ ΤΥ aes 218 
DSU LAU poo te are ec ee ΠΑ 907 
SU D5 al ον Ἢ aes ae arth poh ae katt GN 312 
ΟΣ : 253 


1348 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Jeremiah Daniel 
1:8 475 WA ον See tod ae ne eae eee 171 
PO a nk RAL, teens ad 9029. te ir rere i ar eA, 977 
TO oa ee Saher) SALeCL omer? ἼΣΟΥ een eee cel ae 647 
2:18 LOOT. | A230 aie. athe cman cr eee 900 
A A Se Rae et Apa a P| OG ΓΟ LA ae ree ΡΝ eat ad ou 512 
OS oo big oy ERE a eee ALA} TUBS oy we ον τ πὰ ieee 199 
AAO yer ate rete se evens 10 OLB ie er eer 415 
ΠΑ ey emlert Tf 
BaVS 26) Yo eet sede a. RAED Hosea 
GES Agree 923.990, 1016, ΟΣ, Sets 23 ee eer ee on ee 411 
CN Ree ek ues ia a ancy nA ADL is εν eteons oh eaeenee es ΝΥΝ 411 
LAO PLE es Ca renee ee 1001: 4c LDS a eee 475 
Da Oe eo" Coe tiely St ες πέρατι 309 
[ἃ Ge fag Sacra ia its Sa 1073 Joel 
Te eee ie aed ot eer ae ΠΡ fe lot ee seme ot ae aa ee 148 
Lf 26a 044 
18:3f. . 287 Amos ᾿ 
ΡΝ ΠΡ alee 080 5 0:20) ΤΉΝ 012 
TS Tee τὸ oe i λῶν ΤΣ 932 OSLO τ re 123, 986 
OS PLE hed Be ae ee 484 
iO (ae) SL swe olla) Manatee nace ΤΕΣ. Ne Joner ἊΝ 
DOT CAL trast ts ον τ τον RS 1174 αν Abr rae Ἢ Ὁ 
20 1 a is AAAS LTS Ae eee 653 Habakkuk 
SIG. teal ee eee ae 1123 2:3 733 
OL OA hyo get acne alee rakes ore TAG. DRS Cae ek ee ee 

ἘΖΟΙΒΕΙ 21 ἀν: τος αὐ ih 
11. ἘΠ ee ae ΤΕ ae 
16 i way ὟΝ ΣῊ ΤΙ st rien οὶ ὦ On Zechariah 
ἀπ ee eo ee 650 9 Ὁ 6) Veto tN ee aaa 741 
1 6 a EOP PLD e Reis ey hy ὁ ATO! Aa 7 ie Pee ee 265 
TLRS eee Pent se Pein wi BOD PG Lo Vee ee eee τ 265 
DOT (eae, Hc Δ. ἀρ Ὁ 1024, 115 {7:8 oe oa i ΙΝ 599 
4°38 Alesana eee 1024, 1150 
BO SO ὅταν πο names ies YAS Malachi 
O82 LO MES) ee baa cae is Bure 00 OPS sk hive oie wel ote ee en 889 

APOCRY PHA 

1 Esdras Esther 
ΤΟΥ ee eee ce ae 155. 1363 pos. ee eee Care 938 
149 ΑΕ ee ee ae 1074. 
τ gh were ecueerene ate oleae eae 1072 Wisdom 
SF iia! Benton pw νὴ ον eee eee 225 
Co Aa oh See needa held fe {3 ΠΟ re a Be ee, 911 
B67. ons ey ee ea LOGE = WARD ee een a oe ee ee 999 
GHB a Pcl rat hah oe Caren 722 
Bey Oe On we, or ene 1072 Sirach 

Prol.torpirath) 4 2 eee 604 

2 Esdras οι MET OR se eae 3h . 41 
G28 | aces ae ae eg ODO ΠΟ a ee 274, 276 
Σαρα ἢ O43} θη ΣῊΝ ΧΙ 208 
LIES S igi ΣΝ κυ δ ὁ Δ Ὁ GBS 20H8 Ti Re Ao oo ee se Blo 
Pals: TA, RPE Rebs Ae 08 δι, ὧν Δ ᾧ 10701 ΘΠ eee eee 1070 


———— ae, νων μὰ ὑπ 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Baruch ΕΟ ACB AEE ins aS Ge INO san ον 1120 
PO We EEE. 35 a see ce VANE Gago BUTIUGS 9. Soe ek ly AIRE ge 1043 
ΟΝ. vcs el aa: Se Me: Na Rs ps ar BORE 2 acme | Pr 1163 
Mee MME, τ hehe AGS + Pees OO Ne Mod col ack Stetal τς ΣΟ orice: 618 
ESE DO Tens ΑΔΕ AN Cee iP Sen ti 729 
ΟΜ sin cess oe" ethene la rene 260 
Tobit Tes MR ΑὙΤΆ ape a Panne 28 
1 ESE RS 05 a a SLT ΤῊΝ RS USN evi aE NG 1075 
ες eS eS 4 585 7:21 ep ey a Dae ear aed 28 
es Es ae’ mea Y Ra (0 ἐσ Ὁ ΡΝ τ κι τ 318 
‘SEE Slo See ft) SEA ae 2 7 Rea Siren tae 192 bis 
iG Gee eet cai oir 1070, 1074 OS 29 arava) eet A ere ty 183 370 
1 πο τοὶ ar A 1120 ΡΤ Sete) oa os : 141 
coe Ge eee ἐν ΡΟ ΣΝ ΣΤ ΠῚ 639 
12: ΣΝ ae ben ete as ΤΩ 
Judith LDsiLiae Levee kee, chika Wh tekcs aur ace 370 
Tesh) Osa νυ τς το 979 
"RERSS OL eles i ae δ aot 1070 3 Maccabees 
PLS! κατ 2), sewere ye tie hats aT Oe Ey νὸς Bes TR, go Lhe mR regs 141 
rae teeters, Ἢ ΤῈ VO ΡΥ ΝΕ ee Ahk Miah ae 900 
abel 6) Oran ΤῊ 979 
Lice) AUR fs ον ee ca 308 
4 Maccabees 
| Bette MR tem ek, tiveth Uh Saba Sa Lae Mine 251 
1 Maccabees 2D gee GD SUIS AT a | BS 157 
“Soc gay Wee og A eon eae ee CS ΓΙ SIU ani ease ERA! oy 91 938 
“LAE SR eye ah an abe ee COUN es Or ee Oe eg Te 104 
ΠΥ Ὁ BOUT 1 0 Le ae tonne tc Lee 104 
ΠΟ Sat SR tw a ee A ΟΣ ΙΝ 1062 
Tere yy ws. ets hs, tare 415 bis 
SSE AU δ ee eae ae ae 1214 
cl Sah ae a i ear 1090 4.4 Enoch a 
πα ΤΣ 200 πρὶ So AA ον τας ES 2 Ra ΥΩ τη 
ΠΝ το ap UP rat el Pe ta ALD 
Προ hai ee 1070, 1074, 1075 Psalms of Solomon 
ἀρ ΟΡ ας 654 
μεν με ΕΝ εχ ΣΝ Εἰ ΠΤ 654 
ἐπι τις ee ne a ae ee 159 
εν οὐ eden ge a 1141 Susanna O 
UESPE AIS > 77 8 AAAS ot ron 974 54 741 
TESTAMENT OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS 
Reuben Gad 
LAL, ea AT Pie eee Oat es Shins 654 
ον til dence ie he's) ies 946 
Joseph 
L728 ie ore cle en eee th ae 664. 
Levi 
ΠΟΥ teas ase 972 Benjamin 
ΥΩ ene ee ιν ΝΣ 673 
Judah Naphtali 
EES ANS a 0 A oe ἀλη Ἢ fh 3 aes ge ee er Re ie OS AP 946 


1350 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(c) INSCRIPTIONS 


Audollent 

Defixionum tabellae, ed. Au- 
dollent (Paris, 1904) 

No. 238, 29 


Benndorf-Niemann 
Reisen in Lykien und Karien 
120° NS 10246 Se een serciis Siem 


BCH 
Bulletin de correspondance 
hellénique 
1901, p. 416 (lead tablet at 
Amorgus) 
1903, p. 235 


CIG 

Corpus inscriptionum Grae- 
carum 

5834. 


C. Insc. Lat. (C I L) 
Corpus inscriptionum Lati- 
narum 
v, 8733 


Deissmann 
Light from the Anc. East, 
p. 75 
‘“‘Limestone Block from the 
Temple of Herod at Jerusa- 
lem” 


οὐ οὐ ο ο΄ νον 


4... 8. Ὁ κοι ἢ ΓΦ ΨΟ ὁ 


e See @ 40 er χε 6 ν" 


Delphian Inscription 


Inscriptions recueillies ἃ 
Delphes (Wescher et Fou- 
cart) 

220 το ΚΣ : 


Heberdey-Wilhelm 
Reisen in Kilikien 
170, 2 ΝΣ 


Inscr. of Magn. 
Die Inschriften von Magnesia 
am Miaander (von O. Kern) 
16929 0. cen ene ΤΥ eee 


Inscription of Thera 
Hermes 
1901, p. 445 


857 


1170 


109 


522 


192 


1093 


1092 


1074 


660 


IG 
Inscriptiones Graecae 
ΧΙ 1002; ee aes ee 1189 
TN 2A0 615 el ee cae es (Hits 
5} GAT ow cae ey ee eet 849 
05000 oa) ay Moy ae eer rae 669 
ΤΟ a) Akay 959 
ΠΡΑΕΙ͂Σ ya, ἀν nee cere amt 579 
IMA 
Inscriptiones Maris Aegael 
1. ΟΕ ce nee oe 1129 
DLO ΡΣ pe τ σὲ ρ τα 622 
JHS 

Journal of Hellenic Studies 

(Hellenic Society) 
Kix, L4t eee, See 535 
928 3) ον, ἐὰν es eae 406 
ZOO St ay alee ee eae 737 
1902: P2349 tere ee, ee 728 
Xxtiy 100273609" aly cea eee 1061 
Kaibel 
Epigrammata Graeca 
1878) pP200% ee eee eee 274 
D.,LO4 Se Se. er eee 592 
Letronne (Letr.) 

Recueil des inscriptions 
grecques et latines de 
VEgypte, ed. Letronne 
(1842) 

ΝΟ ΟΣ ΘΟ 5 ee ee eee 478 
149) ον Beam ee 414 
ΟΕ tae eas 521 
Michel 

Recueil d’inscriptions 
grecques, ed. C. Michel 
(Brussels, 1900) 

ΝΟ Fy. te eee 1069 
ΘΟ 622, 1024 
OGIS 


Orientis Graeci inscriptiones 
selectae, ed.. Dittenberger 
(Leipzig, 1903-5) 

Nowe. te ee oer See 1069 


0. 4 SECS NS” τῶ ν᾽ ἢ; 


οὐ δ. 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


ΔΘΑ ee ee 406 
ΦΟΘΙΑΙ δ «os cha othe 223 
PPA EA 5 τ ΟΝ 223 
LES; LORS apo 213 
Tite ALS... δ 213 
ΤΙΝ ραν es 193 
ΟΣ ΔΟΟ sock lc ea 193 
ADS; time. ew τ δὰ 218 
DOD aL OME, +... 2s eens 204 
DL Ue: bh a: eit ees 204 
GLO meme Sd oe 204 
PAS 
Papers of American School 
at Athens 
rs MEE σέο a ος 172 
ES De se ch τὸ τ 172 
Pergamon Inscr. 
Die Inschriften von Perga- 
mon von M. Frankel 
Pls BC ἘΠ ce ak ae 849 
RO COMET ie Te coe er 959 
Li ie ee ee eS Oe 1093 
ΠΥ τ πος 1098 
Perrot 
Exploration arch. de la Ga- 
latie 
Wwe NGOS eee oe ees) ese 702 
Petersen-Luschan 
Reisen im siidwestlichen 
Kleinasien 
ΡΣ ASO ule ὦ 599 
MOL OOF ape) τς 869 
Life oS EAGER πος 959 


1351 


Pontica 
Studia Pontica (Anderson- 
Cumont-Gregoire) 


(ἃ) PAPYRI AND OSTRACA 


A. P. (P. Amh. and Amh. Pap.) 
Amherst Papyri, part 11 (1901) 


NOM IMOG ΤΕ ce ea 723 
Thea dikes ot eee Aa 154 

ΤΟΥ yh) ee eae 470 

ΕΝ Een ee 527 
ii coh) Δ ΚΝ 1134, 1137 
FI ey oY 977 


ΠΟΘ. ΓΗ OR Pid 931 
Priene 
Inschriften von (herausg. von 
I’. Hiller von Gaertringen) 
PLD 20S Lasik ΝΣ ἘΝ Aan Aaa 582 
ΟΡ ee Te Tee, 595 
LUC L τ ἘΝ ΤΡ 615 
Ramsay, C. and B. 
Cities and Bishoprics of Phry- 
gia, by W. M. Ramsay, 2 
vols. (Oxford, 1895, 1897) 
ΟΣ ΠΣ Ἐν 1018 
Bilis 391; 390, ΘΟ 928 
Eee, LER RG τὰ τύ Δ ἢ 972 
SUISUN Gs 204) neon Bl cas 648 
2 Meare rece eae. aes 668 
Syll. 
Sylloge inscriptionum grae- 
carum, ed. Dittenberger 
NOBo2OS 120 τ 160 
CoS SOL eee eT ke are τ: 375 
Viereck 
Sermo Graecus quo senatus 
populusque Romanus... 
usi sunt, by P. Viereck 
(Gottingen, 1888) 
Tigo tae ae ee Ἐν" 958 
Waddington 
Inser. de la Syrie 
Del Sete ata gest re denk o ἀρυσί ἢ 837 
ZOLA ures shu copy eau ein task ae 595 
OS caliede cae eles rade 1009 
1110 0119 || στ νι 414 
135 Sens) ἀν ἀν" 611, 994 
144 Ὴ ΡΣ ΕΣ τευ 928 


B. M. (P. B. M.) 
British Museum Papyri, ed. 
F. ἃ. Kenyon (London, 

1898, 1898) 


1352 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Vol. i. Nos. 1-188 

Τὰ ΕΑ ΣΟ hPa eae 939, 994 
23 32. cs ORR ere 997 
SLAG Sk Ie ite eames 1033 
42. . . 299, 546, 618, 875, 909, 
1081, 1145 

OD. ics sha Ἀδὰ sien eens 529 
rh Pitre Os camer ae κα τῇ 728 
54 κα λον ΡΥ 1120 

Vol. ii. Nos. 189 ff. 

100. ee Ue 728 
ον ΗΕ Ae 1010 
ΘΟ ΝΡ τὴ chet 318, 737 
βου νυ th han σε τσ 959 
SPs Ey BN Gan tnd, Meera om Dery le a” 745 
S862 0 ice να 745 
BOG bess. ie ct nee, Te 1122 
41 7 a eee ND caer ty, baer. 869 
Sips Lae en ry ie Hokuto tae 979, 1074 
11 8 pret ee eer Weare 907 


B. U. (B. G. U.) 
Berliner Griechische Urkunden . 


Vol. i. Nos. 1-361 (1895) 
NOLO skis) aim. ΜΉΤ ΚΌΝΙΣ 522 
ΤΟΥ νι ee Penne 091 
ΣΥΝ ΠΣ ΡΟΣ (eh 470 
PE fea ΘΝ ἀλλ ρος 611, 1000 
SOF eas haere See ee Ri 1061 
AD seta ae ae eee 531 
AG dere nee Choe ΒΡ ἢ 1068 
LRA SLES tee plas 933, 994 
δου aac Gi ee eee 689, 691 
110 oie ieee eat, oe ae 213 
ΤΊΣ te hoe cae ee ae ee 509 
11 τ Ce cpg 962 
150 Peete a ere 900 
1409 Sisk Ree eee 478 
16426 SO ee eee 997, 1061 
LOB iu. oe ok eer a ee 691 
170 oe ct eee ΠΡῚΝ 942 
128 Depth Rabe bye os ἢ 691, 857 
10 eae eer pure δ᾿ 874 
DOG Sissi > ΝΣ πέος, 991, 1069 
yy," Bae αὐ δα τς | > 660 
242) ete πη θεν vee 479 
OSTA ee mer 833, 843, 1124 
097 aire CANTY Sey 900 


No. 


Vol. iii. 
᾿ς ΝΟ. 


Νο. 


$03); ΤΥ ene 928 
BOG. Ain ae ae 318, 410, 1010 
BAL iy: 30 eae ee 691 
δῦ, ete, cee one 318 
Vol. ii. Nos. 362-696 (1898) 
368, tn he oe ee 692 
S80 sg ean ee ἮΝ 487 
B85 = ulti 2G Aen 592 
BRR id Sicha nee 665 
428 . . 188, 419, 464, 514, 592, 
833, 834, 835, $46, 1132, 1151 
ADA hun Thode Ni pare 972 
530 190, 963, 1147, 1181 
Ἄλον, ee 406 
ΤΥ Loe ahr 746 
B81 ton ie Le ee 993 
BAS: 8 τ ee 475 
SAG Ee Oy ere ΟΝ 1009 
BOG) gee eee 361, 907, 1129 
607 Aner arta τς 730, 972 
623; ΤΑ ah ae i ae 671 
6640-2 ΣΟ ae 631 
665. Ὁ τ ον re eae 1068 


Nos. 697-1012 (1903) 


Wb Oe ee ee eee” 806 
19042) = lal Rae eee 516 
S14 ee he. ee ee ae 874 
RIG ΡΣ ene eee 1210 
δ τ ΟΝ eee ee 737, 989 
S24: pacts weeks, fae eee 933 
ΟΝ ee ae 1068, 1082 
$4307). Bee acs eee ee eB MAGE 
ΑΘ Ἔα tar ee 178, 414 
5,4. τ ate ae ee 990 
οὐ isi eee eee ΠΣ 
274s Ne Papen πα τ 5% 2 513 
O48 Sis εν τ 734, 737 
O56... i eal spa ature: ΠΥ thes 
O7Ol se ΠΑΝ cere 518, 589, 11382 
οὐδ -4inned And Jeeta ee 614 
LOOZ 2S i. nya oats aaa 414 
Vol. iv. Nos. 1013 ff. 
LOU See eee 901 
1031 AS Seer 997 
1040 ἘΣ ΣΕ eee 1192 


1079. ΄. 287, 488, 577, 582, 615, 
692, 933 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Ch. P. 
Greek Papyri from the Cairo 
Museum, ed. E. J. Good- 
speed (Chicago, 1902) 


ING Acs Στ: ρὸν OM alts 817 
ΔΝ ΠΕ. Re ae 692 

C. P. R. and P. E. R. 

Corpus papyrorum Raineri, 
ed. C. Wessely (Vienna, 
1895) 

SOR EC Ri ee 690 
| sp  S e 654 
CRUSE 2 962 
Ἔν ete as occ Kg 892, 978 
ΤΟΝ τ νον 1002, 1068 
PTO de eae Ale ity ae 959 

Deissmann 

Ostracon, Thebes, 32-3 a.p. 828 

Eudoxus 

Papyrus of the Astronomer 
Eudoxus, ed. Blass 692 

F. P. (Fay. P. and P. Fay.) 

Fayim Towns and_ their 
Papyri (1900) 

aa. LYS ane eer ioe a Baa 817 
1 ρον τοι GErts 933, 994 
LIS eteis ee 605 622, 987 
110 S2768s: avert t. tee ν0 595 
tA Be Ba eT pe it Ralls OS BE 861 
RL RR ee aT te era 495 
Sec Mt td cao ser ala gages tle 959 
LES) ae ies een rien 1176 

G. 

An Alexandrian Erotic Frag- 
ment, and other Greek 
Papyri, chiefly Ptolemaic 
(1896) 

“SL SS ye NA ae ae ree 945 

G.H 


Greek Papyri, series II (1897) 


ea Oa 82, 786 
Hiden od τ: 745, 746 
ads Cae oa ea 614, 806 
SE oy (nee Oe ae 976 


1353 


Hb. P. (P. Hib. and Hib. P.) 
Hibeh Papyri (all iii/s.c.) 


(1906) 
ΝΟΥΣ Δ. ΤΡ ΤΣ Bt hr 589 
oo wy τὰ τ Bp ee rT 406 
ce Sich take Us ιν ον προ eb 974 
HOM OUEL OGLE tard oo oe ene 986 
BO ries Υν ἘΝ oat tee ΚΡ 851 
LEO TOT Ne AO NG MEK. 1010 
Kap: 
Papyri from Karanis, ed. E. 
J. Goodspeed (Chicago, 
1900) 
UN ORO Og og tao og Pigs 458, 481, 595 
L. P. 
Papyri Graeci Musei anti- 
quarii publici Lugduni-Ba- 
tavi, ed. C. Leemans (1843) 
Gooey a ee eRe es 665 
LS Ee Sa ine 518 bis, 939, 1062 
Warten tt 274, 516, 983 
M.P 


Papyri from Magdola, in B C 
H 1902 ff., Jouget’s ed. 


(1912) 

No. 16 and 20 584 

N. P. 

Geneva Papyri, ed. J. Nicole, 

2 vols. (1896, 1900) 

πο at ree ey Ἐν 5 Ὁ 993 
ΠΟΥ iho hts ae mate Bead 1061 
Fe Rae aT ey Mi am 1ε. 995 
LOR AT. 2 Pospen ts er nee Aas 844 
Pre cer el Ot en ete’ ΤᾺΣ 692 
Bho eae anti roats se gti Gee an 464 
aS geen Ry NPs Tere ar 589 
BOM cel cl awk” car eias Bee 1108 
ΟΡ το ES Cea eam 7 527 
DU Sea ΡΣ ae 728 
WER ar ae Le 252, 745 
ὈΟΧ tare ee vs 252, 745 


O. P. (P. Oxy. and Oxy. P.) 
Oxyrhynchus Papyri 


Vol. 1. Nos. 1-207 (1898) 
INO Ga Ty awe, FREE τ el ῊΝ 977 
ΘΟ ΤΥ aig: Leg sie Ree ἩΣ 1069 


1354 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


37... . 195, 577, 632, 867, 1040 


OB re ἢ Petes: 578, 963 
ASAD 022.0 oy ΔΜ ees 635 
πῶ ΔΑΝ ΣΥΝ eh 990 
70 DPN Sirah HM tat iets fet its 484 
SB ee ae, pa en 1068 
00 6 dee Ee catch ee ee 656 
105. et es ea ate eee 1010 
ΤΣ ΣΥΝ Wenner 533 
LEG is. us cite Σ es 888 
BR ey ἈΝ Κα bate chr 723 
LIS RS trees ae eae 989 
DIGS Cott) te amos dy cae 70, 572, 1174 
ΤΟΥ ΤΥ ace, ep 414 
Diets bee.) ete ὁ 284, 993 
L285 Sah ston ie ans ὉΠ 931 
Vol. ii. Nos. 208-400 (1899) 
No. 237 518, 983, 991, 1048, 
1069 bis 
ZAQ Wi Ae ee) ee ee deen eer in 939 
PASTE PEEP Oy ey Ὁ 1150 
PAS RN Ay hoe te By, AG 745 
ΘΟ str ey ae Sa 690 
YE See Rr Th ee ge: 666 
215 2 δι, 051k 091, 510; 000, 


1002, 1129, 1131, 1132, 1139 


292 es eS al, ene 341 
294 . 600, 686, 909, 1081 
PA ERA ον cece) 807 
1} Mere ey eh oy ὦ Διὸ 682 


ALS eee ee 932 
ATL a. isk dee Wag tie 1137 
ATT ΕΣ ar Mn 470, 471 
ATS) Ni ΡΤ ee ΔΤ τ ee 900 
ASD tutes ayes ce eee 844, 900 
ASA" ce ey Benak cues 474 
4863 Si AA nae eee 548 
AOL Mer oh te eee 1137 
ΕΣ ΩΝ 469 
AO4i Vi-5 Parson eee ee 749 
AOG'-), ae i ee irae 1018 
ΒΟΟΣ σα tere 502, 575, 767 
526 . 922, 939, 1002,1014 
52844) | eee ear 139, 900 
530 . 863, 922, 1014, 1113 
881. are eee ae 1210 


Vol. iv. Nos. 654-839 (1904) 

No. 604.0 ΤΩ 834 
CURE See Siero ane 939 
1 1G eee ees eee ae 668 
724. ΡΟΣ ie 589 
ΡΥ eee 2. 8 877 
ΟΕ ee eee 522, 1016 
YL Se WM Rey or eg 522 
{43 OE eee 999, 1024 
744 . 71, 220, 509, 535, 851, 993 
(CUE te see OL 686 
S860 ie ρου νοδὲ ποὺ θ08, 678 
QOS sie it Act aes eed) oie 745 
LIOG Δ ee ce 1021 
LOU Fe 2 eee 975 
1118 soy ον eee 877 
11 0 Aa re συ τον 1091 
L122 Ni eee ee 1073 
1125%, . 949, 967, 1085, 1154 
ΤΊ or eee ee ee ΧΙ 
1191. ey, a eee ΧΙ 
1199 fo ee bility i 
LESBO ee ee ae ee, 933, 1009 
ΤΟΣ 869 
ΤΊ δ νι ΕΣ ΟΣ 869 
1159) ee ee 1066 
110 2 in eee ee 550 
116450 20S ee Lh) ke Siew LAD 

Pari PoP oar) 

Paris Papyri, in Notices et 
Extraits, xviii, part 2, ed. 
Brunet de Presle (1865) 

ΝΣ 20 A eee ae 1108 
LOS a isc aeees oe ee 576, 585 
Li ens? oe AA eae ee ee 410 
18 CA eae 1009, 1180 
Dalen 50 eek a a a ee 590 
26. . 5382, 574, 939, 972, 1031, 

1048, 1141 
ye Pare liek Mee a's SL, 590 
θὰ ae eee 517 
OO he τ aie bee eee 614 
BLE wel yet eee ee 645 
A Si oil <A, en 615 


49. . . . 995, 989, 1087, 1169 
51. . . 414, 508, 536, 682, 867 


tN Pe arate ger 774 
G2 i on et wlines pee ae 1009 
Goi το .ce 587, 590, 938 
YE APN nis ΟΝ 727 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


ot a) Sao 190, 640 
P. Fi. 

Florence Papyri, ed. Vitelli 
(Lincei Academy: fase. 1., 
Milan, 1905) 

No. 2 


991, 1071 
624 


P. Goodspeed (P. Goodsp.) 


No. 4 . . 632, 877, 1022, 1119, 1129 

P. Grenf 

NEL! LS ae tae Cee eh 632 
ΤΥ ee oe 484, 687 
Fae oe SOLO ree 1080 

P. Heid. 

Heidelberg Papyri (mainly 
LXX), ed. G. A. Deiss- 
mann (1905) 

ἀπ ΑΙ δ τ δ hs 400 
Pap. L. 

Dieterich, Abraxas, 195, 9 789 
P. Lond 

Kenyon, Greek P. in British 
ΝΙΠΞΟ ΤΉ freee. bie? «? 274 

Σέ Fey te a 837 
P. P. 

Flinders Petrie Papyri, ed. 

J. P. Mahaffy (in Proc. 
Royal Irish Academy, Cun- 
ningham Memoirs, νυ], 
1891) 

ΝΟ EES si) ae «tl os, oil ee 690 
cs Nip) Gp ae) Sey see 287 
ΤΙΝ τ Πρ τ, 944 
eX Vine eR cus a are a5 Te ne 595 
Pav MR PEA ao νὰ 672 
Atl ny) 2b eS OE ee 726 
Mas, Ὁ ie eee 414 

Rein. P. 

Papyrus Th. Reinach (Paris, 
1905) 

ΠΑ WADED eS... GA eae 922, 1014 


1355 


REL: 
Revenue Laws of Ptolemy 
Philadelphia (Oxford, 1896) 


Cole 29 aed pe nee tle i ee 726 
δ ΣΟ hl RE AA rh IAT 586 
Rhein. Mus. 
Rheinisches Museum fiir Phi- 
lologie 
[xvii Al OLD ewe, eae 1182 


Tb. P. (P. Tb., Tebt. P. and Tb.) 
Tebtunis Papyri (University of 
California Publications, Part IT) 


ΝΟΣ ον ἡ 752, 983 
PROG wie er ee eae eee 165 
ΟΝ 689, 976 
aS lle Poa) ΟΡ Ese ihe hts 633 
fA ΣΡ ks MAb ty hoy Gs Pa mS 1134 
LOA cos ee iia, be Fe 590, 594 
AY AS at τ alee LSU he 148 
DAN ape Pee ΡΟΣ kaa ste 279, 669 
20 eee a ee ue ee eee 406 
ΘΝ at ea 07 ΟὟ ΡΝ 1010 
ΡΣ μη ee 877,1119 
Ahem Eis genie ee 808, 811 
RL ise eis Sar ete τς 613 
Area cy ον 162, 168, 654 
Ale eee) Aa omens tel 588 
A Se ake OME Sear ots ae 1134 
ΡΤ PO 91, 595 
Ai ie AS Ne Sad oe 689 
Ομ exes Gre othe cae 861 
DiS Fra a teeee Og ore ete 406, 1009 
is! RE Se need oe CR OC 945 
ΘΙ, Gy SRP 669 
104 ΣΝ το eee en 1187 
LOSS ese ey ce 516, 669, 752 
DOO wer ai eee eee eee na lye 
Boosd sh Suits pe ran ere 1010 
ALAS Te er a eee 834, 932, 986 


421 . . . . 682, 748, 762, 1126 


Tee. 
Turin Papyri, ed. Peyron 


(1826) 
ΝΟΣ po eee bee ae 491 
Pees TS th ae ee Oe eae 148 
Wess. P. 


Papyrorum scripturae Grae- 
cae Specimen 
1012, 1175 


1856 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Griechische Ostraka 


Wilcken 
Archiv fiir Papyrusforschung TIGR: CHP FV PAS Ee ote gatos Lt Ρ 266 
4s GND fe jc oad he aebise MeO ΤΡ τ ΟΡ 152 
LOZ Tene eas. oe cen eet ene 631 
(ὁ) GREEK LITERATURE 
i. CLASSICAL Euripides (v/B.c.) 
Homer (Ὁ x/viii B.c.) Alcestis 386 837, 846 
ταν 18700 ole! 958 tay Rianne ey 
: BacchidesiL00bg. 2 πος 563 
ΟΣ NN ahd 1160 
: Hecuba 401 : 1161 
LOS ia Wwe ΟΣ τες 590 ayes 
«ὡς Iphig. in Taur. 962f. . 746 
11, 289 1016 
ἘΣ tare 1170 haa ee 
ἢ ἐν eden Οὐ ρρροᾶ΄ΨψΨἔοἔΕὁΨοὁσἔἜὁἔἜἔέΕησοισνν. 629 
IV OUT van Ge ees eee ee ee 755 399 875 
SOLD Lc vin ovis Aho ane Ὁ eee 981 Tage tad aa he ΠΤ 
MULT 700. sa cee ene 610 ὲ 
πο ΡΥ 1170 Aristophanes (v/B.C.) 
xvill, 134 1170 Aves 1237 : ΤΩ 
EX LOO el wg cic een ee 1016 13) ae ee τ ee 674, 744 
ἘΣ 90 972 ΟΕ eee 11 
xxii, 349 674 Ran. 721. 35 
xxiy, 98. 590° Vesp. 215 rece See 733 
Odyssey iv, 684. . ... 1136, 1172 
XX, 52 . 1053 Herodotus (v/B.c.) 
i: 310 ΙΝ Wo ee 1069 
Hesiod (? vili/B.C.) coe B27 Ope) 0)! Ce (ἃ a ORF (Gy TO gee 860 
᾿" τάδε της Ἀν 722 
TAQIENG 7a) tc fie y cy es Die aes 981 v, 108 783 
Vis G7] 0 alee eee 1110 
fEschylus (v/B.c.) Vi, 68,5959 isa τ 1110 
Prom. Vinet. 268 f. 1088 a ἮΝ ἜΚ eS ἘΠ 
S Keita SAAN Te 538 ΓΑΕ ΘΟ ὙΡῪ Ὁ Ren ets 
Persac.O8 Lalo σιν ee 673 
Thucydides (v/s.c.) 
OW od aig Pcs bees oe Care ; 899 
Sophocles (v/B.c.) 52. 2 706 
Ei. uk ae 
Oedipus Coloneus 155 . . Δ Sees hey ΤΙΝ td 2 caer 1188 
BLT. es ia OS AO Ae ea ee ee Ὁ Σ ὁ 1163 
Ὁ εν ὦ 13.) SIS TAT ον, γὴν cals os eee ee 631 
Oedipus Tyrannus 1141 (alo MEAD Lees Rana alee renee 1172 
1146 reps tone 1A teh ama ee eae ACA pt ee) 783 
Philoctetes 100 . LOGO ΠΟ ae ane ee eer 435 
BOO. ΣΤΥ τ atc. see OB2fs ἀν DAR Sel ont figs et eee 860 
Electra.817).\:ee2 Πρ. 1101. hiv, ΟΣ ΕΟ κι ΓΝ 645 
1078.0, ieee ee 1094) Ὁ ΡΟ 3 oe a ee oe 1163 
Ajax 1180 S560" VIL ΟΣ ΤΣ 991 





INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Isocrates (iv/B.C.) 


iv, 44 961 
Xenophon (iv/B.c.) 
ATIADASIS 10 ~Karen eae 185 

Bo A as 790 

ii, 4, 20 955 

OA. 588 

vii, 4, 9 631 

vii, 4, 16 O20 

LOUIS st a eee . 1070 

aC hy J Roane . 1048 

s diet 2). UE τ ν. . -Al2 

Mem. 11, 6, 39 e102 

iv, 4, 25 747 

iat SEC he Aa ee ΠΕΡ: ἢ 

Hie a me LOGS 

TS ag a νι: τιον 458 

Plato (iv/B.c.) 

Apologia, 20 E 851 

21A . Sol 

Z1:C ee LAs 

20:5 . 1088 

Era ΟΣ ἐν 897 

Presto Cos 857 

Protag. 309C . 00 

BDA. . 1174 

794108 BR οὐ ae 478 

Repub. 337B. . . 933 

433 5°. . 1060 

{ΟΞ τ Ae 228 

405 D. 766 

NODDMCOSA Thesis We 779 

Polit. (p. 289 C). . 149 

Phaedr. 781). 1105 

ΘΟ": 75 

(το eto be ΝῊ κυ π εν ς 488 

ἜΡΟΒ ποτ τ ΠΩ 

ἌΠΟ AE  Σ 630 
ZEschines (iv/B.c.) 

NN ΟΥ̓ ee . 1069 
Aristotle (iv/B.c.) 

Peete iil Opener ἀν tees τς, 432 
/Eneas (iv/B.C.) 

LE SO ΒΕ ΕΙΝ a ce a le 595 


1357 


i. KOINH 
Theocritus (iii/B.c.) 

XS OMe verte aig Mh a LOOE 
ΠΥ ΕΝ saree wie Eb te . 1001 
Aristeas (1.11 B.C.) 

Ls an ΝΑ oe ise aoe 974. 
Demetrius (ili/B.c.) 
De-elocaag ΠΥ tan 1017 
Herondas (ili/B.c.) 

TV ΚΟ οι τὸ car Tv 660 
Polybius (1i/B.c.) 
riba ve RO cet os 607 
FV h iis uae eee et Mie Me hog ss 973 
ΜΘ ΥΕΙΝΗΙ ἃ 298 
Sg Vip BW Li Oa vs eee Sac 577 
ἘΣΣΙ aediaiere ar, a  N e Ye 527 
Diodorus (i/B.c.) 

Dee ee ee hw OL 
VEL (atiite Aber νὴ τον Ὁ . 1007 
Oye] ae On eee Re 961 
BMD fio > Oaths. seh Sess . 1007 
xiv, 8, 3 961, 989 
LCT SU, ον, Gk ee at eed ee hes 986 
evi a. Glete ware Se ae . 295 
108 bell ODE ERNE, Bal στον TE 
Strabo (i/B.c.) 

i ON Tg A 973 bis 
τς Ὁ ΟΝ Μὰ Seeley hla a 580 
RI ΕΙΣ oc ree eee lets 194 
Ὄρος lak ar ah oh Satomi eG 837 
Philo (i/A.D.) 

i, 166, 20. 974. 
Ye 12, oo ees οὐ ee ee ee 973. 


Flavius Josephus (i/A.D.) 


ATTIC avi Sonat ied eat out 1172 
LO oa ae ar ote 267 
x) Ae ee ede 1124 
xii, 2, 3 973 


XVI, OF 2 . ° ° . ᾿ Φ Φ 152 


1358 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Bell λον: 253 
ΛΟ, 335 ΡΝ 28 
Ny he ae ee eee ees ee 253 
Vi, yt = ch aete Tae ice ee 28 
ADpioniiv, 2len. oh eas 900 
Vitl (25.4 πο aie 255 


Dionysius Thrax (i/A.D.) 
7, 34, 372, 492, 1101, 1146 bis, 1188 


Plutarch (i/A.D.) 


DE&25b ID Pies eres 1069 
1 DO ΚΘΗ ον eae 64 
15094, Cee. ue, ar eee ee 64 
Quests, Conviv. ΠΤ πὴ 
Cons sadsxcr sla. are eens 752 
[Barnabas] (i/A.D.) 
D52O te es atts GO πρὶ ς 1124 
ΡΟ eer See et se apie By 773 
Giller sean eee eae 1141 


Clement of Rome (i/A.D.) 


ΤΟΥ 1 9 one ea eee 723 
1 ΕΙΣ. 946 
U8 Di cea ee ee 1102 
Uy 1252 ey eee eee 972 


Dio Chrysostom (i/A.D.) 
XXXIV, 44 να: 995 


Marcus Aurelius (ii/A.p.) 
γι 595 


Justin Martyr (1i/A.p.) 


Apol si 16,67 οΠἘΠΠστ--- 839 
Cohort.5(n3253 74 ae eee 25 


Arrian (ii/A.D.) 


Epictetus1,;9;° 15°23. ee 931 
ΤΠ ΟΕ eee 585 
ii, 2, ἸΌΝ fears 999 
Ui, ΠΑ Ay eo eG 


ΠΡ ΚΓ ἘΜ Ἂ 1017 
Oo, 24a eo 933 
ii/23 [eee , soe ee 937 
αν, τς: 933 
IV 50 cane eee 1091 
ἵν; ΘΟ ee 999 
ivi 41T #2 eee 963 
iv; 5) 89°54. oe e066 
iv, 10,18 . . 1092, 1095 

1V°10 327.9 τι Or 

iv, 10, 84...) τ ΠΙΟῸΣΝ 
ΡΣ τὸν 1169 


Ascensio Isaiae (ii/A.D.) 


Clement of Alexandria (ii/A.p.) 


Paidagogus iti; ..) se one 989 
Hermas (ii/A.D) 

Vas: :1; ΒΥ ee ΔΝ ον 1148 
1 2 ota oe aye. a ee 1010 

iV, Ly dee ee es 612 
VIII 3,70. τ 348 
ΙΝ ΣΎ ae 611 
Vill 14.2 he eee 739 

VII) 3 Ls i) co ee 424 

1X, ΙΝ ΤΕ 880 

1X,21 2,74 ΕΝ eee 1022 
Mand?1v;515°0"see. eee 308 
να see eee 1010 

Vili;-0,: 11 ote aa 278 


DI 54.5 Sr ΕΣ Ὁ 631 
| at Aa srs τ Feo εἷς 533 
Irenaeus (ii/A.D.) 
τ ee 198 
DS4 AY τὸ τ ee 984 


Homilies 16.2 eee 739 
U, OSes, Sheen 137 
11, 69 . 875, 942, 1157 
Ἰχ ΑΞ 298 
ΧΙ: ier eee 929 
KVL ae eee 298 





INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Pausanias (ii/A.D.) 


TGS Maer by “Sings ΣΕ» 1017 
Ignatius (ii1/A.D.) 

ΠΡ ΟΠ ΟΙ πο. 1020 

Ep. to Ephesians 10:2... 946 

ps tO, LOLWCALD 0524 set. s 1020 
Lucian (ii/A.D.) 

IOC AT Cae ino. kone a ter ΤΩΣ 974° 

Theophilus (ii/A.D.) 

Ad Autolycum 2,34..... 994 
iE tg Ave i eee en ea 1022 
Origen (iii/A.D.) 

ΤΟΥ τ ἡ δε ἐπ δον δ ον ΕΝ 219 
Contra Celsus vii, 59f. ... 85 
Heliodorus (iii/A.D.) 
POV mVis Loan 2. as on. 595 


Acta Christophori (iii/A.p. 7) 


ΟΕ rea ον 1001 
Acta Barnabae (ili/A.D. ?) 

TOs tame As ee hes ty noes 1002 
Eusebius (iv/A.D.) 

TOC CUMEMAL: VIXXVs pL Lu) so, 88 

Ἐν oD LO eo sop Ὁ: 725 

USGS ΟΣ τσ ata aie 672 
Epiphanius (iv/A.D.) 

Matthewelg.o0 wuss 25: 673 
Theodoret (iv/A.D.) 

AV OO Leste tris eed sate at ny oe 1069 


ii, 13 A 137 


Ce ee ieee eer hex ee. Se of oe ee 


1359 


Gregory of Nyssa (iv/A.D.) 


W008). ΒΑ το, ἐν υϑας cave tut 197 
Proklus (v/A.D.) 
In rem publ. ii, 225, 22 . 1036 
John Philoponus (v/a.pD.) 
De aetern. 480,28 ..... 1007 
Dicom ΟΣ tet cae. 1011 
Achilles Tatius (v/A.pD.) 
ΠΣ he OS beh να 923 
PV LG SOS A eae tery ΡΣ Ὁ 996 
RVCELO BL πὴ 961 
Callinicus (v/a.p.) 
Vita Hypatii 57, 12, 113, 11 . 1040 
Priscian (v/A.D.) 
ΤΡ AOC GAsibe (use en 492 


SS Ge eS ey ee ee 725 
N. T. Apocrypha 

(ΟΞ Θ᾽ ΟἹ Petoo00) 4... 673 

Acta Thomae (Radermacher, 

WN ee ARs ADs Loo νοῦ, Ὁ Ὁ ἦν Ὁ 932 
Acta Pauli et Theclae . . . 29, 993 
ΠΕ χει τὴ Pauli oe. fo 594. 
Quaest. Barthol., pp. 24, 30. . 1189 

Apocalypsis Anastasiae 
ΟΝ υ eer eyt ey ον 412 
Acta S. Theogn. 

Το tO icc ae ages 622 
Diogenes of Oinoanda 
MFragmoivs 1.9 se snel aes 1169 
Theo 
Progymn. 128,12 . . . 1093, 1097 


1360 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Usener Hippiatrici 
Legende der hl. Pelagia a = hep ere) oc iste ste Mew aa) 
LS ret ists, Cuan nue ene 860, 888 ΟΣ ae πο aml Svat ema eae 009 
QO at eli oe 51 seiicte te gaeeenaee Oe 1001 | 
MODER 
Xenophon of Ephesus a5 N 
Pallis 
303, 20 ἈΝ λον ὩΣ ζῶ Ὄ 050 
888. Be A μιν με ΘΟ eae 1102) ιοὐπ LOB iis coat teenie 138 


The very numerous illustrations of 
Vettius the vernacular modern Greek idiom 
274,11 ως ποτ, 1017 ~ (ef.p.481) are not referred to authors. 


(f) LATIN 

Cicero (i/B.c.) Pliny (i/A.D.) 
Pro ArchifilO hes eee 108, Nat. Histivolb l/l oa cee ΟἹ 
Att UOTE carer . ὁ. 999, 994 


“Cato γα, ὦ ὦ δ᾽ ὦ ees 





ADDENDA TO THE SECOND EDITION 


Page xxiv, line 11. Field’s book is now published as Notes on 
the Translation of the N. T. (1899). 

Page xxx. Among numerous other works that should be noted 
is A. Meillet’s Apercu de la Langue Grecque (1913). So on 
p. Xxxv some notice should have been made of the Greek 
Grammar by Prof. E. A. Sonnenschein, of Birmingham, and 
of his other writings. Note also W. Larfield, Griechische E'pi- 
graphik (2. Aufg., 1913); O. Hoffmann and P. Girtchen, 
Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften, Bd. IV, Heft 
4, Abt. 2 (1913), with grammar and index to the whole group; 
M. N. Tod, ‘The Progress of Greek Epigraphy” (Journal of 
Hell. Studies, Jan., 1915). 

Page 64, line 16. Add “a speaker” after ‘‘render.” 

Page 138, line 1. Add “ends”’ after ‘ usually.” 

Page 143. ‘In fact the study of language shows that man is not 
only a social animal, but an etymologizing animal as well.” 
F. H. Lee, ‘‘ Etymological Tendencies of the Romans” (The 
Classical Weekly, Jan. 17, 1914, p. 90). 

Page 151. On words in --ἰσκος, --ἰσκη like παιδίσκη (Gal. 4:22) see 
W. Petersen’s ‘‘The Greek Diminutive Suffix -ἸΣΚΟ-, 
—-I>KH-” (1913). He makes παιδίσκη (p. 195) mean “girlie” 
(ἡ mais). 

Page 172, note 6. Add: It should be noted that Ἑρμᾶς is the short 
form of any name that contains this name-element, like 
‘Epuddwpos, Ἑρμοκράτης, “Epuapxos, ᾿Ἑξρμόφιλος, Ἑρμογένης. In 
many cases the original unabridged name can only be guessed 
at. Cf. Fick-Bechtel, pp. 118, 182. 

Page 180. On pp. 19-26 of the Washington Manuscript of the 
Four Gospels (Part I) by Sanders, there is a good discussion 
of the spelling, grammatical forms, and scribal errors of this 


interesting document. See also The Freer Gospels by E. J. 
1361 


1362 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Goodspeed (1914) in which monograph W is carefully com- 
pared with Westcott and Hort’s text. 

Page 180. Of the inscriptions on the tombs in Phrygia, Ramsay 
says that the Greek was bad, even that of ‘persons of high 
rank in their cities” (Hzpos. T., Jan. 17, 1915, Ὁ. 174). 

Page 202. Onw and ov see οἵαν ἂν Βουληθοῦμεν O. P. 1126, 9 (A.D./V). 

Page 266. Note ἀρο[ύρας] τέσσαρες O. P. 1126, 6 (a.D./v). 

Page 304. Add this from Westphall: ‘‘The noun is a verb at 
rest, and the verb is a noun in motion.” 

Page 306 (Ὁ). The ending —g in λύοιμι, ἐθέλωμι is apparently a 
new Greek formation. Cf. Brugmann, Grech. Gr., p. 346 
(Brugmann-Thumb, pp. 314, 396). 

Page 326, line 16. It should have been noted that the middle 

| optative uses only the suffix -— (τιθείμην, dotro), as originally 
did the active dual and plural (σταῖμεν, τιθεϊτε). 

Page 379. Thumb’s revision of Brugmann’s Giriech. Gr. (4. Aufl.) 
has for syntax pp. 414-672. 

Page 414. The sudden change from accusative with εἶδον to nom. 
so common in the Apocalypse 1s found in Ezek. 3:18, ἴδον 
φωνὴν --- καὶ φωνή. 

Page 417. Note the careful balancing of words in 1 Cor. 14:20. 
In 14:26 note the asyndeton and repetition of ἔχει. 

Page 424 (7), line 7. Add “Mt. 23:28” as another example of 
μέν in the fifth place. 

Page 424 (ὃ, line 12. Add “Mt. 22:28” as another example of 
οὖν in the fourth place. 

Page 472. See Ezek. 2:6 for μὴ φοβηθῇς αὐτούς and 3:9 for μὴ 
φοβηθῇς am’ αὐτῶν. 

Page 490. An example of rvxov=‘perhaps,’ appears in Epictetus, 
Ench. i, § 4. 

Page 537, line 15 from bottom. Add υἱὸς after μονογενὴς. 

Page 539. <A good instance of the ethical dative appears in Gal. 
6:11 ὑμῖν (‘mark you’). 

Page 560, line 6. With ἐπιβάλλει ἐπὶ ἱμάτιον (Lu. 5:36) compare 
ἐπιβάλλει ἐπὶ ἱματίῳ (Mt. 9:16). 

Page 561. I gave no example of εἰσ-- followed by ἐν. I note one 
in Rev. 11:11 πνεῦμα ζωῆς εἰσῆλθεν ἐν αὐτοῖς, the reading of 
A 18. 28** 36. 79. 95. But CP 1. 7. 12. 17. 38 have simply 
αὐτοῖς, While & B al® give els αὐτούς, and 49. 91. 96 have 


ADDENDA TO THE SECOND EDITION 1363 


ἐπ᾿ αὐτούς. W. H. doubtfully print ἐν αὐτοῖς in brackets. 
The variation shows how ἐν is giving way before εἰς. 

Page 576. The force of ἀπό in composition as meaning ‘in full’ 
comes out finely in Lu. 16:25 ὅτι ἀπέλαβες τὰ ἀγαθά σου ἐν τῇ 
ζωῇ σου. 

Page 580. fe “be-tween,” note Beowulf, lines 859, 1298, 1686, 
1957, δὲ saem tweonum. 

Page 587, line 4. Add: ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν (Lu. 5:17; 8:22; 20:1). 

Page 594. On εἰς like a dative, note τῆς δεδομένης eis σέ (Kzek. 3:3). 

Page 599. On the partitive use of ἐκ in the κοινή see Raderma- 
cher’s review of Lietzmann’s “ Griechische Papyri”’ (Zeitschrift 
f. d. désterr. Gymn., 1914, III. Heft, Separatabdruck, p. 8): 
“Die Priposition ἐξ ist in der Koine der tiblichste Ersatz des 
partitiven Genitivs.”’ 

Page 607, line 10 from bottom. With κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος compare 
ἡ τοῦ πνεύματος βλασφημία in Mt. 12:31. 

Page 608. The distributive use of both ἀνά and κατά occurs in 
1 Cor. 14:27. 

Page 609. For xara with ace. in sense of ‘like’ (standard), note 
Gal. 4:28 κατὰ ᾿Ισαάκ. 

Page 619. Cf. Job 1:5 for three examples of περί. 

Page 644. Μέσον as preposition appears in Epictetus, Bk. I, ch. 
xxil, § 10, Bade καὶ cod καὶ τοῦ παιδίου μέσον ἀγρίδιον (Sharp, 
Enict. and N. T., p. 94). 

Page 657. On ἐχόμενα as possible preposition see Ezek. 1:15, 19. 

Page 669. As examples of the true superlative in —raros, note 
λαμπροτάτ[ῃ] πόλει O. P. 1100 (A.D. 206), and ἐν rots τῶν νομῶν 
φανερωτάτοις (ib.). Cf. also O. P. 1102, 4 f. (A.p. 146). 

Page 686, line 2 from bottom. After καὶ αὐτούς add Mk. 1:19. 

Page 702. On the use of ταύτης without article in Acts 24:21, 
see the magical incantation in O. P. 1152, 4. (a.p./v—vi) 
Bone ἡμῖν καὶ τούτῳ οἴκῳ. 

Page 720, line 9. In 1 Cor. 15:10 Mr. H. Scott urges that 6 
here is accusative. 

Page 724, line 7 from bottom. In Lu. 7:43 ὅτι @ there is ellipsis 
of the verb. 

Page 753. Sharp, in his Epictetus and the N. T. (1914), which is 
full of suggestive parallels between the idiom of Epictetus and 
that of the N. T., quotes (p. 13) Bk. II, ch. xxii, § 36, εἰδὼς 


1364 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ἀκριβῶς τὸ τοῦ Πλάτωνος, ὅτι πᾶσα ψυχὴ ἄκουσα στέρεται τῆς ἀλη- 
θείας, ‘knowing accurately the teaching of Plato that no 
soul is willingly deprived of the truth,’ a striking parallel to 
was — οὐ in the sense of “πὸ one.”’ He quotes also from the 
Rylands Papyri, vol. II, a papyrus dated 133 a.p., the μὴ -- 
πᾶς idiom, μὴ ἔχοντας πᾶν πρᾶγμα πρὸς ἐμέ. 


Page 760. Note αὕτη ἡ ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ in Ezek. 5:5. 
Page 811. See example of redundant middle in Hos. 3:2, ἐμι- 


σθωσάμην ἐμαυτῷ. 


Page 812. Ramsay notes εἰσέλθοιτο on a tomb in Phrygia and adds 
that the middle voice was loved in Phrygia (Προ. T., Jan., 
1915, p. 174). 


Page 823. The aorist is a sort of flashlight picture, the imperfect 
a time exposure. Iterative action is like the repetition in 
moving pictures. 

Perhaps a word more should be said as to the point of 
view of the speaker or writer. The same action can be 
viewed as punctiliar or linear. The same writer may look 
at it now one way, now the other. Different writers often 
vary in the presentation of the same action. 

Prof. C. W. Peppler, of Trinity College, Durham, N. C., 
contributes this note: ‘”Ecxor, ‘I got,’ is the only aorist that 
is always ingressive. Hence εἶχον, ‘I had,’ has to do duty as 
both imperfect and aorist.”’ 


Page 844. In The Expositor (May and June, 1915), Rev. Frank 
Eakin, of Glasgow, has a very interesting discussion of 
“The Greek Aorist’? or more exactly ‘An Investigation 
into the Usage of the Greek Aorist in the New Testament, 
and its Proper Translation into English.” By a study of 800 
aorist indicatives in the Gospel of John he shows that Wey- 
mouth uses other tenses than the simple past in English in 
21 per cent, Moffatt in 22, the A. V. in 18, and the R. V. in 
8. He argues that modern knowledge as seen in Weymouth 
and Moffatt, is freeing itself from the bondage of Winer’s 
mistaken conception of the Greek aorist which was followed 
by the Revisers. Nothing is now clearer than that the Greek 
aorist indicative cannot be made to square regularly with the 
English past. It more commonly does so in narrative than 
elsewhere, but no ironclad rule can be laid down. Mr. Eakin 
concludes that the aorist is “‘to be regarded as what it essen- 


ee 


ADDENDA TO THE SECOND EDITION 1365 


tially is — an indefinite tense — except when it is seen to derive 
definition from the context.” 


Page 880. With Jo. 13:27 ὃ ποιεῖς ποίησον τάχειον Compare ποίει 
ἃ ποιεῖς (Epictetus IV. 9. 18). 


Page 889. A good example of the linear future appears in Gal. 


6:16 στοιχήσουσιν. 


Page 895. Moulton (Ezp., April, 1901, p. 280) quotes Plato, 
Apol. 28C ὅσοι ἐν Tpoia τετελευτήκασι, a reference to the Greek 
Bible (Homer). 


Page 907. Note ἵν᾽ ὦμεν εὐηργετημένοι O. P. 1117, 18 (A.p. 178). 


Page 910. Note aorist and perfect participles in 6 τὴν ὑπόσχ]εσιν] 
δοὺς καὶ 6 τὴν σύνοψιν εἰληφώς O. P. 1117, 6 f. (A.D. 178). 


Page 927. Prof. Sonnenschein’s more developed theory of the 
subjunctive is to be seen in his little volume on The Unity 
of the Latin Subjunctive (1910). He plausibly argues that 
originally the subj. and opt. were identical in meaning like 
the first and second aorist tenses and “only gradually differ- 
entiated in Greek through a long process of development.” 
He makes the subj. (p. 54) stand midway between the ind. 
and the imper. 


Page 929. Sonnenschein (Cl. Rev., April, 1902, pp. 165-169) 
suggests “the interrogative imperative” or ‘the interroga- 
tive prohibition” as the explanation of the origin of the use 
of οὐ μή with the subjunctive and even for οὐ μή with the 
future indicative by analogy or because of the future indica- 
tive of command. But R. Whitelaw replies (Cl. Rev., June, 
1902, p. 277) that the notion of a prohibitive μή with future 
indicative is untenable. On the whole one must admit that 
the origin of the od μή construction is unsolved. 


Page 932. Note dpa μὴ ἀμελήσῃς O. P. 1158, 9 (A.D./iii). 

Page 935. On the history of the subj. and opt. see further F. 
Slotty, Der Gebrauch des Konj. und Opt. in den griech. Dia- 
lekten (1915). 

Page 958. Note οὗ ἂν ἢν in Ezek. 1:12, 20, and ὡς ἂν συνετελέσθησαν 
in Job 1:5. 

Page 959. Note καθὼς ἂν εἴη in Ezek. 1:16. 


Page 964. See declarative διότι (-- ὅτι) in Ezek. 5:13 ἐπιγνώσῃ 
διότι ἔγὼ Κύριος λελάληκα. Cf. also 6:10, 138. Dr. James Mof- 
fatt (The Expositor, Feb., 1915, p. 187, ‘Professor Robert- 


1366 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


son’s N. T. Grammar’’) says: ‘The use of διότι for ὅτι may 
be illustrated from Polybius, where the former seems to be 
used after a preceding vowel to avoid hiatus; a similar prac- 
tice may explain the interchange of ὡς and ὅτι, and of πηλίκος 
and 7Xtkos.” 


Page 968. For καθώς at the beginning of a sentence (1 Tim. 1:3) 
see καθὼς ἐνετειλάμην σοι Oxy. P. 1299, 9-10. 


Page 994. J. Rendel Harris in a review of Moffatt’s ““New Trans- 
lation of the N. T.” (The Expositor, Dec., 1914, p. 537) 
commends his rendering of Eph. 3:17 (the inf. κατοικῆσαι) 
and of Jo. 17:21 ff. and Col. 2:2 (iva) as wishes, and adds: 
‘These new renderings are a great improvement, even if for 
the present grammarians are ignorant of them and the class- 
ical scholars acknowledge them not.” 


Page 1018. In Lu. 16:31 we have the first and third class con- 
ditions side by side. 


Page 1048. But μὴ γένοιτο and the inf. does occur often enough 
in the LXX, as in Gen. 44:7, 17; Josh. Ὁ 24:16; 1 Κι. 
21Ὲ5 wleMace. Ὁ ΠΟ ΑΙ sao: 


Page 1069. In the Papyrus de Magdola 11 three examples of 
παρὰ τό and the inf. occur: παρὰ τὸ εἶναι (line 5), παρὰ τὸ μὴ 
δύνασθαι (line 7), παρὰ τὸ εἶναι (line 15). 


Page 1137. About negatives with the participle Robison (Syn- 
tax of the Participle in the Apostolic Fathers, 1913, p. 39) 
says that in the Apostolic Fathers μή with its compounds 
occurs 168 times, while οὐ with its compounds is found 29 
times. He adds that about 51% per cent of the participles 
have negatives, an increase in comparison with classical 
Greek ‘‘and shows the growth of the feeling that a participle 
is equivalent to a subordinate clause.’”’ But Robison still 
endeavours to preserve the purely subjective meaning of μή 
with the participle like the classic idiom. 


Page 1145. Add Lu. 14:26 ἔτι τε καί as a good illustration of par- 
ticles bunched together. 


Page 1154. Gildersleeve, Am. J. of Ph., 1912, p. 240, calls τοι 
“the confidential particle” and τοίνυν ‘‘doubly so.” ‘Tor is 
an appeal for human sympathy, as ποὺ is a resigned submis- 
sion to the merciless rerum natura.” 


Page 1179. The use of τε καί in pairs is well illustrated in Jas. 3:7. 


ADDENDA TO THE SECOND EDITION 1367 


Page 1183. The adversative use of καί occurs in Ezek. 3:18, 19, 
20. 


Page 1186. In 1 Cor. 14:20, 22 note the use of ἀλλά — δέ side by 
side where the main contrast is presented by δὲ and the 
minor one by ἀλλά. 


Page 1200. The zeugma in Rev. 1:12 βλέπειν τὴν φωνήν appears 
in Ezek. 8:13 ἴδον φωνὴν πτερύγων. 


Page 1206. An example of hendiadys occurs in Jas. 4:2, φονεύετε 


καὶ ζηλοῦτε. 
Page 1286. Add “Mk. 5:22... . 502.” 
Pace i257, Add “Mk. 9:7 .....506.” 
Pawen292, -Addii'7:2.....546.” 
Page 1349. Add “Judah 6:21... 184.” 





ΠΤ ΤΣ a! 
ἐλ ϑοι ΨΥ τῶν 


. 
ee 


‘ , 


ΤΑ Bn 
ΤΟΥ 
Ὁ ΠΥ 


5 











pene 


--“- 


A 


sae eit 


Be nals 


GAYLORD 





PRINTEDINU.S.A. 





ἣν 


ny 
᾿ Bi ἢ : 
al Ὁ δὰ i 
4 ᾧ 


Cee 





ΜΝ ἽΝ i" 












ἡ φεηγν οὖ Safe pl , 4 per 
> ἤν isi sie aes ἀν evetyeny : / ‘ 
oy RSS Hh aR a De 1} Ἢ ΜΗ. ᾿ς ὑπ ee af} t ' Ἷ : (ak +7 
ἬΜΗ er iti " ἡ ey ᾿ πῇ ᾿ i ἡ by ἢ wi ; ͵ i 
by STADE OW) Ss) ὕω ἵ ΤΠ} ty Ly bch μὴ ἡ ‘ Cy epee 
rated δ, pace ἢ ἘΠ y des : ΐ ἀπ γον 


PA813 .R64 1915 
ed # A grammar of the Greek New Testament in 
nite eM 


Princeton Theological Seminary—Speer Library 


ag 
math 

eels 

Thor a ay ἢ. i 
ἀρ απ; 
¢ Horeca ὙΜΉΝ Lebar 
Beer ἢ 

emt 1 1012 00027 0191 


ay ΠΝ 
he ie ie yt 


f 
ΤῊΝ te 
et ν 
ere 
ἢ ἢ 


ἦν 
Ht eee hs 


Netto Ἢ dae Ἢ i ἊΝ ΜῈ 
inte ΤῊ αὐ ie - 
Ste ταν ΚΑ ΑΙ ΡΝ 


fia Paisspatts i 


Raat nee ie * § + Ht ios 8 sf Oe ede “ata 
Ἷ ᾿ ae 0 shige) ἣ Ὁ sf! Y (MiG alc 
iat ε Ἢ tl 
ὰ eM ἢ 


ἘΝ ἴλην 


gee 


i 
i bal 
paler ὯΙ th 
a? 
seit Gf aR ONS: ᾿ 


sige 








lal τ ein DEPTS NPeit Oe?» 











ἘΝ Γ 
BNE δε αὑτὴν βου Cie YC ΠΩΣ μοι Wits Υ Shee: 
Sadia υ ἢ } avr , 
t » ν ν᾽ 
jigs a oe Sai bebe: bs BED PRP DSS eel rite ᾿ 
hats or shal Wegibh ᾿ ees ᾿ Nake Ae ; ἐν» "» rs ot fw 


















































































































ΜΝ ϑυν 
᾿ 
ABER are 
HEY vee renne β ΓΗ; yi ἢ 5 
rity one oe bai a μόν δ᾽ 7 rier, i) “> 
Be OU EADS ARE ἐμὲ te . 
ree hus. be te keh di? ἈΠ. ed foe bet ᾿ | ve? ite ᾿ > 
ΝΑ] ΝΗ A HED rh EEL BS ᾿ Wr i ip ' ‘» lth “ule ὑ 
Ν ἔ YArd thu: a ᾿ 3 ; Ἵ 
᾿ { pe ves] [ ΐ : bot ad ae TE Phi f i std 5 
wea eT οἱ οὐ αὶ Σ τὺ ἣν ἜΝ ἢ Hiei har | \ " : ῃ 
ξώνυ oh, CE Wo fet a τῷ Hutte ius 3 + ‘ee, apr ts γεροϑαρ Ὑνακὸ ὐνε μω φὰς andl ; pods alt ἐν ; ean 
γοναὶ ἂν 80? v44 ; Wh abe Sah Regatta gc ἢ Sekai hutee ἣ iis aad i} Wachuertcett seen achat κι ay hin Pah ih FEBS hide ὌΝ 
i Ἷ ᾿ ΣΝ j 2 dy Ἢ , 
᾿ (ἡ: ἊΝ ᾿ Ho oh A a θὲ + ; γ 
pati i i Ouse τέων é if by OR 9) iho He eer ee) hive Aga ᾿ . 
ΣΕ ΤΠ Ace : : ἰῇ PEM ἐν ἐρτδῇ ἀπε ey Wt Litera: ΚΝ HCE RUUEE LEAR ΦΙΝ UL MAE ape ‘ ‘ af 
thr ν Sh ERE 1 τ [ Mg wel ee Bey) ΓΝ ἐν pew ttle ay | i " εὖ ᾿ 
Ἢ Ἷ 5 " 1d) ᾿ ᾿ Ἵ 
wee ΟΡ ἢ, ey ἘΠ) ᾿ " ᾿ Η ὶ ἢ 
Ley ben hep Ν bag iis! ἯΛΟΙ Ἢ nae GMS athe a) De Rg CPB > 
Beh MeO MEU ων wee APS EWE fe ΠΒε βιό BAP A (i ve ᾿ AS ce 
Dat meee a ee aca G WHE Lomas esi HRY A Yl Aran cata ee nae ἶἷ { Gini ra ἵ 
oped ath EU VUTUEPREMIEEL | TEN AEM kihie, ᾿ ΕΝ i 
ἘΝ f a ΟΝ νυ ἘΠῚ Ὁ } ΩΝ re 
ΓΝ" 
᾿ rt bate ee : 
ee IT Ibe εἷς et ᾿ 
“ as WLS Psat bi, ig nr iw ἦν νἱ ἊΝ ᾿ bt 
᾿ ἘΣ aa 
ἡ» 7 it 9 
7 ΤῊΝ ‘ Nyy ᾽ rs 
re fewe: pry ᾿ ὺ q Ue ea my ; ᾿ 
Ir Hie αὶ γονὴ ela Ἂν ἘΠ e ξὴ *) ' ἐν + 
ΜΝ νὸν ἢ σε ἐωτὰ te Yio bbe Cd ἀν ἐμόν | aR ᾽ 4 
Ghee Ried RAY ἢ eel τε ν᾽; ᾿ » 
Δ ΎΜΗΜΙ ΠΛΆΝΑ i LL hed απ ἀν τὴν ἢ : od ΡΝ at Ak ” 
ie ΜΗ ΗΝ NCEA) oe ba on PPB weet ee 7 AR εἰν δα τὶ ‘ ΡΥ al y ' 
APA TON NEUE Lif Ger ley seb ely ΓΜ" ¥ aie 9 Ὑ1 , hire \ ἵ 
ΠῚ ἢ ΟΦ ΝῊ ἀκ (Le sabi Wen fea eke) fe aia Alas ge Rind ese : 
HET ane Mee 600 bambi if a ao ie f die, Cis ᾽ 
ie A ee Tn ea ὁ ‘ ‘ ? 
vol REDE R RG sy) ‘ 
δεν εν beg ep abe its 
Geb Set Re btn y " " 
eee PMS eet hee ty ' ᾿ 
ΠΥ ‘ aR it AN AE ἘΡΡΡ ΠΡ (ip soe ῷ ’ 
ΣΝ ΩΝ ἐδαν αὶ ὯΝ ᾿ " ; eat Ti ἣν i j Ἢ (44 "4 
rhytme gE hel nee! fi aT ἡ Weve) ἐν. ἢ + y a" 
Soa τῳ eet pey Late lg bi δώ eee ἐσέ εν ee ee re ; ͵ ¥ 
ae Ὁ ΓΕ ss SUES DEEN Rhee ἐφ αἰ hee be νν 
ate Si an ἐτῶν cater tee eee es εῦψες" he Ν Ἢ ΨΩ ἵ [ ‘ ie ; : ᾿ 
AGH hg HO τ ιδεμεν φίξεν νὰ τ Γ᾿ ἐδ δ ν Wt } ΚΙ ΗΝ Med ΕΗ Pint } Anat ΓΝ εν ' we MAS 
mode Bg oh PR tT - ᾿ Ν ἵ ᾿ ᾿") ; ᾿ hed ΕΝ ur nee ἡ ᾿ ; 4 
’ bd i ik be eh De Hf Wh 4 , εὐ ᾿ “ . ahh i” wr ye ; 
κόπον re ἧς δ ἐν Mord ἀξ Rot Piety pire ώψη γόον ; scien Paes. ; ; rie " ’ Vv 


